Details Emerging of Coordinated Mueller Testimony With Congressional Democrats…

Details are beginning to emerge about the agreement between Democrats and Robert Muller surrounding his closely constructed upcoming testimony.

The baseline here is very important.  As we have outlined throughout, and especially since the Democrats won the mid-term election, the Mueller “team” is closely coordinating with the Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings group about how best to continue the efforts of the Weissmann and Mueller small group within the DOJ and FBI.

The connective tissue between House Democrats and the “Small Group” within the FBI (Weissmann and Mueller lead), is the Lawfare group.   As noted in the text message between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and as noted in the hiring of former FBI legal counsel James Baker; and as noted in the Nadler and Schiff hiring of Lawfare members for their staff; the coordination between the seditious group (DOJ/FBI) and the politicians is crystal clear.

CTH advised everyone to pay close attention to the details in the agreements between Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the corrupt team led by Robert Mueller.  Everything they are doing is based on a coordinated plan between ideologues.  The effort to remove President Trump is one long continuum… it has not stopped.  The Mueller testimony is just another part of this process.

Here’s some of the transparently sketchy details as outlined by staff leaks to NBC.  Remember, these legislative “staff members” are part of the Lawfare group (I cannot emphasize this enough):

WASHINGTON — After months of negotiations, former special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on July 17, but his willingness still comes with some parameters, according to a congressional aide with knowledge of the arrangement with Mueller’s office.

There will be two open sessions with Mueller and two closed sessions with his staff.

Pay attention to how these are being structured.  Two open sessions with limited questions, and only one opportunity for questions by each member of the committee.

The House Judiciary Committee will have to choose which of its members are able to ask Mueller questions during its open session. Unlike the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee is quite large, almost double in size, so only 22 of its 41 members will be present for the open session, the aide said.

The details of the agreement between the committees and Mueller’s office are still being worked out, a second congressional aide said, and could still change.

Judiciary Committee members who do not get to ask questions of Mueller will still be able to attend a closed session with Mueller’s staff following the open testimony, where they will be able to ask about material that was redacted from the public eye.

Notice the closed session without Mueller.  This is with Andrew Weissmann and the key members of his investigative unit.  This is the heart of the real corruption.  Mueller is only the figurehead.  Weissmann is the real lead, and the closed door session allows the Democrats to use the Weissmann testimony.

Each member of the Intelligence Committee will be able to ask Mueller questions for five minutes in the open session before following up in a similar closed session.

Limiting the exposure of Mueller is a way for Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to mitigate the risk. Only one round of questions.

In the closed sessions, the Intelligence Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume I of the Mueller report, which focuses on the question of collusion and conspiracy with the Russian government, while the Judiciary Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume II, which focuses on obstruction of justice.

Nice trick here.  Notice the closed door sessions are not classified.  This is the way for Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to get the material -the innuendo and suspicion- injected into their narrative.

The unredacted content will be discussed; that means all of the investigative pathways, including the maliciously corrupt false trails will be put into the discussion.   AND the politicians are free to talk about any/all content of that discussion because it is not classified.

Neither committee will have access to any information that is redacted for purposes of protecting information provided to the grand jury.

Although there will be no transcript of the closed sessions, they are not considered classified, so members may discuss what they heard.

The first congressional aide said members of both committees will not be restricted in what they can ask Mueller, but they do expect he will largely stick to the information he provided in the report. (link)

Without a transcript, there will be no factual record of the testimony behind closed doors.  This allows Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and staff to make any claim about the content, regardless of the level of falsity, and there’s no factual way for rebuttal.   This is by purposeful design.

Again, the use of Robert Mueller is part of the soft-coup effort.  Mueller was selected for this role by the internal DOJ and FBI group who carried out the investigation.  The real scheming is by the team directly under Mueller; and Mueller gets to play the role of willfully blind to the scheme.   Again, by design.

Mueller didn’t select his team; the pre-existing team of corrupt officials selected him.

Andrew McCabe and James Baker, were the two guys who put the pressure on Rosenstein to select Robert Mueller.  James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, Mike Kortan, James Rybicki, Andrew Weissmann, David Laufman, John Carlin, and many more are all collectively connected to this effort.

Additionally, all those aforementioned individuals are connected to Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare Group.

Not enough people understand the role of the Lawfare group in the corruption and political weaponization of the DOJ, FBI and larger intelligence community.

What Media Matters is to corrupt left-wing media, the Lawfare group is to the corrupt DOJ and FBI.

All of the headline names around the seditious conspiracy against Donald Trump assemble within the network of the Lawfare group.

Three days after the October 21st, 2016, FISA warrant was obtained, Benjamin Wittes outlined the insurance policy approach.

FBI Director James Comey, FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, Comey memo recipient Daniel Richman, Deputy AG Sally Yates, Comey friend Benjamin Wittes, FBI lead agent Peter Strzok, FBI counsel Lisa Page, Mueller lead Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller team of lawyers, all of them -and more- are connected to the Lawfare group; and this network provides the sounding board for all of the weaponized approaches, including the various new legal theories as outlined within the Weissmann-Mueller Report.

The Lawfare continuum is very simple.  The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan.  Weissmann and Mueller delivering their report evolved the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting.  Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal.

The current “impeachment strategy” is planned-out within the Lawfare group.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.

Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

Remember, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller didn’t come into this process as an ‘outsider’, and Mueller didn’t select his team. The corrupt Lawfare team inside government (FBI Counsel James Baker, DOJ Deputy Andrew Weissmann, FBI Deputy McCabe etc.) already knew Mueller.  The team had established personal and professional connections to Mueller, and they brought him in to lead the team.

When you realize that Robert Mueller didn’t select the team; rather the preexisting team selected their figurehead, Robert Mueller; then results make sense.  Robert Mueller can never be allowed to testify to congress without extremely tight controls because if questioned Mueller actually has very little understanding of what took place.

A disconcerting aspect to the Lawfare dynamic is how current U.S. Attorney General William Barr has knowledge of this.  Barr knows and understands how the Lawfare network operates. Barr is from this professional neighborhood. Like Mueller, Barr also knows these people.

“As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers“…

~ AG BILL BARR

Under Eric Holder, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Tom Perez, Robert Mueller, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the focus of the DOJ and FBI became prismatic toward politics and tribalism.  All of the hired senior lawyers and officials had to be aligned with the political intents of the offices.

[CIA Director John Brennan brought the same political goals to an intelligence apparatus that held a preexisting disposition of alignment, see Mike Morell: “I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton”.]

Their agencies were used against their ideological enemies in large operations like Fast-n-Furious, IRS targeting, Gibson Guitar etc.  And also smaller operations: Henry Louis Gates, George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, Baltimore etc.  All of these activist Lawfare examples were pushed and promoted by an allied media.

Many of the ‘weaponized’ approaches use radical legal theory (ex. disparate impact), and that ties into the purposes and methods of the Lawfare Group.  The intent of Lawfare is described in the name: to use Law as a tool in Warfare.  The ideology that binds the group is the ideological outlook and purpose: using the legal system to target political opposition.

It’s all connected folks…..  ALL OF IT !

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Agitprop, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Clinton Investigation, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

310 Responses to Details Emerging of Coordinated Mueller Testimony With Congressional Democrats…

  1. dustahl says:

    Mueller did not chose them, sounds right, but additionally Muller did not reject the team, he could have but was part of the cabal.

    Liked by 15 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Yes, because Mueller set the wholle thing up. During Bush years, he instituted “5 and out”, so he could waken FBI, and control rank and file.
      Under Obama, signed MOU with CIA, etc.

      He was in up to his eyebrows in this spying on Americans for political purposes, and in on Uranium 1. He had no choice, really. He has been corrupt his whole career, and was at risk of exposure.

