Sunday Talks – Maria Bartiromo Interviews Darryl Issa

Congressman Darrell Issa appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing DOJ and FBI investigation by Inspector General Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor John Huber.

It is important to remember when congress refers to “Main Justice” throughout the discussion, the “small group” of politically corrupt officials primarily worked inside a specific location within main justice; the Department of Justice National Security Division.  On the FBI side the group was assembled within the FBI Counterintelligence Division.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dept Of Justice, FBI, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Sunday Talks – Maria Bartiromo Interviews Darryl Issa

  1. snailmailtrucker says:

    Gotta Love Maria !

    Liked by 10 people

  2. notvicchanko says:

    Why are the entire MSM and Chattering Class + politicians unable to grasp that the Utah prosecutor has been on the job for months? They all keep making it appear as though Sessions just appointed him this week instead of a Special Counsel.

    Liked by 11 people

    • RG. Getard says:

      The media reflects the shallow and in the moment thinking that infects many in the mob. They work in 2-5 minute segments without time for context or history. This is why CTH and other sites are such Godsends for those seeking a complete understanding of an issue.

      Liked by 24 people

      • cdr164bn says:

        Amen to that. You’ve pretty well nailed it..

        Liked by 3 people

      • Perot Conservative says:

        Are there any prosecutorial tigers on Huber’s team?

        BTW, read an LA Times article that claims illegal immigrant sweeps up in the California Central Valley.

        Like

        • flyboy46 says:

          Somebody has been VERY BUSY. Other commentors’ have documented 18,500 sealed cases in the Federal Court system since last October. Nobody but CTH watchers seen to have caught on to this.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Fe says:

            There are many people on Twitter who have noticed. Lots of them follow Qanon.

            Liked by 2 people

          • sickconservative says:

            At this point if I could see five or ten real indictments come to light would be a good sign.

            Liked by 2 people

            • ATheoK says:

              Ideally sickconservative, those five, ten, twenty indictments include films of perps cuffed and marched into confinement after charges are leveled.
              Best, if known prior administration and DNC faces are clearly shown getting their front and side pictures with numbers.

              Like

            • Jan says:

              I think that Sessions could have stalled for another 2 or 3 weeks if he had to, but putting Huber’s name out there has to mean they’re pretty close to unleashing indictments in coordination with IG Horowitz and his massive report that is going to be put out in sections. We are impatient. But except for TRO suits, nothing moves very quickly in the court system and this is going to be of epic proportions; it could result in major adjustments & oversight of the FBI & DOJ.

              Like

              • Perot Conservative says:

                Yes. There are so many legs to this. How far back does it go?

                Uranium One, Email server, coverup, Lois Lerner, pay for play, Fast and Furious, … not to mention FBI and DOJ.

                Like

            • Here’s a few thousand arrests. A Google Docs list of human trafficking and pedo indictments by Trump admin. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MAnZZoD7y5Ydwx2rSrZualrZTNUYDY7gozTXkT0YUOs/htmlview#gid=0

              We all want to see the political indictments and perp walks. Children come first; then swampers.

              Like

    • Old Codger says:

      Oh, they get it, alright! But they want the rubes to think this is something new!

      After the rubes’ main source of political news, People Magazine, is a weekly!

      Liked by 4 people

    • lastinillinois says:

      The old adage ‘you can lead some wh*res to water, but you can’t make ’em drink’ might explain it.

      Like

      • Willie Mac says:

        I thought that it was “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t lead a wh*re to culture.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Cuppa Covfefe says:

        Yep. The expression came from a pun challenge. Dorothy Parker is said to have gotten the word [some would say short straw] “Horticulture”, to which she replied, “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think”…

        Sounds like many liberals and SJWs today…

        Liked by 4 people

        • Little Annie’s Fannie says:

          You can lead a horse’s a$$ to water but you can’t make him/her think. Independent thought not allowed in their kook-aid, only group think (and the farther left the better)!!!

