this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Appearing on Fox News Rep. Doug Collins had a lot to say about Jerry Nadler's contempt theatrics, emphasizing the point that Jonathan Turley made--that treating the subpoena power itself with such contempt undermines the authority and credibility of the House. However, for me the interesting part came during the last two minutes of the interview when Collins was asked a number of direct questions.
The first question was, yes or no, will Mueller testify to the House next Wednesday? His answer: No. Maybe yes or maybe no, or a flat no? His answer: I would say a flat no. This doesn't come as a surprise. The GOP Reps would be well prepared for Mueller and I don't think he'd want to--or even be able to truthfully--answer those questions.
Collins closed by stating that the real story coming up is the IG report, which will leave little to hide behind.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and represented the House of Representatives in its successful challenge to executive actions under the Affordable Care Act.
He's also a super liberal, who nevertheless testified in favor of Barr's confirmation as AG because he regards Barr as a terrific lawyer and a man who would bring much needed integrity to the government's top legal position. Turley is one of those strange liberals who cares about the integrity of our institutions and the rule of law. Go figure, eh?
The House Judiciary Committee is voting to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress and to secure a vote of the entire House of Representatives in order to send the matter to federal court. The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House. ...
As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm.” This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. ...
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler ... raised three often repeated complaints against Barr in that he failed to release an unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller, allegedly lied twice to Congress, and refused to appear before the committee. Yet, notably, the only claim the committee seeks to put before a federal court is the redaction of the report. That seems rather curious since, if Barr lied or refused a subpoena as House leaders claim, it normally would be an easy case of contempt. The reason for this move is that House Democrats know both claims would not withstand even a cursory judicial review.
With that introduction, Turley turns to the claims of "false statements" and shows exactly how frivolous they are and why House Democrats don't dare bring them before a court. He then turns to Barr's supposed "failure to appear," and draws the same conclusion: it's all in bad faith. "The Democrats wanted to manufacture a conflict ..."
In my last post I referred to GOPers who had enabled the Russia Hoax coup plotters. Some got the message and cleaned up their acts, others had to be ousted, and there's at least one who still appears to be clueless: Sen. Richard Burr of NC, who yesterday decided it was a good idea to subpoena Don Trump, Jr., the very day after Mitch McConnell declared "case closed" on the Russia Hoax. You have to wonder, Who knows what about Burr? There have been hints on Twitter about a zipper problem. Anyway, Breitbart has excellent coverage: No Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans Publicly Stand Up for Richard Burr’s Rogue Donald Trump Jr. Subpoena.
Not one GOP senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee was willing to publicly align himself or herself on Wednesday evening with the panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), after Burr made the determination ... to issue a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr. to testify again on the Russia probe.
Do you think that we have much longer to wait before charges are filed? I know that the wheels of justice grind slowly but ...
Well, of course all I could say in response was: All I know is what I read.
But I also watch videos, like this one featuring Sean Hannity interviewing Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. In the interview Hannity talks about how much more is known, referencing 53 closed door interviews that have not hitherto been released. Mark Meadows, apparently in reference to those interviews, stated that there would be lots more information released within "days", and that "the whole thing", the Russia Hoax, is coming unraveled. Thus, the desperate political theatrics of Nadler and company.
Among the information that will be coming is that Lisa Page testified that, after 9 months of investigation, the FBI had nothing on collusion. And, Jim Jordan added, Jim Comey said the same thing.
That, of course, gets to the heart of Crossfire Hurricane and AG Barr's question: Was there adequate predication for the investigation to begin with? I'm here to tell, as before, that there was not adequate predication to start a Full Investigation. And that's why the FBI and DoJ had to commit a fraud on the FISA Court--a fraud which they then repeated three times.
Think about the timeline involved here. Lisa Page said "after 9 months" the FBI had nothing. That takes us from the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane right up to ... the appointment of Bob Mueller by Rod Rosenstein to turn the new Trump presidency and administration inside out. Ask yourself: If Lisa Page and Jim Comey knew they had nothing after nine months of incredibly intrusive investigation, why wouldn't Rod Rosenstein and Andy McCabe have known that when Rosenstein started up Team Mueller, and why wouldn't "Bob" Mueller have known that?
Here's the simple answer: They did know that. That's why Devin Nunes, who was privy to the closed door interview results, when asked when Mueller knew he had nothing, could reply: Mueller knew he had nothing from the day he walked in the door to the Special Counsel Office. It was all about "getting" Trump, from the get go.
And, once again, Bill Barr's simple question gets to the heart of the Mueller inquistion and the people who started it up: Was there ever adequate predication? If there wasn't, it was all illegal.
And here's a dirty little not so secret fact: The coup plotters were enabled in this coup plot by senior GOP reps and senators, including some who are behaving better these days.