      Liked by 12 people

    • Rob says:

      Of course. But the point is, Mueller can claim he knows nothing about the investigation or how the lawyers were chosen, so cannot answer any questions about it. He was simply a figure head and rubber stamper, he will claim.

      Like

    • Richard Orberson says:

      Robert Mueller and the Democratic Party are all from the same groupthink of steal from the government an hide it . If you’re not on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda then you are immediately the enemy.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Jederman says:

    “The intent of Lawfare is described in the name: to use Law as a tool in Warfare.”

    Ok, so it IS warfare, but it’s more like outlawfare. If they choose to abuse the “law” why are we required to play by their rules?

    Real warfare doesn’t work that way. Nobody plays to their opponents strengths.

    So I guess the question is are we even playing and why would we participate in this charade? If the evidence is there and they’re perverting the “law” to achieve this coup the law is useless to the good citizens.

    Round them ALL up and send them too GITMO. Seriously. It’s an a well planned attempted coup, an overthrow of a fairly elected president. Solve this in a military court in GITMO. PT will take a ton of grief and possibly die by a thousand cuts at the rate he’s going now and he will take a ton of grief if he goes the GITMO or similar route.

    Our country is infected by an opposing ideology. Why does that have to be litigated?

    Liked by 15 people

    • foo says:

      This is why the “David French” brigade are being ridiculed as “peace-time conservatives”.

      They believe in “civility” and “playing by the rules” (and leave out that the game is rigged)

      They’re Fake

      Liked by 7 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      How are they going to work this? My guess is they are going to come up with nonsense and claim it was redacted from the Mueller report. They will claim that Barr is hiding it in the redactions.

      Barr knows it is nonsense and cannot investigate something he knows did not happen. Since there is no transcript, Barr cannot go after anyone.

      If is like all those women making rape claims that did not file a police report. They should be believed! The cops cannot go after them for filing a false report even if they can prove it did not happen.

      Since the closed meeting happen after Mueller, he cannot be asked the specific question that would address the false claims.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bugsdaddy says:

        Fight fire with fire. Come running out of the closed session with a nonsensical claim that forces the Democrats to expose themselves and the real collusion that occurred.
        As a Marine trained to fight, there is no rules in a street fight. Destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.

        Liked by 12 people

        • G. Alistar says:

          As in a real fight, I much prefer fires; artillery, Close Air Support, Army Aviation, Naval gunfire, Cruise missiles and ATACMs….all good rather than face to face with maneuver.. Hope AG Barr does not underestimate just how powerful this corrupt cabal really is…..$$$ Trillions at stake. Same with POTUS, these people are corrupt and working with them on anything is wrought with danger.

          Liked by 2 people

          • iPack says:

            AG Barr is one of them.

            The system cannot afford an indictment of any major figure involved in, or privy to, massive spying on american politicians and judges, and the weaponization of this information to pass trillions of dollars worth of legislation, secure favorable court rulings, and subvert the entire confirmation process.

            No political appointee who was confirmed by the Senate to run FBI, DOJ, CIA, ODNI, NSA, DOD, a federal judge or a SC justice is going to turn on the Deep State. The political party affiliation doesn’t matter. No independent person will be even considered. You won’t hear their names.

            DJT doesn’t get to appoint a single ally. He is happy to get a guy who is not openly opposing him. Just look at Sessions, look at Wray, look at Coats or Haspel…

            Like

        • Mariainohio says:

          Why can’t President Trump declassify everything including the FISA docs. right before this? That way, REAL questions can be asked and maybe answered?

          Like

      • littleanniefannie says:

        Hand Weissmann a subpoena on July 16th for a grand jury hearing. Love for it to be to testify about what Andy McCabe knew and what information he supplied to the SC. Should keep him busy for a few days.
        Could the DoJ provide Weissmann et al with a department lawyer who says “you cannot answer that question”??/

        Liked by 4 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          It’s Barr’s DoJ now.
          Why do you assume he would provide a lawyer that says
          “You cannot answer that question”?

          Oh and Barr requested and obtained, Presidentially- authorized
          FULL DECLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

          So it could very well be:
          “Andrew….you are free to answer”

          Liked by 3 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Perhaps one of the Republicans should do the equivalent of “oops, left my cell phone behind!”
        Since the closed door meetings ARE NOT CLASSIFIED, surreptisciously RECORD them.

        Then when Dems allege something that WAS NOT SAID, play the recording, FROM THE HOUSE FLOOR, to refute?

        Or, LEAK the recordings; again NOT classified.

        MAY be against House ‘rules’, but not illegal. As commenters have said, fight fire with fire.

        Liked by 9 people

        • Sprawlie says:

          100% Republicans must step up and record. Just last week Ted Lieu was ‘live tweeting’ during the closed Hope Hicks testimony.

          Liked by 5 people

        • Luz Maria Rodriguez says:

          Cool idea.
          There is no good reason NOT to use their own tactics against them. It’s time to get serious and take the padded gloves off.

          Actually, their coup attempt is impressive in a couple ways. That they are all ivy league supreme level lawyers says much about how they were so effective in politicizing the DOJ/FBI/IRS. Nevertheless, even though all or most are ivy league privileged, it does not necessarily follow that they are overly bright. In fact, Mueller’s “pitbull” is venerable, should someone be of a mind to challenge him. T would be well advised to seek assistance from former prosecutor Joe.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Dutchman says:

            There is a BIG difference between “educated” and “intelligent”. There are tricks to the 3R’s; Read, Retain and Reguritate. Listen closely, and take copious notes THE FIRST DAY OF CLASS, (which most students don’t); the teacher has their standard first day lecture, where they flat out TELL the,students “Heres what you need to do, to pass my class!”
            Then, do what they say, track your grade, just like the teacher does.
            Doesn’t require intelligence.
            I agree weisman is VULNERABLE. He HAD to have had a guardian angel, someone shielding him from the consequences of his actions, cause the guy lawyers like,a BAD first year law student.Seriously, calling him a “hack” is an insult to hacks.
            I am hoping S.Powell is going to bust the team open like a pinata. She might should team up with Stones legal team, maybe even some cooperation with the lawyers representing the Russians, and Manaforts legal team.
            Do a full court press. Discredit ONE prosecution, by showing clear prosecutorial misconduct, malfeasance and the,whole thing falls apart.

            Liked by 2 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Guaranteed several will be recording this.
          This is a totally amatuerish, ad-hoc, on the fly, off the rails, back alley circus concocted because–unlike Ken Starr—

          Mueller doesn’t want to testify about his own report
          Nadler doesn’t want to have grown-up Impeachment Hearings

          It should be treated with the exact same seriousness by which it was contrived.
          None.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Dutchman says:

            IF the Dems put so many restrictions on R’s to inhibit them really questioning, one possibility is don’t show up, or yield all their time.

            LET the Dems have ALL the camera time, at least in the Public hearings.
            Let them make fools of themselves?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

              I think the better play is for the cameras to show the Dems CONTINUALLY blocking legitimate questioning from the R’s
              Make ’em work a little at looking dumb.
              (Hank Johnson alone makes it look too easy)

              Either way……we both know they WILL make fools of themselves.

              EXCEPTION: If they start claiming Trump colluded with space aliens and the Purple Teletubbie………..then yeah…..yield as much time as they need to get to the bottom of that.

              (I never trusted that purple one either)

              Like

      • cassander1 says:

        Why can’t Repubs tape record the closed session? And then release a transcript?

        Liked by 1 person

    • CM-TX says:

      Agreed. 👍

      Like

    • muckeyduck says:

      I think you’re correct.

