Because nobody did anything wrong. Yes, you read that right. It's not that they've given up trying to find out who showed David Ignatius Top Secret information (a tech cut)--they know that. Believe me, they do. No, it's that it's OK to do that when the person targeted is President Trump's National Security Adviser:
In one inquiry, code-named Operation Echo, investigators opened a leak case into a Washington Post column about phone calls in late 2016 between Sergey I. Kislyak, the former Russian ambassador to the United States, and Michael T. Flynn, then Mr. Trump’s incoming national security adviser. The leak was one of several matters under scrutiny by John H. Durham, the special counsel investigating the officials who opened the Russia investigation.
Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington investigated whether the disclosures came from former Obama administration officials who had access to sensitive information about the phone calls, according to two people familiar with the investigation. The investigators ultimately found no wrongdoing, one of the people said.
Prosecutors in Washington also recommended that the office close its investigation into Walid Phares, a former Trump campaign adviser suspected of secretly working on behalf of the Egyptian government in the months before Mr. Trump took office to influence the incoming administration.
Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, signed off on closing both of the cases on prosecutors’ recommendations, according to a person familiar with the investigations. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
I can't wait for the coming Durham indictments. But don't kid yourself--I'm no longer kidding myself. This is about Bluto Barr's DoJ. The hypocrisy in all this is enough to take your breath away.
UPDATE: You wanna see hypocrisy? Actually, the depravity that Tucker reveals in his monologue goes far beyond mere hypocrisy:
Impeccable timing.
ReplyDeleteEntire CIA, FBI, all the heads of the 17 intelligence agencies for the past several decades, the 5 eyes, the Queen, the Bilderberg cabal, the FED owning banks, their major shareholders, Kochs, Fords, Rotschilds, EU bureaucratic-industrial complex, Soros, Wall Street, Mossad, drug cartels...
ReplyDeleteThey are all connected and in on the charade. And if you think I am a conspiracy theorist, my answer to you is, at this point the opposite is more unbelievable.
I Concur
DeleteMark A
From Brennan yesterday (in case you didn't hear or read):
Delete"I know… the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser light fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements we’ve seen overseas. Where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians. And unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated unfortunately I think of the demagogue of rhetoric of people that’s just departed government but also those who continue in the halls of Congress. So I really do think that the law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious, and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic."
These people are playing a different game and the American people (well, at least 1/2) are too stupid to realize what it is. How much more do we need to hear before we can take action? Do they have to start coming for us first? This statement from Brennan is not protected speech. This is a call to begin identifying and then eradicating (jailing or maybe even killing) political opponents. There is no nuance to this statement, as many others have explicitly defined what this all means. When this language comes from individuals associated with a party and are former members of a federal government, then these words have weight...beyond what you and I could ever give such a statement. And, since he is now associated with the incoming party where others have made these same statements, then this is not idle chatter...as basically described in the Constitution as protected speech...the Brandenburg rule applies here, doesn't it?! Again, this is not a statement that is open to a great deal of "interpretation." These are real threats of an impending action. And, if not true, are incredibly reckless and everyone making such statements should be arrested for inciting if not leading an insurrection themselves!!!
*Maybe* most of the others; but the Queen & Mossad?
ReplyDeleteI remember the Queen somehow had to support the Russian hoax, 4 years ago, during the heydays of the events. Also there is the Royal family involvement in Epstein matter (the prince with pictures next to Epstein on the lolita express), who in turn is rumored to have ties with Mossad in a blackmail scheme. It's difficult to be certain of course, especially if the same Epstein can be assassinated in his high security prison cell, with cameras conveniently offline, and the Chief AG Barr not even willing to talk about the matter.
DeleteAnd yes, I have started to ask myself if I'm going crazy, more often than in the past.
What I find fascinating to ponder is what did Trump think he was up against going in? Did he underestimate the power and the commitment of his opposition? More importantly, why didn't he learn from his earlier mistakes? Maybe going bankrupt several times was the model here? Did he believe that he could keep letting saboteurs whom he hired stab him in the back? Or, did he actually realize just how deadly a game it was and that bluster and tough talk was going to get his family into serious jeopardy. In the end, it looks to me like he made a number of decisions based on self-preservation. He let us all down, but his alternative was losing his kids in plane crashes, auto wrecks, or other accidents.
