AG Bill Barr One-on-One With Wall Street Journal…

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sits down with the Wall Street Journal to discuss the information released within the IG report on FBI 2016 election surveillance against candidate Trump; and FISA exploitation for use therein.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Impeachment, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to AG Bill Barr One-on-One With Wall Street Journal…

  1. Greg says:

    How does this reconcile with the bagpipe photo theme that is typically shown for Barr. This seems very good. If he was just about protecting FBI institution then it seems like he and Durham would have stayed silent with release of IG FISA report. He’s actually fanning the flames instead.

    Liked by 24 people

    • J.Thomas says:

      Barr is doing this quite intelligently. He’s only making statements in venues where he can develop the full story, free of the cacophony of the politicized cable news shows. He reveals himself to be quite bright, above reproach, and truly convicted by the wrongdoing here.

      The more this thing unrolls, the worse it gets and he’s allowing it to unroll in full view of all of us. You can feel the turn happening…the silencing of those who propagated this nonsense. When the full knowledge of this filters through our culture, it will leave a permanent shift behind. Im not sure we fully grasp just what this report contains yet..it presents so much to be sorted through.

      Liked by 26 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        Yes, and he made sure he “uroll[ed] in full view of all of us” enough to lead into the questioning of Horowitz on the Hill tomorrow as he knew the Dems would yell, “IG found nothing untoward” to the heavens all day. They can try that now but it won’t do any good after the couple of interviews Barr gave today.

        Liked by 12 people

        • J.Thomas says:

          Barr is absolutely a patriot. He is laying the factual, legal, ethical, and philosophical groundwork by which to push back the globalist “Resistance” at the expense of the American constitution and the civil liberties it enshrines.

          Many of us (myself included) desire vengeance and retribution in the same manner by which we feel the guys on our side were treated. They were destroyed. Manafort, Flynn, Page, PapaD, Stone, Caputo, etc. Destroyed….treated unjustly beyond our worst nightmares.

          Barr is asking us if our vengeance is just. Is it? Im not sure, but these people (and us, who were wronged by the political weaponization of multiple government agencies during Obama’s administration) deserve justice.

          Mr. Barr, you are the man our God chose for this time to deliver justice. Many are praying for you and for justice.

          Without justice there cannot be mercy, nor can there be peace.

          Liked by 13 people

          • Mark L. says:

            He is preparing the battlefield.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Kitty-Kat says:

            Every time the president mentions Barr it is accompanied by a rave about how great he is, it has confused me, due to the great amount of harsh criticism of Barr by loyal President Trump supporters.

            The president hired Barr, and I’m very happy the president’s opinion of Barr is being vindicated. Otherwise it is a mark against the president’s ability to pick winners.

            Like

            • Forteous says:

              I was very disappointed by Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, & Kelly; Sessions the most. The other 3 were likely based on recommendations from donor class & swampy GOPe. Trump can’t know everything or everyone which is likely why he’s acted on bad advice. It does appear though that many of the early duds are getting cycled out with picks from the latter part of his 1st term showing their merit. Perhaps he’s dialed in who to listen to and who to ignore?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Adele Virtue says:

                Tillerson did reduce the size of the DOS though and that was helpful. Mattis lead to the take out of the ISIS caliphate and was on the same page as Trump until Trump said he wanted to withdraw from Syria and Afgan, something Mattis did not agree with, Kelly also helped clear out and expose others who were no good in the administration. All in all I feel they did the job Trump hired them to do. As any good business man though, when they no longer serve their purpose, get rid of them. sessions other than the Russia recusal did a lot of good things. He is who got the epstein probe going, he hired Durham and huber but never announced he hired Durham. He worked on the immigration mess and many other things. Pretty much the only thing he didn’t do was Russia. How do you know that was not from design, with him not dealing with Russia he was able to get all the other things done. Just my honest opinion is all.

                Like

          • Matt Bracken says:

            Liked by 2 people

      • 4gypsybreeze says:

        I watched the NBC and then this interview. How many times have there been complaints that so many people only watch MSM media to get their news. How many people will see the interview on just NBC alone that will listen and begin to question what the media and other people have been telling them. Laughed at his jab right in the face of the NBC guy when he called them out.

