Posted on 07/13/2019 3:19:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Attorney General William Barr reiterated his intention to find out why the Obama administration launched an investigation into the Republican Party presidential candidate's campaign during the 2016 campaign.
If the political parties in the sentence above were reversed, we would be in the midst of the biggest scandal in our lifetimes. As things stand, however, we are once again reduced to arguing over semantics. And one Barr quote, in particular, has gotten Democrats and their media allies agitated.
"What we're looking at is: What was the predicate for conducting a counterintelligence investigation on the Trump campaign?" Barr asked. "How did the bogus narrative begin that Trump was essentially in cahoots with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election?"
The usual suspects found it "dishonest" that the AG would refer to a narrative that has been debunked by an aggressive two-year independent counsel as "bogus." "Barr offers yet another slanted quote about the Russia investigation," a Washington Post headline reads.
It bears repeating that the Mueller investigation couldn't uncover a scintilla of evidence showing that the Trump 2016 campaign "colluded" with Russia to win the election. There is not a single Mueller indictment linked to Trump's 2016 campaign. Not for a lack of trying. The prevailing Russia narrative was, much like Birtherism, "bogus."
"But he's not talking about the broader political debate over it," The Post's Aaron Blake points out, "he's talking about it in the context of law enforcement. He's tacitly ascribing the 'bogus narrative' to the investigators."
Barr is giving investigators the benefit of the doubt by claiming, and not very tacitly -- since he explicitly states it in The New York Times piece -- that he's interested in the "systematic," not individual, failures that allowed the FBI to spy on an opposing political campaign.
In any event, Barr's antagonists argue that we already know that the counterintelligence investigation was completely legit. A low-level functionary said something about Hillary Clinton and Russia. Trump made a dumb joke about Clinton's emails and hired campaign advisers like Michael Flynn, "who attended a dinner with Vladimir Putin," and Carter Page, who had "with Russia ties," and Paul Manafort, "who worked for a Russia-allied president of Ukraine."
The question is what kind of precedent does this standard set? It might come as a surprise to some, but being friendly with Russians -- even autocratic ones -- isn't a criminal act. Trump openly advocated for better relations with Putin. A presidential campaign has the right to hire people who will pursue its foreign policy goals. Whether it's good policy is up to voters, not intelligence agencies.
Using the Democrats' precedent, in fact, the Trump administration would be free to launch investigations into any campaign that hired, say, Iran sycophants like John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, or Samantha Power. Democrats have both openly dined and secretly met with Iranian officials. The Iranians, who use a designated terrorist group to fulfill political objectives, are also trying to undermine our democracy, hacking highly classified intelligence.
All Trump needs is to fund a firm to write up some fabulist dossier.
And those who claim that it's "uncharitable," as Blake does, or irresponsible or unpatriotic to suggest that anyone within the intelligence community might have engaged in corrupt or politically motivated behavior, probably haven't been paying attention.
Former CIA director John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people. Former director of national intelligence James Clapper spied on the American people through a domestic surveillance program and then lied about it to Congress. The Obama administration spied on journalists and then prosecuted them. It's completely plausible that shortcuts were taken for political reasons.
It is telling that those dismayed by Barr's allegedly tacit accusation against Obama's DOJ have no problem accusing Barr of running an improper investigation. Or that most of the same people who entertained every absurd theory about Russia interference are now offended that Barr uses the word "spying" to describe the action of spying and "bogus" to describe a spurious conspiracy.
Whatever the case, explicit or tacit, none of this means investigators are guilty of wrongdoing. Aren't all the same arguments we've been hearing about law and order still in play? For more than two years, didactic Democrats lectured about how transparency was a reflection of a healthy democracy.
An investigation into the investigation is the only way the American people could have a full accounting of what happened. The bogus Russia narrative, after all, caused tremendous damage. It consumed political media coverage for two years, leading to wild speculation and a string of outright false stories designed to undermine trust in the legitimacy of the electoral system for partisan reasons.
Because ultimately, the bogus narrative was far more effective in interfering in American politics than anything a Russian Twitter army or hackers could ever accomplish.
“he’s interested in the “systematic,” not individual, failures that allowed the FBI to spy on an opposing political campaign.”
And if he just happens to uncover criminal wrongdoings, what then?
L
A Wash/Po headline offered some salty snacks to nervous Dems:
"Barr offers yet another (cough) slanted quote about the Russia investigation."
===========================================
The stupid Dems are being played like a violin and they dont even know it.
The stupids found it "dishonest" that Barr would refer to a narrative
(debunked by an aggressive $30 million two-year independent counsel) as "bogus."
It's outrageous that Obama-era culprits were operating for purely political reasons.