ReplyDeleteI can’t see the link for the monologue on my iPhone in safari.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, it's there.
DeleteIt's still working.
DeleteFor reasons unclear, Tucker’s monologue video doesn’t even appear as part of your article on my iPhone8. No video; no link.
DeleteHere’s the link:
https://youtu.be/UoT95B90cwU
Audrey Widburg has a great piece at American Thinker about how some of the National Guard personnel appeared to respond to the decision that they needed vetting. In it she also talks about what Obama wrought in the military during his reign of terror, including significant changes amongst the high level officers.
DeleteNo wonder the military establishment (not the troops) appeared to be against President Trump…
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/national_guard_troops_gave_their_response_to_democrat_insults.html
Me too ... not working ... granted I have an older iphone because I don’t like to buy brand. new ... hmmm
DeleteOT but not really, this is brilliant and well worth the time
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/Pg_B5s6grQ0
Mark A
Yes, superb. Very thoughtful, lays out exactly the cultural rift and what happened to America.
DeleteFrank
Wow on the video. It’s the best Tucker monologue I have seen. It was so on target. Just terrifying.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bebe for the link!
Mark - it would be nice to add a redundant link on videos. I have seen this issue before.
What of the fbi documents Trump declassified? I thought there would be bombshells, instead silence?
ReplyDelete> The hypocrisy in all this is enough to take your breath away.
Barr was successful in limiting the damage by running out the clock.
Trump unaware / naive about the uniparty, and what a cultural threat he was to them. And he did not realize how infested the gop was with the uniparty that treated him as a cancer, and did everything to purge him from politics. I’m astonished / disgusted at the compliant silence of Bush 2, as well as so many eGOP types towards the unpersoning of Trump.
John Soleman claimed stack a foot tall of lightly redacted classified docs, now crickets...
ReplyDeleteCall me crazy, but:
ReplyDeleteDeclassified memos detail effort to get McCabe to step aside in Russia probe over conflict
>> https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/declassified-memos-detail-effort-get-mccabe-step-aside <<
Rosenstein tried to get McCabe to voluntarily recuse from Russia probe, based on perception related to his wife's candidacy in VA as a Democrat, with ties to Hillary figure McCauliffe.
Mueller didn't weigh in on the McCabe conflict of interest issue, but warned McCabe he should consider recusal since he was likely to be a witness.
Discussion was late Spring 2017, as Mueller probe was ramping up.
The implications are clear: since McCabe was not a witness to any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, he can't be a "likely witness" regarding such matters. What's that leave as a subject to which McCabe could be a fact witness that would relate to Mueller's probe? OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by POTUS.
That's the only possible thing for which McCabe could be considered a fact witness relevant to Mueller's investigation -- testimony about whatever Trump said or wrote to him related to the Russia investigation. And that means that Mueller's probe, right out of the starting gate, was focused on trying to frame Trump for Obstruction, most likely for firing Comey.
I have always thought Comey baited Trump into firing him. And now we know Mueller's probe was hot to trot about Obstruction by Trump from the very start of the SC probe being authorized by RR, and thought McCabe would be a witness.
IOW, Comey baiting Trump to get him to fire him, along with the creation of the SC probe in the aftermath of Comey's firing by Trump, are all part of a larger coordinated plan -- to frame Trump for Obstruction of the Hoax Russia Collusion investigation by FBI by firing the FBI director!
Now do you understand what was meant by Strzok and Page when they discussed the "insurance policy" in the unlikely chance Trump was elected in November 2016? The conspiracy:
1) get AG Sessions to recuse from the Russia Probe, RR becomes de facto supervisor
2) Comey baits Trump into firing him (by refusing to publicly restate his repeated private assurances that Trump is NOT under investigation, while FBI simultaneously leaks anonymous reports to MSM that Trump and his close campaign advisers are under investigation for colluding with Russia to influence the election)
3) RR writes memo documenting Comey's numerous sins & mistakes, recommends firing; thus completing the exercise if baiting Trump in to firing Comey, which is the pretext for an Obstruction Investigation/frame-up by soon to be appointed SC.
4) once Trump fires Comey (at RR's advice,) Acting AG RR appoints Mueller as SC, and
5) Mueller immediately begins thinking in terms of how he can frame Trump -- for his firing of Comey -- for Obstruction of Justice, handing Dems in the House the excuse they need to Impeach him if he doesn't resign.
continued in part
continued from part 1:
ReplyDeleteWhy does this matter?
