Bill Barr Deserves A Medal

I can't embed this video of Joe diGenova and Alan Dershowitz speaking with Laura Ingraham, so I'll link it: Joe diGenova: Comey Right In The Middle Of "Grand Conspiracy" That John Durham Is Investigating. IMO, it's a very important video to watch--the whole thing--and absorb. 

JOE DIGENOVA: Accountability is what matters now after the disgrace that we've had where it is very obvious the DOJ and FBI under Obama -- Sally Yates, James Comey, Andy McCabe, all of these people tried to basically frame Donald Trump, to defrock him, to remove him from office, to prevent him from taking office. 

What we need now is accountability through disclosure, accountability, transparency, public reports, the Horowitz report, if there are serious crimes like let's say a group of people got together and said even though we know Carter Page is innocent, we are going to lie to the FISA court so we can listen in and see if we can get stuff on the Trump people. If that happened, I'm for prosecuting that... 

This is a big mistake for the Democrats to move toward impeachment. If they do that, they're going to lose the House but that's a political judgment. What I care about is the law. What we need to do is recalibrate the prosecution function.

What Bill Barr is doing is brilliant. This is a great man. This is a Robert Jackson back in the Justice Department. He says you know what, you have all the power in the world, you don't have to act like a thug, act like a professional.

Dershowitz and Ingraham also make important points. Among them is that much of the fault for the legal morass we find ourselves in--and I mean the morass that the legal profession finds itself in--is the fault of the judiciary. It's the judiciary that has failed to enforce ethical standards. I would also argue that it is the fault of the judiciary for adopting legal philosophies that contravene our common law tradition that has led to this.

Mueller Before Congress: The Emerging Consensus

I've already presented my view that the Robert Mueller testimony scheduled for July 17 was a strategic decision born of desperation. That desperation is a product of the Deep State's realization that AG Barr and John Durham are seriously focusing on the ICA "assessment"--the core of the continuing Russia Hoax narrative of "collusion"--and the origins of the Steele "dossier." Steele and all involved CIA and FBI officials will be questioned, up to and including Gina Haspel, CIA Director. Thus, with the Deep State under prosecutorial pressure, Schiff and Nadler, desperate to protect the Deep State and somehow keep the "collusion" narrative alive, had nowhere else to turn but to try to showcase Mueller for a bit of impeachment theater. Or maybe impeachment cabaret, or standup.

The emerging consensus appears to be that the Democrats are making a serious mistake--it's a bridge too far, expecting Mueller to make a difference in public opinion and somehow stop the Barr Express that's barreling down the tracks toward the Deep State. As always, the problem with acting out of desperation is that, when you have no really good alternatives, serious blowback becomes a near certainty. In this case, the snag for Democrats is that at a Congressional hearing the minority gets to ask questions, too. You can jigger the rules to try to protect the witness or minimize the potential for damage, but there's only so much that can be done in that regard.

Sean Hannity spoke with Gregg Jarrett and Alan Dershowitz last night, and they delved into these issues. We all have our list of questions that we hope the GOPers are preparing for Mueller, some of which we've already alluded to. Hannity spoke first with Jarrett. Jarrett's wish list of questions--riffing off Hannity's list of nine questions--focused on two areas:

First, Jarrett wants Mueller to be questioned regarding the circumstances of his appointment as Special Counsel. Recall that Rod Rosenstein brought Mueller to the Oval Office to have Trump interview Mueller as a replacement for FBI Director the very day before Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. It's very obvious that something was up. Thus, Jarrett wants the GOP to ask Mueller whether he discussed the President's reasons for firing Comey. If Mueller's answer is, Yes, then under the Special Counsel regulations Mueller was required to disqualify himself because he was a witness to the offense he was investigating. Mueller will be under oath, and there were a minimum of two other witnesses present, and likely more. That could be dicey line of questioning for Mueller.

UPDATED: More Re McCabe's Coup Plotting And Blame Shifting

I have to admit that I am, at times, puzzled by sundance at CTH. I give him full credit--he's done yeoman work on the Russia Hoax and other issues that I've taken full advantage of. And I'm certainly not alone in that regard. On the other hand, at other times he seems oddly tone deaf in analysis, and that seems to crop up in particular with regard to legal matters. I assume that reflects on his source(s).

For example, when the first information on McCabe's upcoming 60 Minutes interview was released sundance immediately proclaimed it some sort of legal strategic masterstroke--a view I found baffling, because I thought it was a bonehead move born of desperation:

The McCabe interview is, to me, remarkable. I can only assume that he knows he's going to jail and wants to be sure he won't be the only one. The actual effect of his previous leaks and now this interview is to completely out the Russia Hoax as--a hoax, from beginning to end. That may not be his or 60 Minutes' intent, but it will be the reality. 

By now, we've all seen that McCabe's camp realizes they've screwed up, big time. As I predicted, the general commentariat has quickly realized the enormity of his admissions, and McCabe is desperately attempting to backpedal--a maneuver that usually leads to a fall. In his case, another fall. Monica Showalter at American Thinker captures that:

UPDATED: Dersh Gets It Right

Today on Fox News Alan Dershowitz hit a hanging curve out of the ball park--and followed up with an article at The Hill: Did Michael Flynn lie? Or did the FBI act improperly? I have only one, partial, reservation with regard to his statements, which I'll make clear.

Quite simply Dershowitz states:

Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents?

As I've been saying, the answer--perfectly obvious to any sane person--is: Absolutely not! Dershowitz then takes it a step further, referring to Mueller's handling of potential witnesses:

Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target? These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses.

That one is bound to involve trickier factual situations, but there's no doubt that Dershowitz is touching on exactly what he describes: "important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses."

Here's my reservation and, as I said, it's only a partial reservation that pertains to the particular circumstances of the Flynn case. Dershowitz is absolutely clear that Flynn did nothing wrong in speaking to the Russian Ambassador. I only wish that Dershowitz had made it equally clear that the FBI had no business interviewing Flynn because there was nothing to talk to Flynn about that was within the field of the FBI's duties--neither criminal nor national security.