      This is one of the best articles on this topic, and one of the few to suggest that Martial Law cannot be discounted as possibly the only way to end the liberal attack on America, one way, or the other. (part 2 link at bottom of part 1)

      https://pjmedia.com/trending/desperate-times-call-for-desperate-measures-part-1/

      Liked by 2 people

    • TANGO268 says:

      Schedule a President Trump rally on the steps of Congress during the hearings. Let them come out to 50-100k Trump supporters asking them why they are trying to take down a duly elected President. If Antifa shows up, be ready for them too.

      Liked by 2 people

    • James Carpenter says:

      Litigation.
      Like warfare, is diplomacy by “other means”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • johnathanc says:

      I think that Barr is double-checking everything, aligning his evidence and will not move on the Cabal until everything is in place. Remember, he’s dealing with Weasel lawyers here who will do anything to escape. Detail, details, details. They must all be in order.

      Liked by 3 people

    • The Devilbat says:

      Our country is infected by COMMUNISTS. the democratic party was taken over by them starting in the 1960’s. The party today is completely under communist control.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Agree with you that our country is infected with Communists, who are only semi-disguised as Democrats, but the Commies started worming their way into our government WAY back in the 1930s during the FDR administration. Communism might have been the ONLY thing that the USSR ever exfiltrated to the United States of America.

        Despite the criticism he faced at the time, Senator Joe McCarthy was justified in his quest to ferret out the many Communists who had found lucrative and influential posts at all levels of Roosevelt’s Presidency, as well as in Truman’s administration, too. Unfortunately, McCarthy wasn’t successful and Communists are rife throughout our society today.

        Like

        • PetePatriot says:

          You are right. A relative who graduated from a prestigious Ivy League school in 1935 said many of his professors were communists back then. The students they were able to indoctrinate went to work for the government. Alger Hiss was a graduate of Harvard Law and made the Review.

          Liked by 2 people

        • cdquarles says:

          Oh, it started well before that. Recall the Know Nothings, Copperheads and then the “Progressives”. Try the 1820s, when John C. Calhoun, et al., brought us the “natural land holding, slave owning” aristocracy, which split Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican one into Democrats and Whigs. The “Progressives” failed, directly; so they went “underground” and subverted both the Democrats (easier) and the Republicans (a bit harder). Think Woodrow Wilson and both of the Roosevelts. Can’t leave out Hoover, either.
          Every so often, roughly every 30 years, we see a counter-counter revolution meant to return us to the principles of our founding. In between, we see a counter revolution meant to take us back to tyranny. Of course, globalists want tyranny. They think they’ll be the ones running it.

          Like

  3. Oldretiredguy says:

    It doesn’t seem as though, regardless of format, the Jorden’s and the Radcliffe’s of the GOP won’t get at least one shot at criminally corrupt Wiesmann. Even with a single 5 minute limit, Radcliffe is more than capable of making him look the the criminal he is.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Sentient says:

      I’m not sure that making Mueller or Weissmann look like criminals accomplishes anything. We already know the whole thing was/is a conspiracy. All these questions like “when did you know there was no collusion?” or “why didn’t you, Mr. Mueller, investigate Russian conspiracy with the Clinton campaign?” only cast them in a bad light. That won’t put them behind bars. We need them to make an explicitly false statement. Under oath. Perjury. That should be the goal of Radcliffe, Jordan and Co.

      Liked by 2 people

      • G. Alistar says:

        I think perhaps we who spend time reading CTH already know about the conspiracy and corruption but well over half of the American public don’t have a clue.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          Exactly.

          And this is the shot to give them that clue
          THIS is the Super Bowl the MSM wanted—ALL CHANNELS.

          No dumb Hannity “over the target” questions
          at least until you hit him with a kill shot or at least one hard in the nuts.

          Save the “Why did you hire only Democrats?” lightweight questions
          until he’s doubled over in excruciating white hot pain trying to catch his breath.
          (Guys…you know what I’m talking about…….)

          Liked by 1 person

    • Zorro says:

      What’s to stop Herr Mueller or Herr Weissmann from using the 5 minutes allotted to a R questioner conferring with their counsel and not answering? Then Nads or Schiffty gavel and move on to the next 5 minutes.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. GB Bari says:

    The intent of Lawfare is described in the name: to use Law as a tool in Warfare. The ideology that binds the group is the ideological outlook and purpose: using the legal system to target political opposition.

    IMO, it seems that they are using a lot of made-up rules outside of the traditional legal system or stretching existing laws to never-before-attempted interpretations in order to target their opposition. In other words….Weissmann-ism.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Zorro says:

      Exactly that Herr Weissmann’s MO.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Susan Bolle says:

      As Sidney Powell noted once…they take a part of one statute and splice it onto a part of another to achieve the desired result, and ignore. See approx 4:10 in interview.

      Liked by 12 people

      • midmogirl says:

        Thank you for sharing! She is incredible–soooo glad she is representing Michael Flynn now!!!

        Liked by 4 people

        • chipin8511 says:

          Flynn a criminal you just dont know it yet. Most former Generals are corrupt $$ after their service time they use their contacts for big $$$.They others in his group left him holding the blackberry he was framed but also part of the Uranium and weapons deals in the trillions .georgewebb.com truthleaks.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ann says:

            High command was purged and is Infected with careerism, I have no doubt.

            As aspirants & members in higher command, one expects more than a plea based on “subordination to civilians” as an explanation as to why our military cooperated with the Vulcan’s imposition of “international hegemony”, which only civilians of pathological levels of hubris could endorse.

            However, I exclude General Flynn from the self serving conformists you condemn.

            Like

    • G. Alistar says:

      Hope that POTUS has a couple of spy’s on the inside of the Lawfare cabal???

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Zorro says:

    It would be very interesting to know all phone calls, texts and emails being sent and received from the hearings. If we were Demosocialists we could have FISA surveillance.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sentient says:

      I’d rather that Barr be looking at all of the emails, texts and phone calls between the Small Group members in early 2016 and between Mueller and Rosenstein in the Spring of 2017. Then he could advise the Republicans on what to ask Mueller and Weissmann.

      Liked by 2 people

    • G. Alistar says:

      Yep, but it would be violating the 4th Amendment, it would be dishonest and corrupt as well as a compromise. i.e., “the ends justify the means” is a fast train to moral degeneracy.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Coast says:

    All the indictments that have been issued so far by Barr should be taking the wind out of their sails. Now that Comey, Brennan, Yates, McCabe, and Strzok are locked up you would things would settle down.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pyrthroes says:

    Pres. Trump is restoring national security without increasing military/naval commitments overseas; dramatically growing the American economy to leverage U.S. strength in global trade contexts; transforming national courts with multi-dozen Constitutionalists; revamping subversive Fourth Branch (“Deep State”) apparats… and so on, and on.

    All this is occurring in a seeming vacuum, as if Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff et al. were painting roses red at some Wonderland croquet game: “Just as Alice came up … one of the gardeners said, ‘Look out now, Five! Don’t go splashing paint over me like that!’

    ‘Couldn’t help it,’ said Five, in a sulky tone; ‘Seven jogged my elbow.’ On which Seven looked up and said, ‘That’s right, Five! Always lay the blame on others,’

    ‘You better not talk!’ said Five. ‘I heard the Queen say only yesterday that you deserved to be beheaded.’ ‘What for?’ said the first gardener. ‘None of your business, Two!’ said Seven.
    ‘Yes, it is his business,’ said Five, ‘And I’ll tell him– it was for bringing the cook tulip-roots instead of onions.’ ”

    “Tulip roots for onions”… just so, in Queen Pelosi’s idiotic Wonderland. Color us beetroot, but in all American history, no era has ever seen such feckless default-of-duty while a duly elected, highly competent, withal knowledgeable and patriotic Chief Executive faces down a backstabbing coup d’oeuvre by spoiled-brat partisans that make Carroll’s gardeners seem Philosopher Kings.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Greg Powers says:

    So much BS so much corruption, I’ve always felt our government was corrupt but this is going far and beyond. Sometimes I even think Trump could be involved in many different ways, little trust in any of this shit!

