Tag: Mueller

Democrats Launch Preemptive Strike on Barr

william-barr-1

The Democratic Party and its willing allies in the mainstream media have a new target in their political sights: Attorney General William Barr.

Attorney General Barr is the latest recipient of the poisonous politics in which Democrats of the extreme partisan kind are engaging. Interestingly, what appears to be lurking in the shadows of the political drama is a kind of raw fear on the part of Democrats.

A tactic from the military handbook, known as the “preemptive strike,” involves attacking one’s enemy before the enemy has had a chance to attack first. In this manner, the opposing side’s capabilities are inhibited or eliminated.

Democrats are going on the attack against Attorney General Barr with the goal of destroying the man’s reputation. They are doing so in order to interfere with the efforts of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in unearthing potentially damaging facts relating to the government’s investigation of President Trump.

Senate Democrats know, although some feign otherwise, that the attorney general is a fair-minded and competent legal professional.

The new head of the DOJ has plainly stated that with the Mueller investigation having been completed, he intends to delve into issues that may impact the image and reputation of various public officials, including some in the previous administration. This may prove to be potentially problematic, especially for Democrat candidates who are running in upcoming elections.

Attorney General Barr has let the Senate Judiciary Committee know that he is looking into the origins of the investigation into Trump and any possible criminal leaks to the media by FBI and/or DOJ officials. Additionally, the question of whether the Christopher Steele dossier was a form of Russian disinformation will be examined.

The Steele dossier was reportedly the basis for applications submitted in order to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue warrants against a Trump associate, Carter Page.

Steele was hired to create the dossier by an entity called Fusion GPS, which is an opposition research firm that was paid in part by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, using the Perkins Coie law firm as a cutout.

The attorney general has already started probing the manner in which the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and administration was conducted. He has indicated a desire to determine the facts surrounding the alleged spying on Donald Trump before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election. He has also indicated that he will look into the numerous leaks to the press that occurred, and the origin of the Steele dossier and its use in the FISA courts.

Fear may have set into certain Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when the attorney general informed them that he was working closely with Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice Michael Horowitz to investigate the investigators who initiated and conducted the investigation at the DOJ and FBI into so-called Trump-Russia collusion.

For more than a year Inspector General Horowitz has been looking into the process by which FISA court surveillance warrants were obtained to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. Horowitz commenced the FISA abuse probe after having received requests from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and members of Congress.

Attorney General Barr said, “I talked to Mike Horowitz a few weeks ago about it. It’s focused on the FISA, basis for the FISA and handling of the FISA applications. But by necessity, it looks back a little earlier than that. The people helping me with my review will be working very closely with Mr. Horowitz.”

According to Attorney General Barr, Horowitz’s report could be released at the end of June 2019, and any criminal referrals produced will be placed into the hands of the attorney general.

Democrats are no doubt aware that if the immense investigative and intelligence powers possessed by the federal government were used on American citizens without a proper predicate, the communication thereof to the public will significantly jeopardize their party’s ability to win elections and maintain power.

United States Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber has reportedly been tasked with looking into the way in which the FBI handled allegations of Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of U.S. uranium rights to an entity known as Uranium One. He has also been charged with the responsibility of examining the way in which FISA warrants were obtained to surveil Carter Page. According to various media reports, Huber is close to submitting his findings.

Democrats realize that Huber will be reporting his findings to Attorney General Barr.

The attorney general may have caused certain Senate Democrats to experience further anxiety when he told them that more wrongdoing than previously reported may have taken place by those who were conducting a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and other individuals connected with him.

“Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I would like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort to stop the threat as it is being represented,” Attorney General Barr said.

The attorney general also indicated that he is working closely with the FBI to go where Democrats never thought he would.

With some of the spying details about to be revealed, the Democrat strategy is to preemptively undermine the credibility of the head of the DOJ, Attorney General Barr.

To this end, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was particularly outrageous in her rhetoric during Attorney General Barr’s testimony before Congress, saying, “Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway or any of the other people who sacrificed their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office.”