          Liked by 1 person

    • billrla says:

      notvicchanko: News has been “breaking” ever since 9/11. It’s an annoying affectation we cannot seem to shake. We need an entirely new TV news channel that only talks about events that have not happened yet.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      I personally chalk up the phenomenon to a combination of social media addiction and a total lack of critical thinking and logic oriented instruction within our education system, K through College. This leaves many who’s level of comprehension is sound bite or video clip deep guided by the group think espoused by our academic elite.

      Ever notice that those who question, offer alternate thoughts or solutions are libeled and slandered by the emerging “well educated” elite?

      Like

    • “just appointed” is the deep establishment talking point.

      Like

    • rayvandune says:

      Because, they want to keep telling their audiences that this massive corruption scandal is “no big deal”, and probably only a Republican political smear! Remember: If you want to know what tricks the Dems are up to, just listen to what they and their media buddies are accusing Republicans of doing!

      Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Why are the entire MSM and Chattering Class + politicians unable to grasp that the Utah prosecutor has been on the job for months?

      Bartiromo and Issa said nothing that should lead you to that conclusion. I don’t understand your complaint. Are you upset that Issa said there’s likely going to be a special prosecutor? You should be happy. Issa was very complimentary to both Sessions and Horowitz.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You overestimate the media’s capacity for logic and reason. Just because somebody gets there mug on the tube doesn’t equate to intelligence.

      Like

    • BigMamaTEA says:

      They are in DENIAL!

      Like

      • Perot Conservative says:

        Liberalism is a mental disorder! Don’t forget the sequence.

        Phase 0 – multiple previous investigations into the CF, Hillary emails, etc., (2014-2016) shut down. All those records and work product should still be there!

        Phase 1- IG Horowitz, starts investigating Jan 2017?

        Phase 2 – summer 2017, Huber.

        Like

  3. duchess01 says:

    The Dims want a Special Counsel to set the process backwards to square one – the Special Counsel would have to start from scratch – which is what they want – that is just dumb!

    They are determined to postpone progress and waste time – they are obstructionists – as we well know – and their plan never changes – Issa points to this problem quite effectively.

    Liked by 6 people

    • TheWanderingStar says:

      Exactly! The OneParty wants desperately to pull the investigation back into the political realm where they claim oversight. Once it gets into the judicial system they have no control and in fact can be investigated for obstructing justice; and their cohorts in crime will face the reality of the law and consequences. The political class wishes none of theirs will be held accountable. (SPIT)

      Liked by 9 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      I think the only people who want a special counsel are the people who are on our side, Grassley, Goodlatte, Gowdy, Gaetz, Meadows, Jordan, and now it appears Issa too. Not sure about Issa but the others are of the opinion that the DOJ is not capable of objectively investigating itself. Congress has been stonewalled by the DOJ for months. There isn’t much faith now.

      And please remember in Sessions’ letter it says one of Huber’s tasks is to determine if a special counsel is needed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • duchess01 says:

        Oh, covfefe – guess I missed that part – however, considering how the last one worked – not really sure I would be for it –

        Wonder – would the Special Counsel have to be like Huber – someone outside of DC? I would hope so – since we cannot trust too many on the inside.

        Liked by 1 person

        • covfefe999 says:

          I pray Huber is an honorable and honest person. It would be great if he can finish the job, but if he thinks that there must be a special counsel then I pray they can find someone who can do the job competently.

          Do you know, or does anyone else … if Huber and his team along with IG Horowitz have already done much investigating, if a special counsel is appointed can they pass their findings to the special counsel?

          Liked by 1 person

          • duchess01 says:

            No idea, covfefe! But, I am sure someone knows –

            Agree – I, too, pray Huber is honorable and completes his assignment with aplomb – however, I think it would be difficult to find someone reputable to serve as Special Counsel – too many bad guys/gals in DC – imho

            Like

          • Perot Conservative says:

            Do we know if he or his team have had any noteworthy successes as prosecutors?

