About That January 6 Meeting Barr Referred To…

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

[EyesOfTX]

Today’s Campaign Update, Part III
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

In my rush to get a partial transcript of William Barr’s interview on Fox News this morning posted up, I failed to include any explanatory notes. I thought it was more important to get the information out there for those who don’t have access to a TV during a workday than to take time for an analysis, particularly since the great majority of what Barr had to say is self-explanatory. But this has created confusion with some readers, particularly related to the “January 6” meeting to which Mr. Barr refers in the passage below:

Hemmer: Republicans have said for months that Brennan, Clapper, maybe Comey have had it in for Trump. Do you believe that’s the case?

Barr: “Again, I’m not gonna speculate about their motives.”

Hemmer: In the period between election day and the inauguration, did anyone in government take action to justify their decisions?

Barr: “I think there were some very strange developments during that period – that’s one of the things we want to look into. Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6 between the intelligence chiefs and the President and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.”

Hemmer: Was that meeting in New York City? In Trump Tower?

Barr: “Yes.”

Hemmer: What questions do you have about what happened that day?

Barr: [smiling] “Again, I’m not gonna get into that. It’s one of the things we need to look at.”

[End]

Ok, so, what “January 6” meeting is he talking about, and why is it important? Well, it’s very important, and the fact that Mr. Barr is focused on that meeting to the extent that he gives it specific mention in this interview is very telling.

The meeting in question took place on January 6, 2017 at Trump Tower in New York City. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to give the then-President-elect a full “intelligence briefing” from the Obama Administration’s senior intelligence advisors.

Backstory:

• Less than a week before, either the New York Times or Washington Post – I forget which and does it really matter? – had run a hit piece claiming Trump was going to come into office unprepared because he had yet to accept this meeting. Trump famously stated that he did not need to be briefed by these skunks “because I’m smart.”
• It is key to remember that by that time, Trump already knew that the Obama flunkies had been spying on his campaign and transition team, because NSA Director Mike Rogers had informed him of that reality shortly after Election Day. The briefing from Rogers prompted Trump to move his transition headquarters out of Trump Tower to a nearby resort property he owns.
• This no doubt enraged James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan, and they redoubled their efforts to press Trump for this “briefing” meeting. Trump finally relented and scheduled the meeting for January 6.
• Present for the meeting were FBI Director Comey, CIA Director Brennan, Rogers and a representative the Office of Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was then the DNI, but was not at the meeting personally. This is important, so remember it.
• It was at this meeting that Comey informed Trump of the existence and basic content of the infamous Steele dossier, which by this time had already been used twice as the almost-sole justification for FISA warrants to spy on Trump officials.
• Comey and Brennan have publicly argued in recent days about which of them insisted upon including this bogus dossier in this meeting – neither of them wants to accept responsibility for that decision, probably due to all the speculation that it was used in order to frighten and intimidate the incoming President.
• Also remember that Trey Gowdy told Fox News last week that Comey and Brennan created an email trail leading up to this meeting that Gowdy believes will be incredibly damaging to both men once it is revealed.

Other key points here:

• The January 6 meeting came a day after Comey, Brennan and Clapper, and reportedly Sally Yates as well, had briefed President Obama and AG Loretta Lynch. What do you suppose was discussed at that meeting?
• Comey testified to congress that his “mission” – his word – for the Jan. 6 meeting was to let Trump know about the existence of the Steele Dossier. Who gave him that “mission”?
• Comey testifed under oath that the reason he did not inform Trump that the dossier was – in Comey’s words – “salacious and unverified” in this meeting is because it was “not my mission for this meeting.” Again, who gave him that “mission”?
• Important to note here that above Comey in the Obama Administration’s pecking order sat Loretta Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, Yates and Barack Hussein Obama his own self. Any of those folks had the authority to assign Comey that “mission” for the Jan. 6 meeting.
• We know that Comey left that meeting, called Clapper and said “Mission accomplished.”
• Later that day, we know that someone leaked the contents of the Steele Dossier to CNN and CNN began reporting on its existence. Speculation here is that CNN actually already had the dossier in-hand well before that, but insisted it wasn’t news-worthy unless the incoming president had been informed of its existence.
• Shortly after that, Clapper was rewarded with a big contributor’s contract by CNN. CNN actually won awards for its fake reporting on the fake dossier.