Calls for the attorney general to resign came spewing out of the mouths of Democrat presidential hopefuls, including Senators Kamala Harris, D-Calif, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.

Other Democrats issued demands for the attorney general’s resignation, disbarment, and/or impeachment.

When Attorney General Barr used the term “spying” in his public testimony, it sent Democrats and their mainstream media cronies into a tailspin. They subsequently showed their true colors, launching a barrage of attacks against him.

But despite their unsavory tactics, the attorney general is proving himself to be unflappable, both in his public testimony and beyond. It highly unlikely that he will be distracted by partisan politicians who in private are more than likely scared out of their wits.

In the Aftermath of the Mueller Report, Democrats Are Deeply Divided

hoyersteny_071918am2_lead

Over the course of the past two years, President Donald Trump has stoically endured two congressional investigations, a counterintelligence probe, and a pervasively broad special counsel investigation, while the Mueller Report has essentially obliterated the Russia collusion narrative, which was repeatedly pitched to the public via partisan politicians and news outlets.

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the president projects an even greater strength than when the attempt to neutralize his agenda first began.

The former outsider is now an incumbent in the highest political office in the land, having acquired invaluable experience over the last two years as well as important knowledge. The president and the American people know so much more about the high-profile federal agencies and corruption on the part of some.

It turns out that the total deconstruction of the Trump/Russia narrative has actually harmed the Democrats, serving to deeply divide its members over the question of whether to pursue impeachment, which is a major priority for its activist left-wing base.

Political leaders in both parties are aware that if the House of Representatives were to hypothetically impeach the president, the Constitution requires a trial in the Senate, whereby a two-thirds majority would need to be secured in order to remove the president from office. Of course, this scenario is highly unlikely, since the GOP holds a 53-47 majority in that chamber.

Over this past weekend three Democrat committee chairmen refused to let go of the idea of moving forward towards an impeachment of the president. Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) made it a point to keep the impeachment door wide open.

Those who use reason as opposed to emotion to analyze the situation realize that continuing to participate in a small-minded and vengeance-based pursuit of the president is an ill-advised strategy. Leaders of the Democratic Party are no doubt aware that the House takeover during the mid-term elections was fueled in large part by Democrat candidates who were running in red or purple districts, and who assured voters that they were moderate or even conservative in their political ideology. These candidates oftentimes further asserted that they would not be pulled toward the radical side of the political spectrum.

It stands to reason that those who came into office touting middle-America bona fides are likely to be hurt by an attenuated and seemingly spiteful impeachment process against a president who has been cleared of the false collusion charges that were lodged against him. With this in mind, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently characterized an impeachment agenda as inadvisable, echoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) warning that impeachment would divide the country.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” Hoyer told CNN. “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.”

Why would the Democrat leadership speak publicly against the pursuit of an impeachment investigation? The answer emerges from the numbers with which Democrat politicians are mesmerized.

A meager 31 percent of rank and file Democrats who self-identify as liberal or moderate view impeachment as worth pursuing, according to a recent Business Insider poll. However, 50 percent of those who see themselves as “very liberal” would like to see Democrats in the House pursue impeachment.

The far-left base, which by all appearances is the center of energy and media attention in the current Democratic Party, embraces the radical rhetoric of the freshman trio of congressional representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

Media figures aligned with the Democratic base have propagandized the subject of impeachment on television and radio shows as well as websites, using out of context language found in the gossipy second section of the Mueller Report. And so-called progressives use amplified social media posts to keep the impeachment option alive.

However, the enlightened know that party unity is a fragile commodity. It is also a mandatory one, if national elections are to be decisively won.

The Democratic Party currently finds itself in the precarious position of being deeply divided on whether to go after the president. The liberal wing, which typically dominates the presidential primaries, is pressuring Democrat presidential candidates to adopt a pro-impeachment position.

They do so at their own peril.

Indictments Tainted by Conflicts of Interest and Media Leaks

20-mueller-w600-h315-2x

Robert Mueller recently received some sharp criticism for his role in conducting an investigation into purported Russian collusion. However, the disapproval of the special counsel seems to have come from an unexpected source.