    Liked by 1 person

    • glissmeister says:

      Is it our government or is it really our awakening to “Avenattiism” as a normalized pathology of conduct in the American legal community … the practice of law with malicious and malignant intent? To what extent are lawyers in the commons reasonably allowed to do so, particularly as officers of the court? To what extent may they conspire against the Constitution to overthrow a duly elected President by fraud and frame up?

      This all may have more to do with a collapse of American Jurisprudence into a post modern relativism that spotlights the pernicious side-effects of modern pharmacology, malignancies of narcissism and borderline personality disorders adversely affecting high-functioning persons who hunger for authority over others.

      In our courtrooms these malign parasites rooster about, mistreat, and seem to be mostly protected with a deference shown toward their sociopathic excesses.

      In our streets and urban centers, such personality archetypes are routinely arrested for their pathological dispositions and distempers and often while under the influence of the very same drugs prescribed to their high-functioning clinical counterparts with $100,000 wardrobes and credentials from the finest universities.

      We need to consider more carefully the prospect of realizing a mental health scandal brewing in the professorate, lawyering and the judicial community; high-functioning disordered personalities beset with malignant dispositions, agonistic disorders and syndromic patterns of malicious behavior that might otherwise raise significant clinical alarm but remain mostly unaddressed and covered up by fiat of polite culture.

      High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The latter is very dangerous, as well.

      They more they crave authority the more their sickness reveals itself. There are some very sick people doing some very sick things for very sick reasons.

      Liked by 5 people

  9. 4EDouglas says:

    This is going to be a box of Acme Dynamite for the dems.
    Jordan and Radcliffe are going to toss the zippo..

    Liked by 2 people

    • Robert says:

      Finally the legal term “sedition” is being used to describe the illegal actions of the government employees that have participated in this attempted coup. To be honest what has been learned with respect to President Trump is barely a scratch into the crimes of these government employees. If we ever get to the truth it will be revealed that Obama authorized the collection on every Republican candidate, Not just on Donald Trump. This is why the seditious group knew of and targeted George Papadopoulos before he was even part of the Trump team. They new about Papadopoulos because they were already spying on the Ben Carson campaign. This is what the illegal FBI contractors were doing with the NSA database and this is why the Director of the NSA shut it down. Remember that Obama and his seditious comrades utilized the IRS to target common US citizens who dared to stand for freedom.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Blister Bill says:

        It’s not sedition. It’s a massive conspiracy of high treason. The government, for all intents and purposes, has already been overthrown.

        And in case everybody has missed the obvious, we’re going to war

        Liked by 3 people

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          When is D-Day?

          “We should probably know the plan beforehand, General Custer.”

          (Last words as quoted by Sioux warrior TrueBolt as he pulled his arrow from the unidentified surprised and dying 7th Cavalryman)

          Liked by 2 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Robert,
        IMHO, and IIRC, they knew about papaD because of his earlier work on the cypress pipeline, which Obama was dead,set against.
        And, I doubt they needed anything on Jeb!, cause the Bushes already climbed into bed with the Clantons in Haiti.

        But yeah, this system was set up beginning in Bush years, greatly expanded in Obama years, and RepubliCONS in top positions were compromised.

        Which explains the Gowdy syndrome of investigations which exonerate.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. 335blues says:

    Weissman is a criminal that should have been convicted and sent to prison years ago.
    THE ONGOING COUP ATTEMPT MUST STOP!
    When is AG Barr going to put a stop to this crap?

    Liked by 9 people

    • gunrunner03 says:

      Ain’t nobody going nowhere nohow. It’s a scam, a con. Are any of these folks “lawyering-up?” They are not even scared. Nope, just more book tours and TV appearances, and collecting their salaries/pensions.

      Like

      • JIM says:

        So much bluster about Barr a few months ago gave us another false hope. How much more investigating needs to go on to find ONE indictment. Sadly GUN you are right.

        Like

      • bundydad901 says:

        We were given another false hope a few months ago with Barr. How long does it take to come up with ONE indictment from what we already know. Not ONE whistleblower from the FBI, that says it all. It’s a mockery of a sham.

        Liked by 2 people

        • gnome says:

          Not one whistleblower from the FBI?? You don’t know that. If you blow a whistle in the forest and no-one hears it, did you blow the whistle?

          And even if they heard it, did the fake news media report that a whistle has been blown?

          Liked by 1 person

          • farrier105 says:

            No one can prove a negative, so no one can prove there are no FBI whistleblowers. The real challenge is to those who claim the whistleblowers exist. Do you see any results that even suggest any such whistleblowers exist? We have had them in the past, like Frederick Whitehead in the lab and Colleen Rowley about the Moussaoui laptop affair. We heard about them–briefly–and now they are heard no more. We know of none–thus far–in this whole impeachment, or fake impeachment, drive.

            But Lawfare has shown itself. In discussions with two of them on Twitter, they are showing a love of publicity. This is a chink in their armor. Their egos are excited right now and pride goes before a fall.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Will Hunt says:

        Don’t leave out the backslapping, glad handing bon voyage party the Rod the Rat had. All of the alleged felons in this silly soap opera for the masses are completely unconcerned about any future, dire consequences.

        Like

  11. Koot Katmando says:

    We can Only hope Barr is on it and has a plane to blow this up their face. Declassify timing might work

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The Boss says:

    As THIS clown show unfolds, and dems continue to disclose HOW they’re shaping their battle plans, don’t you all think our President and his people are fully aware of each and every move, and each and every person involved? This is not going to end well for the dems. That I can tell you.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Blister Bill says:

      PDJT has no power to bring anyone to justice. He has a handful of people loyal to him. The rest of ‘his’ executive branch is in open mutiny. The courts are corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt, both parties are corrupt and the administrative state is irreparably corrupt. We’re not voting our way out of this

      Liked by 4 people

      • Will Hunt says:

        Truly pervasive it is. Look at yesterday’s bizarre supreme court decision on the census citizenship question – read Thomas’ dissent – really sad.

        Liked by 3 people

  13. Nan says:

    Perhaps Barr’s playing the bagpipes is symbolic; historically the Scots and the Irish played the bagpipes when they went out to war.

    Liked by 10 people

  14. DNance says:

    I am amazed that the U. S. Marshals seem to have nothing to say about this.

    Like

  15. gingergal says:

    The team shouldn’t be allowed to do anything as the origins of this investigation were quite corrupt.
    Where is Barr on this?

    Like

  16. IAMGROOT says:

    I am amazed that the U.S. Marshals seem to have nothing to do.

    Like

  17. This pattern of “intentional lawfare” isn’t really going to change until the Law actually begins to bare its teeth. While I fully appreciate the need to be thorough, “time is of the essence now.” Only when criminal indictments have been issued and the “perp walks” begin, will there be any significant change in the situation. The United States Senate committees also need to begin showing meaningful action to counter the reckless House activities.

    I would also like to see a pre-emptive appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of the Congress self-appointing unto itself Law Enforcement powers (a violation of enumeration and separation of powers), and applying a “novel” standard of law that is different from that applied by the Department of Justice and the Federal Courts. Impeachment must never be allowed to become a political weapon, as it is well on its way to doing now.

    Article 1 Section 3.7, after stating that impeachment applies only to removal from office, goes on to say, “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” This unquestionably implies that the accused will face subsequent criminal charges. But here we have the impossibility that Donald Trump would not(!) face charges, because “according to Law” there is no case. The US Congress must never be allowed to become a “kangaroo court,” taking the law into its own hands. It is permitted to respond to a finding that an official has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but, I aver, is not permitted to find this.