<><> Former CIA director John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people.
<><> Former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied about spying on Americans thru a domestic surveillance program.
<><> The Obama administration spied on journalists and then prosecuted them.
AG Barr revealed DOJ investigations into media leaks .....determining how MSM had scoops
on the Trump-Russia investigation long before Congress was aware of the subject matter.
The linchpin is the Clintons.
ITEM <><> Journalists Dined at Top Clinton Staffers Homes Days Before Hillary’s announcement of her candidacy
Wikileaks via Breitbart ^ | October 17 2016 | Ezra Dulis / FR Posted by grey_whiskers
Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks published from John Podesta’s accounts.
ITEM <><> The guest list for an earlier event at the home of her campaign manager, John Podesta, was limited to
reporters who were expected to cover Clinton on the campaign trail. —snip—
ITEM <><> Wikileaks revealed earlier that late night talk host Stephen Colbert, and his team at Comedy Central, were making TV episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013. So, viewers thought they were vote-smart because they’re informed by a comedian, yet same said comedian was doing Hillary’s bidding the whole time.
ITEM <><> Hillary frequently used the Democrats' "wrap-up smear."......leaking false info about her opponent to the media. When the obedient press published the smear, Hillary would wave it around indicating she was the superior candidate.
===================================
The Clinton Foundation listed "notable past members" they were cozy with.
This page was carried in the Clinton Foundation archives........until recently.
Page has since been deleted from Clinton Foundation archives.
Somebody mail him Bongino’s book. Just kidding. Barr is doing something. It’s called Modified, Limited Hangout. In ten years the investigation will conclude that some clerk made a mistake.
The Dems claim there were 272 contacts between Trump Campaign Team and Russia-linked operatives.
The Left is immersed in the narrative. They will never let it go.
That’s funny. Thanks.
Now Mrs. L and I are going fishing. Been slamming some lunker Largemouth in a local lake lately.
Enjoy your day.
L
I think your day will beat mine by far. Enjoy!
According to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and numerous independent investigations, over 97%+ of the political contributions of Dept of Justice (DOJ) employees went to Hillary.
It's one thing for the Dept of Agriculture bureaucrats to favor one party or candidate. It's quite another for the all powerful Dept of Injustice to be in the pocket of a cabal of criminals that is the Democrat party.
Those 97%+ Democrats are STILL there, and undermining the President and their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You have a big, big problem.
Knock of the bagpipes, the "brown bag" lunches with DOJ employees to "improve morale", and start firing some of these goons. Order every single DOJ employee to a virtual or telecon meeting, and read them the *%$# riot act.
Yesterday.
THAT sir, is the core of the democrats madness..
We've listened for over two years to talking heads expound on the many scenarios that "could be" or probably was, but it took a serious Attorney General to actually strike fear in the hearts of the enemy.
I sincerely pray it all doesn't go down as just so much drama, but I have a lot of hope that the epstien arrest proves very fruitful in arrests and successful prosecutions.
They can't JFK another President AND an Attorney General.
Per the article........
“Robert Mueller did not find collusion to steal the 2016 election- but he did find evidence of collusion to try to make money”
Sorry to be so cynical, but part of me thinks Barr could be a final part of the plan to destroy the will of the people. Any sane person knows that heads should be rolling, literally, over this whole Russia collusion debacle. Barr’s words sound good, so he gives us hope. But if no very high-level people end up paying a price then what and has come from it all? Our hope has come to nothing and if someone like Trump and Barr can’t accomplish Justice, then why should we even think it any longer exists?
I don’t know if it was Pavlov, but I remember reading a study using dogs and giving them rewards based on what they accomplished. And if the dog learned that no matter what he tried to do basically accomplished nothing, eventually he just gave up. That’s what this reminds me of.
Jail the perpetrators of that hoax.
Herr Mueller. Still in the dark closet. Looking for the black hat that isn’t there...
The systemic failure is that individuals can break the law freely without fear of prosecution.
Hmmmmmm... what could be a possible solution to that systemic problem?
Completely agree, and I have been saying the same thing now for over a year.
I think the arrest of Epstein has given many people hope that the hammer is finally dropping. However, I have been burned too many times and for decades to really believe it.
Epstein blackmailed too many powerful people. Trump is a war against the Deep State, but all one has to do is look at the setbacks he has had to realize that we are not winning. He even has to go begging to the Supreme Court (headed by Judas Roberts) to ask if he can spend DoD money to defend this nation by building just a few miles of fencing (not even the "wall.")
Tactical victories may be the best we can hope for, but they won't save this nation.
The enemy attempted an all out coup d'état against the President, the Constitution, and the people -- and so far not ONE of them has been arrested for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.