The Wall Street Journal, which is known to be unfriendly to President Donald Trump, called on Mueller to resign.

The Journal opined, “The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators.”

“Mr. Mueller is a former FBI director, and for years he worked closely with Mr. Comey. It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest,” the Journal stated.

The discredited dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to the opposition firm Fusion GPS, may have been used to launch the investigation that led to Mueller’s appointment.

Mueller is the same individual who was the FBI director that oversaw the agency’s investigation into the criminal behavior of Russian bribery, extortion, and money laundering that had the underlying purpose of obtaining control over America’s uranium supply.

Part of Mueller’s FBI probe at the time centered on Uranium One, the infamous entity involved in the sale of one-fifth of the U.S. supply of uranium. It is self-evident that any current investigation into Russian activities would be severely impacted by Mueller’s past. This special counsel evidently lacks the independence that is required in order to conduct an impartial probe and may additionally have conflicts when it comes to looking into the propriety of the FBI’s investigation of Russian criminality.

In this same time period when the Journal is applying pressure on Mueller and several scandals that implicate the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee are dominating much of the media, CNN is somehow the recipient of an exclusive breaking story indicating that charges have been brought by Mueller’s grand jury and an arrest may soon occur.

The cable news outlet cited anonymous sources that were “briefed on the matter.”

Sharyl Attkisson, former investigative journalist for CBS News, does not view the timing of the reports of the Mueller indictments as coincidental.

“Friday leak of grand jury indictments. If you’ve ready [read] The Smear, you probably believe it’s intended to dominate news coverage this weekend and drown out talk of Uranium One scandal. You’re pretty smart!” Attkisson tweeted.

Conventionally, an individual who is indicted by a grand jury is immediately notified; however, according to CNN, neither the defendant or the defendant’s lawyers have been notified.

The grand jury is an important part of our criminal justice system and is prominently featured in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specify that a prosecutor may not leak evidence, or even the existence of a grand jury’s investigation, to the press. A sealed indictment is an indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until such a time as it is unsealed.

In the rare case such as this when the indictment is sealed, the judge orders that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. No person may disclose the indictment’s existence, except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or a summons. Consequently, it is clearly illegal to leak information on a sealed indictment to the press.

In August of this year, leaks appeared in the press indicating that Mueller had impaneled a grand jury, and the possibility exists that an individual or group of individuals within Mueller’s office may be the source of information about the initial impaneling of the grand jury as well as the sealed indictments recently leaked to CNN.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made the criminal nature of such a leak clear.

“First off, it’s supposed to be kept a secret … There are very strict criminal laws about disclosing grand jury information. Now, depending on who disclosed this to CNN, it could be a crime,” the governor told ABC’s “This Week.”

Christie, calling upon his experience as a former prosecutor, emphasized how seriously grand jury secrecy is taken by those in the criminal justice system, stating that the public has to have “confidence in the fact that the grand jury process is secret and as a result fair… Again, we don’t know who leaked it to CNN. It would be a crime if prosecutors or agents leaked it.”

South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, appeared to lay the responsibility on Mueller for allowing the media to learn about sealed grand jury charges in the Russia investigation.

“In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday.”

“It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law,” the chairman remarked.

Even though CNN did not indicate who had been charged, the number of individuals charged, or what charges had been filed by Mueller’s team, the cable network appeared to have some knowledge of whom the subject of the sealed indictment may be.

CNN reporter Pamela Brown indicated that the network knows more than they have reported concerning the identity of the individual or individuals targeted by Mueller’s indictment.

“We have a sense of who the charges are against, the person or people, but our understanding is that the person or people who have been charged have not been notified yet,” Brown said.

Leaking to the press would appear to be consistent with the heavy handed tactics Mueller’s team has been utilizing. In July the team reportedly told former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that it planned to indict him. Subsequently, Manafort’s door lock was reportedly picked and an unannounced pre-dawn raid of his Virginia home was conducted.