    Liked by 4 people

    • farrier105 says:

      You can infiltrate to get to the bottom of Lawfare and you can start a Lawfare grand jury, and you can do both. It would be nice to get one close to the top and flip him. Someone has to get interested enough to get inside, like Project Veritas, and get some documents like Wikileaks. One of these operations has to be destroyed.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. redline says:

    Is it just me, or does Laufman seem like one of the worst people on Earth, and often right near the center of many truly heinous attacks on our Constitution, the Divinely-granted, inalienable Rights it is meant to protect, and We, the People, for whom that Constitution was intended to promise shield and shelter, if we would defend it?

    That lawyer is in the mix of sedition and Big Club mischief too often. Way too often.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. JIM says:

    Paging AG Barr, is he still ‘investigating’?

    Like

  20. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Not sure what the big deal is here.
    OK they have a master plan…….to accomplish what exactly?

    How does the equation change?

    We really really really thought he obstructed will be replaced by
    We really really really REALLY thought he obstructed.

    Rewatch the Senate Judiciary Hearing after the Mueller report came out.
    Republican Senators questions specifically.
    They asked the questions they need answers to BEFORE THEY ARE FREELY ABLE to vote to remove Trump. And that’s assuming THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO REMOVE TRUMP.
    They don’t get those answers….
    THEY CANNOT.

    The House Dems cannot change a single mind in Congress or in the body politic at this point.
    Trump telling another person he wanted Mueller fired is NOT going to matter.
    THERE WAS NO “SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE”
    And the American people don’t give two shits about another random RUSSIAN NAME.
    MUELLER HAD HIS CHANCE TO INDICT ON “COLLUSION” AND DID NOT.

    Leaving what?
    Weissmann going to try to introduce NEW EVIDENCE or NEW CONCLUSIONS??
    Or worse, accuse BARR of obstructing their investigation by shutting it down prematurely?

    Either would leave Barr with 3 options:
    1) Come down with The Hammer
    2) Clean out his desk
    3) Or pull off his Cheshire mask and reveal he is actually Weissmann in disguise. (i.e. do nothing)

    Seems to me the RISK all lies on the side of the DEMS.
    At worst the GOOD GUYS end up at status quo.
    At best they blow this shit up in a spectacular chocolate-colored backfire!

    Liked by 4 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      They don’t have a master plan. They just slash and burn. And now they’re in a hurry because of Barr’s investigation.

      Liked by 3 people

      • farrier105 says:

        Lawfare is part of a master plan, a cog in a machine of insurrection by other means, a division in the “Peoples’ Liberation Army of the United States. The lack of MSM curiosity about them is why they are getting sloppy, letting their slip dangle to go after Kavanaugh while Comey is talking about his friends over there, and James Baker went home to them.

        This is a job for an investigative reporter.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      K von S,
      I have been saying that, since SD first layed out the plan; how House Dems are going to use IMPEACHMENT as a ‘political weopon”, etc.

      I agree that seems to be their plan. I DON’T see it working. And, lets face it, these “Lawfare” plans don’t seem to have worked out so well, for Dems.

      Mostly, they seem to blow up in their faces. Like todays,CEO’s, these Dem plans seem to focus on short term, not long term. And, they have too much faith in the plan (first contact with the enemy concept eludes them) as does ‘always have plan “B”.

      Seems to me while they DO do lots of harm to others, they end up shooting their cause in the foot, every time.

      In short, the concept is flawed. Their knowledge of the law is minimal, but worse yet (for them) they have absolutely NO understanding of warfare.

      And worst, for them they are FANATICS.
      “Fanatacism consists of redoubling your effort, while forgetting your aim.”

      So yes, I agree with SD that this is, indeed their “plan”, and I agree with you I see no way in He!! that it can work.
      But, that minor detail hasn’t stopped them yet, no reason it should now!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Totally agree.

        And the MSM is playing up Mueller as “The Big Event”
        if Mueller is indeed just a “Figurehead” (which he most probably is)
        Then by definition the MSM will get nothing earth shattering from him and in fact may end up showing him looking simply like a doddering old fool wiping his nose who didn’t know what was going on in his own investigation.
        Must see TV.

        They will get pictures of NONE of the so-called “Good Stuff” from the closed door sessions.
        Just more Swallwell, Schiff, Nadler running out of there
        saying the same shit they’ve been saying.

        This is amazing…..just to get Mueller to testify about his own report the Dems have to completely twist and bend EVERY rule and procedure to do it…..and all to satisfy THEIR OWN “WITNESSES”

        I haven’t seen this much CONTORTION since the Ladies Gymnastics floor exercise at the last Olympics
        -or this backroom show at a Miami Cuban “club” I once saw in college—but that’s another story.
        (Oh and sorry for the visual of Nadler doing the splits in a unitard to Bolero)

        Ken Starr went before this Committee and testified openly.

        Nadler, Schiff, Mueller & Co are left with doing it like a back alley abortion.

        Which of course, it is.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Perfect comparison. We ought to send nadler and schiff coat hangers, by the thousands.
          They probably wouldn’t ‘get it’, though.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            Great idea.
            Sending Pencil Neck Schiff coat hangers shouldn’t be a problem.

            A box big enough for Nadler sized hangers may be a problem. He dropped this one last time he was in the Phillipines on an “Eating Tour”

            Liked by 2 people

  21. TexasDude says:

    They are all connected with the Brookings Institute who put out documents exploring ways to tag Trump with obstruction just shortly after the SC was instituted.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lady Sid says:

      What did the Brookings Institution put out to “tag Trump with obstruction”? Do you have a link? Author?

      Liked by 1 person

      • TexasDude says:

        https://www.brookings.edu/research/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump/

        This is a summation of the research paper which was published in Oct of 2017. The actual paper can be downloaded from this page.

        “Our paper proceeds in four parts. In Section I, we summarize the relevant facts and allegations that can be gleaned from witness testimony and credible media reports. In Section II, we explain the law governing obstruction of justice and how it applies to the apparent facts and allegations as currently known. In Section III, we lay out the options available after Special Counsel Mueller has completed his investigation. These options include referral of the case to Congress, indictment of the president, holding the case pending removal of the president, and closing the case without indictment. Finally, in Section IV, we discuss the actions that Congress could take concurrently with or in addition to Mueller’s investigation.”

        It’s authors are from CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)

        Liked by 2 people

      • TexasDude says:

        This is from the Lawfare blog at the same time the paper was published …

        https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-and-president-trump-comments-new-report

        “This morning, the Governance Studies program at Brookings—where one of us works—released a lengthy report, entitled “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump.” Written by Barry Berke of the law firm of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, Noah Bookbinder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Brookings Senior Fellow Norm Eisen, …”

        CREW, Lawfare, and the Brookings institute laid it all out.

        Liked by 5 people

        • glissmeister says:

          Conspirators. We may be looking at a novel and most pernicious form of racketeering and seditious enterprise, for hire, paid to do so, raising further questions of conversion and diversion, and unlawful contributions in kind.

          Politics conducted as an ongoing criminal enterprise may be reasonably seen as a species of racketeering and syndicate criminality whereby donations and tax exempt revenue are in part laundered into resources and actions in support of wrongdoing.

          A non-profit is a still a corporation; an alien person in the law. Couple that with conversion and diversion of tax exempt revenue, assets and resources in support of sedition to conduct a conspiracy against the Government of the United States and in doing so engage in or otherwise facilitate syndicate criminality of organized partisan interests.

          Preposterous. Who would ever do such a thing.

          Move along. Nothing to see here.