        Then on the WSJ when he stated they are all gone. People who have been following what is going on, we know who and how many of the FBI are gone that were associated in all of this that are “all gone”. But……think of all the people who will be watching that DONT know. How many people will question what is going on…

        Barr laid out the responsibility of the IG, laid out that there is a prosecutor, that the investigation was started because of “bar talk”, etc. I would put money on -that a lot of people watching the interviews are just wondering what the heck is REALLY going on.
        And final thoughts were that he is educating. And…well golly isn’t he just a red pill dispenser with these interviews…go figure.

        Would love to see him do an interview with old Chuck Todd and Williams. That would be interesting.

        Sundance, I read your summary of Barr after I watched the interviews. I still stand that if nothing else he is educating, and chance of some red pills being dispensed….and now know to watch to see now what is actually done.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Doc Hellfish says:

        I think one of the delights of the coming collapse of the left will be flyover country indulging in victemhood status and beat the left over the head with it like an hammer until it breaks.

        Like

    • ms doodlebug says:

      It doesn’t reconcile which is leading me to question the intent of using the bagpipe photo theme.

      Like

      • Marc says:

        Declassification STILL hasn’t occurred. What’s Ruby Ridge Barr waiting for?

        Like

        • Declassification isn’t the gold ring no matter how much you would it to be. Solid investigation (no leaks) and subsequent prosecution and ultimately conviction of ALL the culpable parties is. Give the cry for declass a rest

          Liked by 1 person

          • Despicable Me says:

            Meant to say……no matter how much you would like it to be.

            Liked by 1 person

          • LULU says:

            Thank you, DM…

            Like

          • Marc says:

            Don’t be spouting this line to us next year and the year after, please. Convict one and work from there. This idea of all the culprits going down at once is some Q-tier lunacy.

            Like

            • Despicable Me says:

              I have never followed the Q nonsense so you missed your target here but you were certainly triggered.

              BTW, go back and read my original post to see what I actually said instead of what the you imputed to me. I’ll save you the time, you’ll see that I didn’t say that everyone was going down at the same time. You mistakenly inferred that, not me. I actually only said that all of the culpable need to go down. The first of which will likely be, if AG Barr is to be believed (and I think he is and has shown himself to be believable), in Spring 2020.

              Prosecuting conspiracy is a bit more complicated than prosecuting the trumped up false statement process crimes that the Special Counsel prosecuted. As AG Barr rightly acknowledged in the WSJ interview with a “yuge” smile, “These things take time.” He and Durham are up to the task and are on it as much as Sessions and Huber were not.

              If you can’t see the positive significant distinction between Barr/Durham and Sessions/Huber well enough that it gives one pause for cautious optimism without maligning them Q-think, well, there’s not much else to say except god speed to your negativism.

              Like

        • ms doodlebug says:

          Oh, I don’t know. Do you ever play poker? Usually the last one to lay his cards on the table is the one with the winning hand.

          Like

          • Marc says:

            This is not a game.

            Like

            • Despicable Me says:

              Good grief Marc! Ms. Doodlebug was using poker as an analogy and didn’t say she saw this as a game. However, I am willing to bet that some of the bad actors see this as nothing more than a game or a perhaps a gamble because that is how they’ve played it so far. AG Barr doesn’t appear to play games so they are most likely (and hopefully) in for some serious reckoning.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Adele Virtue says:

          PUBLIC Delcass has not happened, but how do we know that declass has not happened in the investigations that are ongoing. If FBI and DOJ had been using classified as a cover against Durham and Barr declasses things we would not be told because of the investigation still going on. JMHO

          Liked by 2 people

    • iPack says:

      He just told you “They’re all gone.” Nobody is going to be prosecuted – period. Full stop.

      Liked by 3 people

      • ann says:

        I picked up on that too. ✅

        Liked by 2 people

      • neev1031 says:

        I read it differently, iPack. He elaborated on the difference between the IG & Durham. Durham is spreading a wide net – Brennan had mentioned that he was going to be interviewed. That does not automatically lead to indictment but Durham already has evidence of perjury.

