Trump's Attorney General Investigates the Investigators

[The4thEstate]

In case you haven't heard, President Trump's Attorney General, William Barr, is currently looking into the origins of Robert Mueller's Russian collusion investigation -- which has dogged Trump's presidency for 2 years. Trump has always branded it a "hoax" and a "witch hunt."

Barr has appointed a lead investigator, U.S. Attorney John Durham, who's regarded as a straight shooter with ties to no political party.

The probe just went from an administrative review to a criminal investigation, which suggests that Barr and Durham have uncovered evidence of criminal behavior. That has potentially huge consequences, including top Obama administration officials facing indictments, trials and even prison time.

In a surprisingly even-handed report, Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen details the significance of the latest developments. Here's a sampling:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-nervous/

The House Democrats’ impeachment investigation is getting all the press right now. But Attorney General William P. Barr’s investigation into the origin of the FBI’s 2016 probe of alleged ties between Russia and the Trump campaign could well prove more politically consequential.

News on Thursday that Barr’s investigation — headed by John Durham, the U.S. attorney from Connecticut — had become criminal in nature underscored this conclusion. Criminal investigations arise only when there is a suspicion supported by evidence that someone might have broken the law. These inquiries, unlike initial factual investigations, permit the issuance of subpoenas and the impaneling of a grand jury. Being able to compel the production of evidence is a powerful tool in uncovering the facts, as the man heading the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), knows.

Conservatives have long argued that the Obama administration used Clinton-campaign-financed opposition research — in the form of the Steele dossier — to improperly initiate the investigation and obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA court, approval for wiretaps of Trump campaign officials. Barr’s investigation is meant to find out whether there is any truth to these allegations.

* * * * *

Yes indeed -- and if Trump is vindicated by this investigation, it'll not only expose Watergate-like corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration; it'll permanently damage Obama's legacy and have major consequences for the 2020 presidential election.

[Bogan]

z1020.png

[Black Orchid]

Hopefully everything that needs to come to light will come to light. If any are proved to be complicit, and they should be, arrests and convictions will follow.

That should give them some new focus for awhile?

[The4thEstate]

Hopefully everything that needs to come to light will come to light. If any are proved to be complicit, and they should be, arrests and convictions will follow.

That should give them some new focus for awhile?

Actually, it'll most likely cause Democrats and the media (pardon the redundancy) to immediately start questioning Barr's objectivity and insisting that he recuse himself from the investigation.

However, as they say in Texas, this ain't his first rodeo (meaning that he's no novice at this task). Trump's original Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, may have been naive enough to recuse himself from overseeing the phony Russia collusion probe, but Barr couldn't care less about political chatter. He seems driven to get to the bottom of this, and my bet is that at least a few Obama administration officials will get indicted for their part in the elaborate coup attempt against Trump.

Hopefully it'll be top officials such as Comey, Clapper and Brennan. Clapper looked especially nervous on TV the last time he was interviewed about the newly dubbed "criminal investigation."

Come to think of it, what did Obama know and when did he know it?

[brian ross]

An interesting little conundrum, 4E.

What I find interesting is how historically blind the US Government proves to be. Continually we are presented with investigations into what occurred, when, yet this is all information which the US Government already has - at it's fingertips - 'cause well, the US Government - as an entity - did them.

These events do not occur in a vacuum. They are instigated by people who hold official positions. So, why does the US Government have to investigate itself? Doesn't it keep records of what it does officially?

Are these intended to be well, a sort of show trial or something to pillory people for doing their job? Or are they intended to show how blind and incompetent the US Government - as an entity - is?

I often wonder how the US people put up with this organisation. Are there ever any plans to reform the US Government - as an entity - to make it more accountable or does it just shuffle blindly onwards, the left hand not knowing what the right is doing or vice-a-versa?

Perhaps the problem is that the US Government changes it's leadership, not only at the highest levels but even it's middle levels whenever a new Administration takes control of it?

[The4thEstate]

An interesting little conundrum, 4E.

What I find interesting is how historically blind the US Government proves to be. Continually we are presented with investigations into what occurred, when, yet this is all information which the US Government already has - at it's fingertips - 'cause well, the US Government - as an entity - did them.

These events do not occur in a vacuum. They are instigated by people who hold official positions. So, why does the US Government have to investigate itself? Doesn't it keep records of what it does officially?

Well, yes and no. Many of the records exist, but since federal departments have thousands of employees, not to mention department heads that often have dubious loyalties, it's not always easy to get records that should be available at the drop of a hat.

For instance, the FBI is headed by a pretty boy named Christopher Wray, who seems most interested in covering for any wrongdoing within his department and telling the public that all is well, nothing to see here.

Yes, Trump should have canned him the first time he testified in Congress and gave mealymouthed answers. He still should; however, I can sympathize with the quandary a non-swamper must have faced in trying to assemble a Cabinet of people with experience AND loyalty to the new president's agenda.

Are these intended to be well, a sort of show trial or something to pillory people for doing their job? Or are they intended to show how blind and incompetent the US Government - as an entity - is?

It's intended to find out whether a group of highly placed intelligence (and other) officials in the Obama administration collaborated with Hillary campaign staffers to pull off what can basically be described as an attempted coup against Trump.

Sure, the whole thing sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory, but then, the Russian collusion accusation against Trump read like a bad Cold War spy novel written by an amateur, given the fact that Trump is more "America First" than Hillary was.

What's interesting is that a handful of investigative reporters who don't work for major media outlets -- in particular, Sara Carter and John Solomon, not to mention an organization known as Judicial Watch -- have been uncovering sources and documents that add credence to the "attempted coup" allegation.

Specifically, it appears that the process for obtaining warrants that enable the feds to spy on average citizens (which takes place secretly in what's known as FISA court) was rigged to give the Obama/Hillary team the ability to spy on the Trump campaign. Sounds a lot like Watergate, doesn't it?

Then there's the matter of getting foreign intelligence services from friendly nations to do the kind of spying that would be illegal for American FBI and CIA agents. The fact that Attorney General Barr has been flying to places like Italy -- and that the probe is now described as a "criminal investigation" -- suggests that there's meat on that bone.

Also, stay tuned for the imminent release of the Inspector General's report, which could be a bombshell if it blows the lid on the entire surreptitious operation.

I often wonder how the US people put up with this organisation. Are there ever any plans to reform the US Government - as an entity - to make it more accountable or does it just shuffle blindly onwards, the left hand not knowing what the right is doing or vice-a-versa?

You aren't going to like this answer, but that's why Trump was elected -- because millions of Americans were tired of the Washington "swamp" getting bigger, more powerful and less responsive to the needs of everyday Americans. Independent candidate Ross Perot once had the same populist appeal, and in my mind, could have gotten elected if he hadn't dropped out.

Perhaps the problem is that the US Government changes it's leadership, not only at the highest levels but even it's middle levels whenever a new Administration takes control of it?

This will shock you, but I totally agree with you. I think Trump should have conducted a major housecleaning of major federal departments such as Justice and State. One of his biggest mistakes was retaining weasels like James Comey at high positions in his new administration. But the so-called Deep State exists throughout departments, leaking confidential information and generally attempting to disrupt the direction of the current administration.

You don't have to be a Trump fan to recognize that this sort of insurrection cannot be tolerated, regardless of which party is in charge.