          Liked by 1 person

        • 1stgoblyn says:

          CREW = the only word you need to see to know this reading would be totally one-sided so, thanks, but I’m passing.

          Like

  22. roger dat says:

    can someone obstruct justice alone? It occurs to me that Trump would need an accomplice, and if Trump can’t be indicted surely the co-conspirator could.

    Mueller could have indicted the person not named Donald Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      roger dat,
      Are you confusing obstruction with conspiracy?
      If I murder a witness who was gonna testify against me, in addition to murder I have obstructed justice, but did it by myself.

      But, you can’t do a CONSPIRACY without a co-conspirator.

      Liked by 3 people

    • trump20162024 says:

      The Trumpster dared to obstruct the injustice of the attempted coup. For that alone, he deserves to be reelected in a 50 state landslide.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Aunt Geek says:

    …Just thought of this: Wasn’t Mueller past the legal tenure as FBI Director, having served two terms and then Obummer got him extended another 2 years…so, when Mueller met with POTUS, he was not even able to be chosen for FBI Director, POTUS must have known that…from his lawyers and/or Cabinet…so what were they really talking about? [47-D Chess move about to go down??]

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      The pitch was that just as Obama had exempted Mueller from the 1-10 year term, that PDJT could do the same.

      The “plan” was hoping that,PDJT would say something like “IF I make you director, can you make this Russia collusion nonsense go away?” and have a recording, as well as,Rosie the witness.

      IF that had ‘worked’, they either had material for a slam dunk obstruction case for Senate R’s to vote to impeach.

      Since they didn’t get that, plan called for appointing SC.

      I THINK,….

      Liked by 2 people

      • WSB says:

        PT already knew that Bob must have been up to something because of the conflict of interest with the golf club dues.

        Like

        • Dutchman says:

          Well, theres that, but the clincher was when he noticed Bob trying to hide a cell phone under a chair.

          Liked by 3 people

          • WSB says:

            Can’t make any of this crap up.

            Here’s hoping the WH put a device into it before they gave it back to Bob.

            Like

            • Dutchman says:

              Heck, I was thinking they should have checked Melania, after her surgery. Not kidding, wouldn’t put it past em to bug her.

              Liked by 2 people

              • WSB says:

                Which is why Reagan asked if his surgeon was a Republican. Even that doesn’t work any longer.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Dutchman says:

                  HAVE to specify; Are you a RepubliCON, or a RepubliCAN.

                  Humongously big difference, LOTS of RepubliCANS in our great country, but rare as hens teeth in the Swamp.

                  We really need to make sure we don’t just get a “RepubliCON” majority in CONgress, but that we get a RepubliCAN majority.

                  And that is something WE have to do; Politically, PDJT can not be in open warfare with “his own party” (which is how it would be portrayed) by openly advocating for primary challengers to McConnell, Graham, etc.

                  WE have to PURGE the ‘nevertrumper’ open border anti maga Rino RepubliCON scum out of OUR party, at the local, State and National level.

                  GOT TO DO IT

                  Liked by 2 people

                • WSB says:

                  Yes, indeed. And the only way may be with force, because voting now is a farce.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Dutchman says:

                  As to whether voting is a ‘farce’, check back with me in mid to late Nov., 2020.
                  Its starting to look POSSIBLE that our faith in the American people, and in voting will be renewed.

                  Still keeping my bullet in my pocket, for now.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • WSB says:

                  Touché !

                  Like

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            I wanna know if Trump called him the next day and said:

            “Hey Bob…..you forgot your phone…..
            and your wife texted you 10 times reminding you to pick up a quart of milk on the way home.
            Hope your mashed potatoes weren’t too dry.”

            Like

  24. jx says:

    Will DOJ lawyers be present in both open and closed hearings?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Joshua2415 says:

    If the closed door sessions are not classified, I would fully expect republicans present to record the entire thing for posterity. It is important for historical purposes, and it will limit the amount of BS the democrats can spew about what was really said.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jx says:

      Closed door, not classified, no transcript. In other words: WORTHLESS.

      Liked by 2 people

      • glissmeister says:

        And PRICELESS for those seeking to exploit the theatrics in bad faith with premeditated criminal intent

        Liked by 1 person

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          But there will be NO THEATRICS.

          Theatrics can only be SEEN on TV.
          And they won’t have those images.

          So the “theatrics” will be the same ol’ cast of characters:
          Swallwell, Schiff, Nadler, Liu, Cohen, etc
          Running to cameras
          Saying the exact same shit they’ve been saying for 2 years….
          maybe with a little extra corn this time.

          Hell…..they won’t even have a script from the show to quote.

          Ken Starr at least testified publicly.
          THIS contrived process will not “help” achieve a conviction in the Senate
          Will not change a single Americans mind.

          This “weapon” has about as much lethality as a SPITBALL and
          -if you know anything of the ballistics of a spitball–
          may end up stuck in their own throats as they draw breath to fire.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Mariainohio says:

        Ahhh, yes. The Hillary, Huma, Cheryl Mills treatment, of course.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. Dyspeptic says:

    Funny how when you review the names of the prominent Lawfare lawyers most of them seem to belong to a certain tribe. Just a coincidence I’m sure.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. California Joe says:

    DOJ regulations authorize AG Barr to prohibit the testimony of federal prosecutors in any proceeding even prosecutors that are no longer in government service such as Mueller and Weissman. President Trump has been abused enough and there is no legitimate reason for AG Barr to allow this absurd circus act to continue!

    Liked by 3 people

    • I didn’t know that. Do former prosecutors have to request permission to testify?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dutchman says:

        Mueller, tho now a private citisen is being called to testify about work he,did while an employee of DOJ.

        So, I would think he would have DOJ lawyers with him, representing the DOJ, not him per se.

        And yeah, for the same reason I should think Barr COULD ‘weigh in’, but THATS,a trap that maybe they are hoping for;
        Barr forbids any of weisman/mueller team from testifying, and they cry “COVERUP!!”

        Barr really has no compelling reason to prohibit testimony, that I can see. Not like they can testify about an ongoing investigation.
        “Because this rediculous shiteshow has gone on toooo long, already!” probably won’t fly.

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          Couldn’t Barr attend these two hearings?

          Like

          • Dutchman says:

            Why would he want to? Given the recent history where A) they insisted Barr unredact G.J. testimony that its illegal to release, and when he rightly refused accused him of covering up, I’m wondering if their play is to HOPE Barr will block Mueller from testifying, THEN again they will accuse him of cover up.

            If he doesn’t, perhaps they say negotiations with mueller ‘broke down’?

            Liked by 2 people

            • WSB says:

              I would want to be there to force Mueller not to deflect any straight answers. The President gave Barr authority to declass…so be it.

              Like

              • Dutchman says:

                Barr is pretty sharp on swamp tactics. Mueller/weisman attempted to mug him on redacting 6e material, foot dragging to make an uneccesary delay. Barr may have a better way to address public perception, AFTER mueller testifies.
                Indictments would be nice.

                Its not clear to me why he doesn’t intervene in say, the Stone case, Flynn too maybe. If a miscarriage of justice and prosecutorial misconduct occur under his watch, really can’t excuse it by saying “well, it was underway before I got here.
                Clean up the mess MEANS clean up the mess, and that means correct miscarriages of Justice, NOT preserve them and allow to continue.
                Stone is glaringly obvious, AND there has been no guilty plea entered.START there, Mr. Barr.

                Liked by 3 people

    • Blister Bill says:

      Ping…If true, that would cement Barr as nothing but a cleaner-sanitizer for our corrupt state. Or a Jeff sessions 2

      Like

      • Dutchman says:

        BB
        2-3 months ago I would have dismissed your post,as,”eeyore”.
        Like SD, I have said CAUTIOUS optimism. However I have also said ACTIONS, not WORDS are the criterion to judge.