Because Mueller's scope memo, written by RR in May 2017, does NOT directly mention Obstruction by POTUS as being in the scope of Mueller's investigation!
>> https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download <<
It can only come in under the vaguely worded "and other matters that arose or may arise from the investigation" clause of the scope memo. Thus the original scope memo written by RR conceals the real purpose of the SC.
This meeting, shortly after Mueller was appointed, with Mueller, RR, and McCabe, in which Mueller explicitly tells McCabe he is a "likely witness" relative to Mueller's probe, can only mean that Mueller was focused on Obstruction by POTUS from virtually the moment he was appointed SC (if not earlier,) even though the scope memo from RR does not even use the word "Obstruction," or refer to Comey's firing.
That suggests the SC appointment was all part of plan to frame Trump for Obstruction once Comey baited Trump into firing him, and fits perfectly with the phrase "Insurance policy" as used by Strzok and Page in their text messages in the Fall of 2016.
Another intriguing detail Solomon does not discuss: if McCabe was a "likely witness" with regard to Obstruction, then what of RR's role as the author of the memo recommending Trump fire Comey in the first place? Clearly, RR is a witness as well as McCabe, since RR was asked by Trump to write a memo documenting Comey's errors and missteps, and recommendations based thereon. They (Trump and RR) also had direct discussions about what Trump should or should not say publicly were his reasons for firing Comey. That means RR is an even more "likely witness" for Obstruction than McCabe! But Mueller never mentions this in the meeting with RR and McCabe.
The implication is that RR must have been part of the "insurance policy conspiracy," and as acting supervisor of Mueller's SC investigation, was too important to recuse off the case. McCabe was no longer important once Mueller was SC, and was probably seen as a "loose cannon" who might sink the conspiracy if he remained active in it, which may be part of the reason they set up the SC in the first place -- it got McCabe out of being in direct control of the Hoax Russia Collusion investigation, so he couldn't fuck it up and inadvertently expose the conspiracy, by doing things like sending someone in to the Oval Office "wearing a wire" as RR claims McCabe discussed shortly after Trump was elected.
@EZ
ReplyDeleteVery interesting.
Does this also explain how it was that RR left the DoJ with head held high and a hearty handshake from Barr? Because RR was installed to play a role which he played exactly according to script?
Does this further implicate Barr as a Black Hat? Was he planted in DoJ as the next step in the scheme?
If so, why didn't Barr (and RR) find prosecutable obstruction in Part II of the Mueller Report? There was no clear and binding precedent and the country was so flummoxed by the time Mueller issued his 'report', wouldn't it have been pretty safe for Barr and RR to have found prosecutable obstruction? But they didn't. Why not?
If they had, there would have still been barriers to prosecution of a sitting President, but wouldn't such a finding have made for an easier (more compelling) impeachment than the one the Conspirators ultimately were backed into using: Trump's phone calls with Zelensky? If the whole point of Mueller was to get Trump on obstruction, what went wrong?
"If the whole point of Mueller was to get Trump on obstruction, what went wrong? "
ReplyDeleteThere was never any evidence that Trump did anything wrong to impede the Russia investigation for a corrupt purpose. And Mueller's goons never were able to blackmail anyone around Trump into composing false testimony of such a crime, and Trump's attorney's very smartly convinced their client to not consent to a live interrogation by Mueller prosecutors who hoped to frame him by getting him to make statements they could twist regarding his "state of mind" when he fired Comey.
Mueller ultimately punted on the Obstruction issue precisely so that Barr was forced to make the call, which they knew would be "nothing to prosecute," and hoped that forcing what would be seen as a partisan decision would be enough to let Dems in Congress start an impeachment jihad. Dems realized they had nothing, and abandoned the planned Impeachment, and genned up the Ukraine phone call impeachment a year late, to distract from evidence of Biden/Dem wrongdoing in Ukraine.
The idea that Barr was a sinister player plotting to destroy Trump is idiotic.
"The idea that Barr was a sinister player plotting to destroy Trump is idiotic."
DeleteIdiotic? Thanks for the compliment! Very appropriate given where we are in our discourse.
Perhaps Barr was conflicted? In any event, if Barr didn't attempt to destroy Trump, his actions over the last eight months didn't help Trump much.