            Like

          • Yes, the CTH article today with Dershowitz interview talks about the continuum of investigatory process that Sessions is following: OPR, OIG, Prosecutor, Special Counsel. Not separate events starting at square one with each handoff. Other CTH analysis shows that OIG notified AG or Deputy AG in June/July 2017 of the likelihood of a crime committed by Strzok and Page, which led to them being kicked off Mueller team. It is probable that the Prosecutor was brought in after that event.

            And we know a grand jury has been empaneled too. But we don’t know when. Like your question, I wonder if the case is handed from Prosecutor to Special Prosecutor, does the same grand jury follow along, or does the SP impanel a new grand jury?

            Like

  4. Perot Conservative says:

    Andrew McCarthy in National Review on February 17 suggested an interesting option.

    “Have the Office of Legal Counsel Resolve the Obstruction Question”

    “…Who is right? That is a straight legal question of critical importance. Under federal law, the attorney general (or his deputy if, as here, the AG is recused) routinely delegates the OLC to prepare formal legal opinions for the purpose of guiding prosecutors and other government officials, and these opinions may be published for the benefit of the three branches of government, the bar, and the public. So why not let the OLC settle the matter?”

    “An OLC opinion would be invaluable guidance for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller. An OLC opinion would help clarify whether there truly is a basis for an obstruction allegation against President Trump. This would either lift a cloud of suspicion that makes it very difficult for a president to govern, or put Trump and future presidents on notice of what seemingly lawful presidential actions carry the hazard of potential legal jeopardy….”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/donald-trump-russia-investigation-obstruction-justice-department-justice-office-legal-counsel/

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Boston Bean says:

    The Swamp’s goal is to maintain a constant barrage of falsehood, half-truths, and extraneous truths to maintain the impression that Trump is malicious, incompetent, despotic, corrupt and in collusion with the Russians. Leaks, rumors, and high-energy invective are maintained to 1) shore up and motivate the Progressive base (and their $$), 2) tilt independents and blue-dog Democrats away from Trump, and 3) dishearten the Trump base, and maybe induce a few of them to stay home in 2018. Their ideal scenario is that the Mueller group tosses out occasional indictments so that any prosecutions coming from the Horowitz/Huber investigations are effectively nullified in public (mis)understanding.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “any prosecutions coming from the Horowitz/Huber investigations are effectively nullified in public (mis)understanding.”

      Unless “the plan” calls for a massive roundup sometime in the future that cannot be ignored.

      Like

  6. Alison says:

    Sundance, you’re too clever by half with that Cat-iromo photo. Maria is a gem 😊

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Mark McQueen says:

    Couldn’t watch it all. Congress (Darrell Issa no less) whining about nothing being done. “Crimes have been committed! Something must be done!” Yeahhhh….and exactly how many criminal referrals did you all make during the Obama Admin? You find the AG in contempt. He laughed and gave you the middle finger. You just look away. AG Lynch meets with the husband of the suspect in a criminal investigation. You just look away. FBI Director literally INVENTS an exoneration for said criminal suspect out of thin air. You just look away. NOW you demand action? Sorry bub. You’re no more useful now than you were then.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      To elaborate a bit more…Their demands for action are great but they still want to run the show and if they can’t then nothing else is adequate or acceptable in their minds. They need to sit down and shut up for a minute.

      Like

      • Summer says:

        So, you blame the Congress who has no prosecutorial powers for not prosecuting criminals (criminal referrals are just referrals)? That’s their fault? Not the DoJ who actually has the authority to prosecute but for some reason does not? Congress actually held AG Holder in contempt. They couldn’t do more than that, could they? Why don’t you put the blame where it belongs?

        “They still want to run the show.”

        They want to do their job. And they cannot be denied. Both R and D are supposed to oversee EVERY DAMN INVESTIGATION, whether we like it or not.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Mark McQueen says:

          There should have been articles of impeachment submitted in each of the cases I mentioned. Yes, those would not have gone anywhere but it was a necessary step. Congress often fails because they don’t use the tools given them. Also, NO, Congress does not have the authority to oversee EVERY DAMN INVESTIGATION especially ONGOING criminal investigations.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Summer says:

            Yes they do. IIRC, Comey testified that the FBI was supposed to inform the Congress of the important ongoing investigations quarterly. He was supposed to tell Congress about the ONGOING investigation into Muh Russian collusion but did not do it because “of the sensitivity of the matter.” He famously threw Priestap under the bus.