        And I am starting to reach the end of my patience with Barr and Durham.
        IF Wray and Halper are,stonewalling him, he can fire Wray himself, have PDJT deal with CIA chief.

        If they ARE NOT stonewalling him on documents, he SHOULD have enough to be pulling people into a grand jury.

        Yes, I KNOW a grand jury is ‘secret’; jurors and prosecutors are sworn to secrecy, however witnesses are NOT, they are free to tell anyone they want, and anyone they tell is free to write about it.

        IF there were grand juries about the coup, we,would know. Barr/Durham had better produce something pretty soon, or I tilt from cautious optimism, to cautiously sceptic.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      President Trump has been abused enough and there is no legitimate reason for AG Barr to allow this absurd circus act to continue!

      I’d rather see BARR make a statement like this:

      “I FULLY SUPPORT Mueller testifying publicly about his investigation—with the exception of the 4 areas previously indicated.
      And with my SHINY NEW GIFT
      bestowed upon me by the WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ:

      FULL AND COMPLETE DECLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

      I authorize him to testify FULLY about all matters related to HIS INVESTIGATION as it will
      IN NO WAY
      INTERFERE OR HINDER MINE.”

      And then break out into a 9 minute Jimi Hendrix-like improvised bag-pipe solo with a lighter fluid finale.

      Like

  28. Most of all, I think that it is imperative to our Nation that we find an effective way – by appealing to the Supreme Court or otherwise – of permanently stopping the “weaponization” of government powers … most especially the Impeachment power.

    The Founders were extremely aware of the potential for the politicization of Impeachment, as described in the records of their deliberations as they drafted the Constitution that we now have. They obviously intended that Impeachment would be a consequence of a finding of wrongdoing that had separately been concluded by the other Branches to which these powers had been separated.

    If the House is successful in doing what it is clearly attempting to do now – to impeach the President under “novel” interpretations of legal statutes which have been rejected(!) by the actual Justice system – then “there would be no end to the subsequent Mischief.” If a particular political party found itself in simultaneous control of both Houses, but with a President of the opposite Party, then it could simply and without impunity approve Articles of Impeachment until it had ratcheted its way down the Chain of Succession to arrive at a President of its own choosing. And, if the evil Precedent had been set that “this fateful decision is Congress’s alone,” there would never be any end to it. The delicately-conceived Separation of Powers imagined by our Founders would be thereby forever destroyed … as they had anticipated.

    No, we do not want to go there.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dutchman says:

      M.R.
      IF I am understanding SD correctly, the ‘plan’ is NOT to actually go to the point of Impeachment. They know they haven’t got enough to give RepubliCons in Senate cover, to vote to convict.
      (No falling into perjury or obstruction “trap”).

      So, there plan, as I get it, is to use these hearings LIKE an Impeachment hearing, without actually ever bringing Impeachment to a vote.

      In effect, its another “make a baseless argument (like muh Russia, Stormy Daniels, 26the amendment, etc.) and keep repeating it.
      This time the accusation is (I guess)
      “PDJT is,..IMPEACHABLE”
      With some explanation that because Repubs control Senate, they can’t actually impeach, but he COULD be impeached, because he committed obstruction.

      Its like abolish the electoral college, cause THATS why they lost.

      And the idea is they hang THAT around his neck for 2020. I see no way it can work.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        I think what MR is advising is cutting this off at the pass…..now.

        This “process” (if you can even call it that) the Dems are pursuing are a STEP towards what the Founders were concerned about regarding the use of the IMPEACHMENT POWER they granted themselves SOLELY.

        The constitutional definition of a
        “High Crime and Misdemeanor” at it’s most basic is this:

        What a majority of the House says it is that 2/3 of the Senate agree.

        So….in theory…..
        Trump could be impeached and removed because they say his haircut is a “high crime”

        and there is NOTHING anybody could do to stop it
        short of weaponry.

        Like

        • Dutchman says:

          I understand what he is saying. What Dems are attempting to do is what S Powell explained re lawfare.

          Taking one part of one law, one part of another, mixing together and ignoring inconvenient parts of both that say “you can’t DO this!”.

          And they are doing it to Constitition, now. And, “don’t worry about tomorrow” as in being ‘overturned’.

          I don’t see it working, but they are damned and detirmined to try.

          Liked by 2 people

      • I would not assume that they would not pursue actual Impeachment, nor(!) would I assume that the matter could not advance in the Senate. The coup could succeed!

        What specifically concerns me here is the principle, which could be disastrous if allowed to become un-challenged precedent.

        In the case of both Nixon and Bill Clinton, there was clear violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes. (As with Hillary Clinton, also.) These determinations could be made by the Justice Department. And, the perpetrators in this case also attempted to use the Justice Department to frame Donald Trump. However, in Trump’s case, the official judicial decision was that there was not criminality.

        This is where the extremely dangerous attempt at precedent begins. Although the Constitution proscribes a strict separation of powers, and accords law enforcement power only to the Judicial and Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch is now attempting to become a [Kangaroo] Court of Law, and therein to apply a “novel interpretation of the Law” which has been rejected by the actual Justice system to evict the Officeholder. In this case, perhaps for having the audacity to fire James Comey … they say, “with corrupt intent.” According to them alone.

        As a matter of Law, Mueller did reach a determination about Collusion, and then, Barr did reach a determination about Obstruction. But now the House is attempting to take the law into its own hands – to adopt “novel” standards that the Justice system does not use in order to accomplish a blatantly political act which our Founders anticipated and expressly sought to avoid.

        If this were allowed to become precedent, a future [say …] Republican President & Veep, faced with a simultaneously Democratic House and Senate, could be impeached on Inauguration Day, for any “high crime” that the Congress saw fit and without regard to any Court, in order to supervene the will of the people and install the Speaker of the House as President. We would no longer be able to elect a President – the Congress would install an officer of their own choosing. Don’t say “this couldn’t happen in America” folks, because the Founders knew damned well that it could.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          Have you read Dershs op ed? He makes the same legal and Constitutional arguments, and says thats why, IF it were to happen, PDJT could REFUSE to step down and appeal it to SCOTUS, on that basis and prevail.
          And, while we are all expressing opinions here, I agree with SD, that they are no longer moving to ACTUAL impeachment, they are attempting a virtual impeachment, trying to ‘dirty up’the President by planting the idea that he committed impeachable offences, was colluding with russia and obstructing, but because they can’t get R’s to vote to impeach “WE” should vote him out in 2020.

          I don’t see,it working, any more than any of their plans since,2016, but they will try.

          Like

          • I think that Dershowitz has his own strange opinions. My views don’t align with his.

            My beef is that the President can be impeached only for specific reasons: “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is clear by implication that this would be something that would be followed by the full criminal process including conviction by the courts. However, the Constitution also very carefully points out that impeachment, itself, is not a criminal indictment: it is only the removal from office.

            Therefore: “high crimes and misdemeanors” … sez who?

            Our actual Justice system did “officially say,” and what they said is “No.” If President Trump were to be thrown out of the White House, he would walk out the door a free man – facing no Federal charges at all. He would have been convicted by a Congress that took upon itself powers that it is not accorded, which used a standard of law which the Justice system itself does not use, to find a crime that the legal system says doesn’t exist.

            As a matter of Law, the legal system reached what was to these bozos “the wrong answer.” But they did reach it. Furthermore, they reached it upon review of both Volumes of the Report that is to be considered by these Committees – weighing its content and legal theories based on the legal standards actually used by the Justice system, not some lawyer’s aggressive fantasies built on the latter half of a single sentence.