Obviously, the Dem strategy outlined below is fraught with peril. The WSJ thinks the Dem strategy will somehow protect swing-district Dems from the ire of voters, who (according to polls) overwhelmingly want them to drop their collusion fantasy and instead come to grips with reality. My guess is that voters will see through this--the mere lack of an impeachment vote won't mollify voters in the face of this manifest neglect of voter concerns. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler may be able to get away with this charade of pseudo-impeachment, but their safe districts have little to nothing in common with swing-districts.
NYT & WaPo knew of "govt investigator" Strzok sent to spy on Papa-D w Halper since at least May 2018. They know "Aza Turk's" identity just like knew Halper's & won't divulge not to protect them but FBI handlers/leakers. Just like knew Steele's ID & HRC behind dossier. #CorruptMSM
#SpyGate What did Vice President Joe Biden know and when did he know it?
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr: “I think when we get through with our report (set for end-of-summer release), there won’t be any room for anybody to make these wild accusations about collusion.”
 MYSTERY: Mueller Report states Joseph Mifsud interviewed Feb 10 2017. Yet no citation of an FBI 302 for interview. Mueller also states he has docs proving Mifsud made "false" statements to investigators. Yet he never prosecuted him for lying like Papa-D. Why was Mifsud protected?
DEVELOPING: Congressional investigators are looking into "a number of false statements" made by Mueller in Volume I of his report where he misrepresented the underlying evidence ostensibly to mirror the FBI's stated pretext for opening investigations on Trump campaign figures
There are two articles out which expose Harris' really appalling lack of basic understanding of the law and--not surprisingly for one who traded sex for political favor and/or a fancy BMW--ethics. This came out very clearly in her attempted interrogation of AG Barr, and I bring this up not for any inherent interest that her statements contain but because at least one commenter stated an impression that Barr was "set back" on his heels by Harris.
The first article is by Brian Cates: Senator Harris Misses Huge Revelation From Barr During Senate Testimony. Cates provides an extensive transcript of Barr's testimony, but focuses on a different aspect than I intend to focus on. Cates focus on the fact that, in the second half of the transcript, Harris attacks Rod Rosenstein for what seems to be a conflict of interest in participating in the Mueller inquisition. What Harris doesn't seem to get is that that conflict--Rosenstein is a key fact witness in the Mueller inquisition--if it raises any question at all must raise questions about the very legitimacy of the entire Mueller inquisition--not of Barr's impartiality.
However, what I want to focus on is the simple fact that Harris very clearly doesn't understand what "conflict of interest" means. Bear in mind that this is a woman who passed the bar exam in California (on the second try), served as District Attorney for a major city for 7 years, and was the Attorney General of this nation's largest state for 6 years. Here's a definition of "conflict of interest":
1. A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest.
2. A situation in which a party's responsibility to a second-party limits its ability to discharge its responsibility to a third-party.
Note that a conflict of interest involves a "situation," a structural factor that "undermines" or "limits" the very ability to be impartial because of a clash of interests. It is not at all the same thing, contra Harris, as bias, or prejudging, or--as really seems to be the case here--having a different opinion than someone else, such as the questioner.
Here's the transcript (I've left some of Cates' interjections). You'll see what Cates is interested in, but pay attention to the part where Barr, clearly nonplussed, asks "What's my conflict of interest?" and Harris attempts to explain. Barr is far too polite to say what clearly must have been in his mind, but patiently tries to explain what the issues are.
It looks like things will continue to happen, new revelations. This evening George Papadopoulos is promising to publish emails between himself and Erika Thompson, whom he characterizes as "Alexander Downer's Australian intel handler"--highly unlikely to be the actual situation, IMO, but, whatever. Erika Thompson, of course, is the Australian "diplomat" who contacted Papadopoulos in London and arranged for him to meet with the top Australian diplomat--and FBI/CIA informant--in London.
George Papadopoulos
@GeorgePapa19
I will be publishing emails between myself and Alexander Downer’s Australian intel handler, Erika Thompson, over the next few weeks detailing the extent the Australians were actively seeking to sabotage Trump and his team with fake stories.
4:31 PM - 16 Mar 2019
This will no doubt be a further embarrassment for the Australian government--our "allies". It will also move Barr's whole "spying" narrative further along in the public consciousness, while Dems play their games in Congress.
Andy McCarthy has a lengthy article today that ties the Mueller Report's--and, by extension, the FBI's--false pretenses surrounding their George Papadopoulos narrative in with the Steele Dossier. This is important for an understanding of what was going on at the FBI and DoJ during the summer of 2016. On the one hand, everything seems to be about the Steele Dossier, on the other hand the anti-Trump narrative (CIA, FBI, DoJ pre-Barr, Hillary partisans, Congressional Dems) have attempted, unconvincingly, to claim that the FBI's case (Crossfire Hurricane) was opened because of information received from the Australian diplomat/informant, Alexander Downer. This seeming disconnect is what McCarthy sets out to address in The FBI’s Trump-Russia Investigation Was Formally Opened on False Pretenses. Because of the factual density of McCarthy's account I'll try to separate out the essentials.