            Articles of impeachment, criminal referrals, blah…

            Once again, why don’t you put the blame where it belongs? Hint: Justice Department.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Mark McQueen says:

              Being informed of is not being involved directly. The Justice Dept. was clearly the impediment. I blame Congress for not doing more to put the onus and spotlight where it belonged. What? Were they afraid they would “lose face” if they tried and failed? Sometimes you need to do what’s right…win or lose.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Mark McQueen says:

          BTW….If you are going to quote, then quote the whole sentence. There is no period in that position in my original comment. The rest of the sentence is relevant.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Former lurker says:

      Spot on. Issa is a safety relief valve, bought and paid for. His job is to make a lot of fuss and smoke while making sure that the fire keeps going.

      Some Uniparty members who have been given “conservative” roles are departing, hoping to escape the PDJT swamp draining storm. Some are probably going to tweak their globalists paymasters/blackmailers on the way out, since nobody really likes being a stooge, and I assume some, and here I’m guessing Gowdy and crew, got to the swamp with good intentions and hope the Parthian shot will keep them off the PDJT target list.

      Others, like Flake, have thrown in the electoral towel but continue to fight against MAGA in the hopes that once PDJT is dealt with and the system restored, they’ll be rewarded.

      Some, like the Turtle and lyin’ Ryan, blow with the daily wind and hope to hop on the winning side at the last moment, but seek to undermine MAGA whenever they can get away with it.

      The whole Donkey vs. Elephant thing is worn out and fooling less and less folks as time goes on. George Carlin was right.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Patsy says:

      No longer can I tolerate these losers. They all had their chances and blew it. I’m still waiting for the disclosure of the Sexual Harassers in Congress. I want my tax $$$ back.

      Like

  8. missilemom says:

    Darrell Issa is most passionate when he mentions Eric Holder. He always reminds us that Eric Holder is the only attorney general and member of Cabinet ever held in Contempt of Congress.
    HIs reference to Holder being an active part of Obama network reminds us that shadow government is out there and active. We know. Sigh.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Leapin says:

      Eric Holder was just in my state to back and “help” a lib activist candidate for state supreme court. The candidate has stated that “the rule of law is garbage”. I sure Eric thinks the same thing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • flyboy46 says:

      See my above post. The Zero network is about to shrink out of existence. Hopefully from the top down.

      Like

  9. thedoc00 says:

    For all his whining and the “outrage” of some of his cohorts, like Gowdy and Graham, exactly what have done for the past 10 years but use these scandal as a pulpit and nothing more??

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Johnny Bravo says:

    How come Issa leaves the impression they cannot see all the docs?

    Sundance has said on a number of occasions they can see the docs any time, unredacted, but they cannot take them away from the viewing facility unless they are redacted.

    Sundances conclusion was that legislators are lazy!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Summer says:

      Sundance’s “conclusion” is just his opinion, nothing more.

      Like

      • Stormyeyes says:

        1.2 million docs mixed into how many millions, billions of others? That’s why he mentions keyword searches. He says “no in camera” review………..means they cant see them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Summer says:

          Exactly.

          Like

        • trialbytruth says:

          No that means they can’t take pictures. I tore of johney come lately criticizing the work done as opinion and imediately throw out opinion and untruth as fact.

          Man Soros needs to find a new school yard to find his keyboard cons.

          Like

          • Stormyeyes says:

            Though iu had a hard time making sense of your comment, I am not Johnny come lately. I have been here for 6-7 years every day and am no keyboard con. Go eat more lead paint fool.