Democrat Collusion

e3983121755b9609613fd57ca66eb579

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the establishment media, and the never Trumpers, after months of investigation there has been no evidence found that would indicate there was collusion during the last presidential election cycle between Russia and the Trump campaign. Likewise there is still no proof that a single vote was changed due to supposed Russian meddling.

Still, the media continue to run with the story as they have from the beginning without having any actual credible grounds that might bolster the Russia story’s veracity.

The Robert Mueller investigation nevertheless persists, seemingly in search of some kind of crime that could possibly support the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to deprive Hillary of her presidential destiny.

Reportedly, the probe has focused on the social media, particularly the possibility that Facebook advertising sales to Russian entities may lead investigators to uncover some heretofore hidden illegalities.

The possibility that founder Mark Zuckerberg and/or other Facebook executives knew about ad purchases from Russian entities and failed to report potential illegal activities to federal authorities has placed the Facebook management directly in the crosshairs of the investigation.

The intriguing twist in this story is that the Russians that Mueller has been chasing actually used Facebook ads in late 2015 and early 2016 to promote the group Black Lives Matter, according to CNN. The advertising was specifically targeted to reach audiences in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, the places from which the racial tension emanated.

The reported objective of the Russians seems to have aligned perfectly with the Democrat Party, the Clinton campaign, and those on the political left. The Facebook ad campaign was, according to the cable news network, seeking to “amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos.”

In a recent turn of events, though, proof of collusion managed to make its way to light. What is startling, however, is that instead of finding evidence of collusion that favored the Trump presidential effort, the proof is pointing toward collusion that actually favored Trump’s opponent, Hillary.

It also turns out that Facebook may allegedly be involved, according to a significantly credible source, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Facebook head Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg evidently colluded with the Clinton 2016 election campaign; this according to emails recently released by Assange.

Using his Twitter account, Assange posted links to emails that were exchanged between then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Sandberg, which showed the COO promoting the Democratic presidential candidate, providing research to her, and meeting with her on multiple occasions during the campaign.

“I still want HRC to win badly,” Sandberg said in an email to Podesta. “I am still here to help as I can.”

Sandberg added, “She came over and was magical with my kids.”

Podesta expressed his gratitude to Sandberg, in a January 2, 2016 email, for her assistance to the Clinton campaign. After wishing her a Happy New Year, Podesta wrote, “2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.”

Zuckerberg himself acknowledged having met with Podesta and asked the campaign head, in an August 7, 2015 email, to refer the Facebook CEO to others with whom he could communicate, presumably in order to assist Clinton with her effort to secure the White House.

“I enjoyed spending time with you yesterday and our conversation gave me a lot to think about,” Zuckerberg noted.

“Thanks for sharing your experiences with CAP [Center for American Progress] and some of the choices you made as you put the organization together. I hope it’s okay if I reach out as my thinking develops to get your ideas and reactions. If there are any other folks you think I should talk to, please let me know. Thanks again,” Zuckerberg wrote.

In an August 7, 2015 email from Facebook Vice President of Communications Elliot Schrage, the contents of the email may point to further involvement by Zuckerberg with the Clinton campaign.

“John [Podesta], I wanted to add my personal thanks, too. Mark [Zuckerberg] can be a demanding and inquisitive student, and he was both impressed and grateful for your time and candor,” Schrage wrote.

The “inquisitive student” was apparently buoyed upon hearing the left wing thoughts of progressive Podesta.

“…your ideas and perspectives really moved his thinking. I know he was focused on the kinds of structures he should put together, but now I suspect he’ll be paying more attention to the types of people he needs – policy entrepreneurs and strategists – as he thinks about next steps,” Schrage added.

“Any and all suggestions are welcome among folks you know or have worked with.” Schrage wrote.

To what kind of “structures” and “next steps” was Zuckerberg referring, and why would the Facebook head be seeking input from Podesta? Logic would dictate that the two were working together to bolster the Hillary campaign.

Mueller and company have a great deal of work ahead of them in exploring the collusion that potentially took place between the Facebook CEO, COO, and the Hillary Clinton campaign, but only if the individuals involved in the investigation are willing to do their jobs.