Given all of that, does it make more sense to you when you see William Barr say this?:

“I think there were some very strange developments during that period – that’s one of the things we want to look into. Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6 between the intelligence chiefs and the President and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.”

That’s why the Jan. 6, 2017 meeting at Trump Tower is a very, very important event in all of this. You unwind the discussions within the Obama Administration cabal that took place in advance of and right after that meeting, you have the key to the entire scheme.

That is all.

[humblegunner]

(Excerpt) Read more at

You've started excerpting your blog again?

You were so cool posting the whole thing but now this?

OK, your call.

[EyesOfTX]

*sigh*

As I have explained many times, I excerpt it on the rare times the formatting of it would be overly-difficult on this antique platform. At least 9 of 10 are posted in full.

If you don’t like it, I really do not care. Go away.

[humblegunner]

the formatting of it would be overly-difficult on this antique platform

If you don't like the platform maybe you should peddle your papers somewhere else.

If you don’t like it, I really do not care.

You cared enough to respond.

Go away.

I did.

Until you started this excerpting crap again.

[macrahanish #1]

You have NEVER posted anything of interest. You are an idiot.

[stinkerpot65]

I love your articles. Keep posting. Ignore the sour old coots.

[drpix]

"If you don't like the platform maybe you should peddle your papers somewhere else."

FR is a PLATFORM MEANT FOR EXCERPTS & LINKS. If you don't want to click on links, maybe you should go somewhere else.

[stinkerpot65]

Please note that David Blackmon is a legitimate professional writer, not some amateur flogging a worthless blog. He is one of the top conservative writers in the US.

Only an idiot would discourage him.

[humblegunner]

You have NEVER posted anything of interest.

Imagine that. And now I'm here because some dude wants to drive traffic to his blog.

You are an idiot.

So is your kid but I'm too polite to discuss it.

[Darksheare]

Uh, there really are guidelines for bloggers.
And it us this: if own content, post in full not an excerpt because driving traffic from fr to your blog for clicks is skeevy.
If your content is quality, our postrrs will recognize that and give your site patronage.

Don’t have the links on my phone, but I do have them at my home machine.

[humblegunner]

He is one of the top conservative writers in the US.

Sure he is.

That's why he has a blog.

Rather than a job.

[Always A Marine]

Good post.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

Thanks for posting. I always read this guy in full whether excerpted or not.

[drpix]

Where are these “guidelines?” Aside from FR having a seperate forum for bloggers - and this thread was posted on that forum - I haven’t seen any official FR policy on freerepublic.com on that “guideline.”

[CopperTop]

I don't usually click most of the links offered to the various blogs and "easily excitable" media. But now, FWIW, I'm motivated to click on yours just because I enjoy your writing style and presentation. It was my impression over the last ~20 years that FR was a site that mostly linked to other sites for interesting topic coverage and homepage discussion. I can choose which to click or ignore.

Seems pretty simple, really. d:^)

[dinodino]

Humblegunner, if this were my site, I’d permanently ban you from FR. You are a complete waste of everybody’s time and I wish you’d find another hobby.

[humblegunner]

It was my impression over the last ~20 years that FR was a site that mostly linked to other sites for interesting topic coverage

Yes, but now we have amateur wankers abusing that aspect to drive traffic
to their amateurish plagiarized blogs so they can score money for hookers.

I can choose which to click or ignore.

No one has suggested otherwise.

[EyesOfTX]

Thanks. Again, I respect this forum and 90% of the time I post the full content here. But I frequently incorporate multiple videos/Tweets/Images/Bullet points or some combination thereof in these pieces, and it becomes a huge time sink for me to try to incorporate all of that on this antique platform. So on those few pieces - which typically amounts to 1 or 2 each week, I post an excerpt.

This site does not drive enough traffic to my blog for me to worry about, but I do like the conversation here (outside of the board’s hall monitors, who lead a sad and pathetic existence) and the good information that is shared, so I’ll continue to do it until I’m banned, which a couple of people have repeatedly requested the moderators to do.

[humblegunner]

Humblegunner, if this were my site, I’d permanently ban you from FR.

Because I object to blog pimping? Whoa, that's harsh.

You are a complete waste of everybody’s time and I wish you’d find another hobby.

So you saw my post, didn't like it and needed to say something about it?

Isn't that exactly what I did?

[dinodino]

No, you’re just a d!ck on every thread. You never post anything except complaints about writers you don’t like.