To start from McCarthy's conclusion, McCarthy concludes that Papadopoulos' interaction with Joseph Mifsud and Alexander Downer was purposely distorted and reframed to obscure the FBI's reliance on the Steele Dossier.
Prior to early July, when the FBI began receiving Steele-dossier reports (which the State Department would also soon receive), the intelligence community — particularly the CIA, under the direction of its hyperpolitical director, John Brennan — had been theorizing that the Trump campaign was in a corrupt relationship with Russia. Thanks to the Steele dossier, even before Downer reported his conversation with Papadopoulos to the State Department, the Obama administration had already been operating on the theory that Russia was planning to assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Clinton. They had already conveniently fit the hacked DNC emails into this theory.
Downer’s report enabled the Obama administration to cover an investigative theory it was already pursuing with a report from a friendly foreign government, as if that report had triggered the Trump-Russia investigation. In order to pull that off, however, it was necessary to distort what Papadopoulos had told Downer.
That's McCarthy's conclusion. To reach it, he needs to show that Papadopoulos' role was, in fact, systematically distorted. And that, I believe, he does. The easiest way to get a handle on what Mueller does in his Dossier is to go back to the beginning with McCarthy and watch McCarthy compare what is presented in the prosecution of Papadopoulos with what Mueller says about Papadopoulos in his Dossier.
There's been no lack of commentary on the absurd "Bill Barr lied" meme that the Dems--in Congress and in the MSM--are pushing. It's obvious desperation yet, incredibly, the Dems are sticking with it. Andy McCarthy starts his latest with this:
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague inside the Beltway — one person catches it and next thing you know there’s an outbreak at MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic chickens around Capitol Hill.
But I think Ed Rogers gets to the important point of what's going on in his WaPo article, Did Nancy Pelosi just jump the shark? A few excerpts follow, but first a few comments.
The core of Roger's argument is this:
If you don’t tell Congress what it wants to hear, then you are by default lying and, hence, a criminal.
By this logic, truth is no longer an absolute. It is a relative norm.
I believe this is a fair characterization of Dem "logic." But in that case, how do you carry on a conversation with people who, effectively, are holding their hands over their ears? Why would anyone who doesn't accept the views of Dems even bother going before the House?
But there's a bigger picture as well. The notion that truth is a "relative norm" rather than an absolute is not a new idea for Dems. It's the Orthodoxy--how's that for irony?--that they've been drilling into young Americans in our schools for several generations now. Are you a man or a woman? What do you feel like? By that logic, the idea that Bill Barr lied because he failed to say what Dems wanted him to say makes perfect sense.
The fact that Dem leadership no longer knows what the endgame is? Well, that's their problem, isn't it? But the fact that this mentality--I won't say "this way of thinking"--now controls a major political party is a problem for the entire country. If this is the hole that the Dems can't get out of, then the electorate gets to pass judgment.
As Rogers says, this is what "falling apart" looks like. But when so many people are this deranged, and are egged on by the MSM, Rogers may well be right in urging everyone to "buckle their seat belts." But there's far too much at stake here to allow this to continue.
Byron York did an hour long interview with Michael Caputo a couple of days ago: Hey, Was That Russian With The FBI?Caputo, of course, is another Trump campaign alumnus (and associate of Roger Stone) who was bankrupted by Mueller in an atrocious attempt to set him up. (Psst! Don't tell Jack Goldsmith that Mueller isn't the most upright of guys!) Caputo goes through his whole story with Byron. If you don't know the story, it's worth your listen.
Caputo, famously, after being grilled by the Senate Intelligence Committee, closed it with this pithy statement:
“What America needs is an investigation into the investigators. Forget about all the death threats against my family. I want to know who cost us so much money, who crushed our kids, who forced us out of our home, all because you lost an election. I want to know because God Damn you to Hell.”
Undercover Huber has weighed in with some pithy tweets. Here are some selected quotes:
Caputo also reveals a few other interesting details:
...
—That his Mueller interview was with two FBI agents and Mueller Prosecutor Zelinsky. The FBI agents only wrote their 302s and never said anything
9:41 AM - 5 May 2019
I like that one, because it illustrates what I keep saying about how investigators (FBI) now being joined at the hip with the prosecutors (DoJ), and how unhealthy that whole dynamic is. Does that sound dishonest to you--FBI agents claiming to have conducted an interview, when they were only note takers, at best? Because, for all we know, Zelinsky may have also been the one who actually wrote the 302. Yeah, that sounds dishonest to me.
Believe me--it didn't use to be like that. I never did investigative interviews with an AUSA. Never. Can you see how wrong it is to have a prosecutor interviewing a subject before indictment? The prosecutor is supposed to be judging the sufficiency of the evidence that's been gathered--not creating it. And this is one of the reasons why I think it's such a bad idea to have had a string of former (and ethically challenged) prosecutors as Directors of the FBI. People keep talking about reforming the system, reforming FISA, etc. How's this for starters: Don't put Deep State operatives like Mueller and Comey in charge of the FBI!