            Do your homework before you criticize. It has NOTHING to do with a real camera:

            in camera Lat. ‘in chambers.’ Refers to a hearing or inspection of documents that takes places in private, often in a judge’s chambers.

            https://www.lectlaw.com/def/i018.htm

            In camera (/ɪŋˈkæmrə, -mərə/; Latin: “in a chamber”)[1] is a legal term that means in private.[2] The same meaning is sometimes expressed in the English equivalent: in chambers. Generally, in-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.[2] In-camera is the opposite of trial in open court where all parties and witnesses testify in a public courtroom, and attorneys publicly present their arguments to the trier of fact.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera

            Like

            • trialbytruth says:

              Sorry for. My indulgence in too many paint chips and lack of formal Latin training. I guess I never.knew.met any native speakers to set me straight.

              But still your argument is a straw man. They do have a Schiff across the street where they can view documents. They just can not view alone nor can they remove copies.

              Think of it as a Sandy Burgler prevention clause.

              As to your longevity here I could not comment although I am sure you share a charecteristic of another Stormy.

              It is all about the money.

              That is all

              Like

            • Tegan says:

              In fact, everyone must leave any recording device (cameras) outside the room. They can, in fact, go into the room to read the documents, according to many sources.

              Like

      • True Summer that much of CTH is opinions (albeit well informed), but it’s a fact not a conclusion that Issa could get up off his lazy butt and view any of those doc’s he wanted in unreacted form. That Sundance called them “lazy” was the conclusion Johnny referred to. I think Issa doesn’t view the doc’s because he can’t leak them anonymously (sneaky plus lazy).

        Like

    • TheWanderingStar says:

      There are some that are probably lazy. IMO in large measure they do not want to know what is in those documents because then they might be held accountable for the content, if and when it becomes public. Then for a few who don’t want to know because they have a conscience and it might bother them.

      Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Bartiromo included some of the interview with Goodlatte from March 18. If you watch that interview you’ll see Goodlatte complains that they were not allowed to see unredacted information, most notably the text messages about Contreras. The entire interview is in this CTH article:
      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/18/sunday-talks-chairman-bob-goodlatte-interviewed-by-maria-bartiromo/

      At 3:26 Goodlatte says: We need more documents and we need them now, and we need them unredacted by the way Maria. These latest revelations about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about a federal judge, a Judge Contreras, who was appointed to serve on the FISA court […] that was made available to us earlier in a redacted form and it was only just recently that we had the opportunity to see that text unredacted.

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        More evidence that Congress does not have access to unredacted documents.

        The Justice Department redacted the references to Contreras in 384 pages of text messages provided to Congress. […] Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican, posed two “fundamental” questions raised by the text messages: “Why did [DOJ] make it hard for us to figure this out? […] “We believe that we need to get more documents from the Department of Justice and FBI that are not redacted, and we need to get them quickly,” said North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee. http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/16/judge-friends-with-peter-strzok/

        I don’t know why Sundance thinks that Congress has access to unredacted documents. I don’t know where that came from. If anyone has the source, I would love to see it. Everything I have seen points to them NOT having such access. I know that for some or all of the documents they have had to go to a SCIF to view them, but it appears even in the SCIF there are redactions. We already know that the personal texts between Strzok and Page were omitted, and personal details in other texts were omitted. I think Congress, even in a SCIF, is not allowed to see those.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. quintrillion says:

    Issa seems really pissed he didn’t get Holder for more than contempt. Well, we all are. Holder seems like one of those characters who would not be beyond intimidation or threaten anyone who messed with him. Or maybe I’ve watched too many detective shows. But, Holder is one ugly, angry snake that believes in brainwashing kids so, he’s evil in my book.

    Liked by 2 people

    • trialbytruth says:

      Call him back in and ask the same questions and find him in contempt again and see what Sessions does….. Darryl ,,,,Darryl,,, Damn he’s gone.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jello333 says:

      If we could choose who will eventually be indicted, my list would start with Obama in the top slot. And second would probably be Hillary. But a very close third would be Holder. Yep.

      Like

  12. Fe says:

    SD, you caught me off guard with suspicious cat wearing the spectacles, 😂😂😂. Had to show hubby why I was laughing so hard. Looove it side by side with Maria’s suspicious look. Maria rocks.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s