            If the legal system officially concluded that the answer is “No,” I do not believe that the Congress is accorded any authority to say “Yes.” Transparently, that would be nothing more than politics masquerading as law – as in this case. We know that the Founders anticipated this. They intended impeachment to be an Act of Congress, but one precipitated by a bona fide legal finding, not personal disdain or revulsion.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Dutchman says:

              I understand your position, and respect it. And, the reasoning for your objections. You are looking at it from a legalistic and Constitutional view, and precedent.
              I am looking at it as a Political matter.
              Give the Uniparty Dems a “C” for consistency, they are once again trying to have their cake and eat it to, or have their desert without first eating their vegetables.

              I fully agree with you that what they are attempting to do is WRONG, Legally, Constitutionally, Precedent-wise and well, just plain WRONG.

              THEY DON’T CARE. They ate hell bent detirmined to self emolate, and aren’t going to let anyone or anything stop them.

              So be it.

              Liked by 1 person

              • But, when I consider (as Mr. Barr also did, then writing as a private citizen) what this precedent would mean for the Republic, I am frightened. I think that we should vigorously pursue it on Constitutional grounds – notwithstanding any “we don’t wanna get involved” prior decisions by the SCOTUS. We should not permit it to become a precedent – we should pre-emptively fight back.

                This case is fundamentally different from other cases brought which led the SCOTUS to wash its hands of the question. If you don’t have a high crime, you can’t impeach. When the Justice Department, applying the standards of the actual law, concludes that there is no evidence, Congress can’t thereafter take the same material and draw the opposite conclusion, thereby making the purely-subjective (political) decisions that the Founders sought to prevent as well as subjecting the officer to – in effect – double jeopardy.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Dutchman says:

                  We pick our battles. I think this will play out in such a way that we will get the result you want, by different means;
                  Like a number of these “lawfare” tactics, it will blow up in their faces, and NO ONE will consider this approach, as it will be roundly rejected as blowing back on the perpetrators.
                  The Dems gotta dem, and sometimes you just have to let them.
                  Anyway, great discussion, but I am DONE on this topic. I gotta book to write, waterpump to install, etc.
                  So, “We’ll see what happens!”

                  Liked by 1 person

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      Them Founders…..
      smart dudes
      really smart.

      Foresaw “flaws”…..even those they couldn’t foresee.

      Like

  29. AccountabilityPlease says:

    If the closed sessions are not classified, the GOP should record their own transcript to refute the Dimm lies that are sure to follow.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NC Patriot says:

      The point is Weismann will lie,lie.lie——-and his lies will be constructed to damage POTUS. Recording his lies will not help. His lies could be used by the House to bring impeachment proceedings. That is the plan.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Bryan Alexander says:

    So, there is gonna be a closed door joint committee meeting, but there will be no transcript nor recording of the meeting? That is beyond incredible. They will be able to say absolutely anything and there will be no way to rebut it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Beau Geste says:

      The purpose of “no recording” is most likely to prevent perjury claims against weissman and the SC coup crew when they embellish. If not recorded and not under oath, there is no record of lying, yet the dems can make their embellished representations of “extra secret proof not available to the public which AG Barr ignored”.
      If they were under oath, subject to fact checking and conflicting testimony, that would be a real problem for the coup plotters. So, it is a defensive, self-protective manuever.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The only credible defense is the published Report itself, which is the entirety of what these people will be meeting about. The House is attempting a blatantly Unconstitutional act of convicting a person of a “high crime” – they cannot “convict” – and doing so according to a legal standard which the actual Judicial system has officially rejected, and “behind closed doors” where the accused cannot confront his accusers.

        Yes, in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, the constitutionality of this maneuver must be directly and timely challenged. These people want to turn our Constitution on its head in a way from which we would not recover.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rob says:

      Just the same, how will they use any of the info against Trump if they can’t prove it was discussed?

      Like

  31. Neel says:

    Someone will ask for sure

    Weismann decision’s was overturned by Supreme Court 9-0 and He was Hiliary clinton

    Why the hell did you hire him?

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Bill says:

    These people have ZERO fear of Barr!…ZERO!..on TV..writing books . Still cooking up crap like this brazenly!!!!..the SC is under the DOJ..why can’t Barr interject himself into this…say..force the closed door session to be transcribed….what..naddy…shifty going to shut it down?…when does anyone have to face justice???. Or is the answer what I fear….never!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Linus in W.PA. says:

    We need to see a prominent dirt nap to serve as a clear signal that Hell is coming to breakfast.

    Otherwise, we’re getting smoked like a cheap cigar. Remember, there are actually people that believe that Russia helped Trump win the election.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. kaste668 says:

    Pray this all backfires right back on the communist dems.

    Like

  35. Rob says:

    What are the odds of someone sneaking in a recording device to the closed door sessions to document what was said?

    Like

  36. iconoclast says:

    When do we expect the next report from Horowitz, and what effect, if any, will that have, on Mueller’s testimony?

    Like

  37. Ellis says:

    The American public has moved on from Mueller and I expect little new information regarding president Trump. The end results will not change.

    This is more dangerous for the democrats because the republicans can ask a lot of questions that will deligitimize the report even further than it already has been. The republicans also have the opportunity to leak from the closed sessions. This is a media event that will last for a couple of days in the news cycle with zero consequence to Trump.

    Like

  38. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

    I believe that this case is distinct from every other Impeachment case (or potential case) that has ever come before the SCOTUS, because:

    (1) The evidence was accumulated in an exhaustive and expensive investigation as described.

    (2) The Justice Department evaluated it and rendered a prosecutorial judgment that there was not sufficient evidence, in all of (1), to conclude either collusion or obstruction. The standard interpretations of the applicable laws were used. The accused therefore will face no federal charges.

    (3) Howbeit, then, that the House would take it upon itself to consider the same material, and, apparently using a novel interpretation of the law known only to itself, decide (by an act of Impeachment that must by law be because of “high crimes and misdemeanors”) that such a crime did somehow occur? Thus contradicting and superseding the actions of the Branch(es) who are tasked with that determination, and subjecting the accused to a form of double jeopardy.

    Unconstitutional! And we should be pre-emptively making that case right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Dave Mitchell says:

    Some random thoughts…

    I don’t know how/who controls audience demographics for the closed door testimony with Weissmann etc all, but prominently seated in the audience should be Sydney Powell, Gregg Jarrett, Joe DiGenova, Victoria Toensig, Sara Carter, John Solomon…there are others as well who should hear first hand the spin that is inevitable and can counter it with their media platforms/presence. Knowing that this public scrutiny of testimony offered may give Weismann et al some cause for concern/“truthiness”

    In a similar vein, in the audience at Mueller’s testimony should be the executives from Arthur Anderson who spent time in jail based on Weismann’s hugely flawed and fraudulent prosecution in the Enron case. Somebody needs to point these individuals out in their questioning, reference that the verdict was overturned 9-0 in the Supreme Court and ask Mueller if this is the kind of individual that should have been running the Russia interference “investigation”. Innocent people went to jail, an entire accounting firm was destroyed, thousands of peoples lives were destroyed and the Supreme Court overturned the entire case 9-0. Couldn’t you find a better lawyer from within the entire DoJ for this “investigation”?

    Prior to Mueller’s testimony, Ms Powell should send an autographed copy of her book, License to Lie, to every committee member (both R and D), as well as to Mueller and every other member of the “prosecutorial team”. Would be nice if Ms Powell included the following in her inscription to Weismann in particular: “Andrew, I enjoyed writing this examination of your prior prosecutorial methods and integrity. I relish the opportunity to follow it up with an update based on your most recent activities. I look forward to reading your announced new book; I’ll wait until i’ve had a chance to read it and research your claims and contentions until I write mine…”

    This whole charade is depressing…

    Like

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 )

Connecting to %s