        We will see the results we want. We have waited three years – a few more months is not a problem

        Liked by 9 people

      • 4gypsybreeze says:

        How many people in that room probably didn’t know that? I would say…quite a few didn’t. We know because we have been keeping up with all this mess. But so many people haven’t gotten into the weeds of it as much as we Treepers. How many red pills from just that interview alone. The NBC was a good one too. Not taking up for Barr, just my take on the interviews. Probably educated quite a few people who only flip on the nightly news in the evening to find out what is going on. How many Liberals/Democrats were tuning into WSJ that wouldn’t watch cable news or a conservative website? Doubt is a mighty strong thing. Same as statements of nothing going to happen. Self defeating. And doubt may lead some to find the truth. And finding the truth is a good thing.

        I will sit back and watch as it all unfolds.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tl Howard says:

        I think the “collusion” or “conspiracy” is underlined by his “they’re all gone.” I think he wants a couple of three of the big, big heads as he underscores people “at the top of these places” in each interview.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bootstoyou says:

        I believe that Barr was cutting off the MSM from spinning the report. Barr also reassured Americans that there was criminal action by the spying deep state. Finally Barr put those in the deep state on notice that they are not clear of justice.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The Dark Lord says:

        I think he means that because they are all out of the FBI/DOJ the IG was not able to interview them …
        hmmm … if an ex FBI agent (and is an ex for malfeasance) is prosecuted does that really leave a stain on the institution … I don’t think so … so even if he wants to “protect” the institutions then going after the ex members doesn’t hurt the institution … the IG report itself hurts the institution … going after the crooks can only IMPROVE the image of the FBI/DOJ …

        Liked by 3 people

      • LULU says:

        If they committed prosecutable crimes, their being “gone” would not preclude their prosecution.

        If I was found to have embezzled a gazillion dollars a few years ago, before I left the company, I could still be prosecuted for embezzlement.

        We are mixing up HR crimes – failures to observe policies and procedures (not prosecutable offenses) and criminal acts.

        Like

      • ms doodlebug says:

        If no one is going to be prosecuted why did Durham’s ‘inquiry’ become a criminal investigation?

        Like

    • rondonmonson says:

      I have always thought he was a White Knight, he had no reason to return to a low paying Gov. job at the end of his career, EXCEPT, his duty to country mandated this was his time to serve God and Country in her hour of need. He saw what we saw and knew it was his duty to clear this pig sty up.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Zippy says:

      Blah, blah, blah. Put up or shut up.

      Like

    • flatlandgoober says:

      One way to clear a room of rats is to turn on the lights, watch where they run to hide, and then start picking them off.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. TarsTarkas says:

    Barr’s media offense is obviously intended to blunt the MSM effort to spin the Horowitz report as exoneration which it isn’t. Whether one believes Barr will follow through with indictments or not, he’s at least he’s on the attack instead of defense, something typical Republicans rarely do.

    Liked by 25 people

    • Tl Howard says:

      Loved that he said this crazy stuff only survived because the press played it up.

      Liked by 7 people

    • T Carroll says:

      Barr is a White Hat. To me it is obvious that he’s going to go after the bastards.

      Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Well, Barr is at least talking about the crimes that have been done, although he hasn’t yet called any of the coup team’s actions “crimes”.

      Then at about 16:30, in response to the interviewer’s question about white collar crimes, Barr explains why no one of the officials who were part of the coup have yet been indicted or put in jail – the DOJ requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they indict anyone.

      So THAT implies a couple of possibilities.
      1. Barr-Durham do NOT have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any laws being broken by any coup conspirator. (Seems rather unlikely).
      2. Durham just has not gotten a case ready to take to a GJ (maybe that’s why in the previous interview with NBC, Barr mentioned late spring early summer 2020 when things will break open…)
      3. Durham HAS presented a case/cases to a GJ and has only obtained sealed indictments so far.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Zippy says:

        There have already been serious and obvious violations of the law described in Horowitz’s report:

        1. Modification of an email from the CIA claiming that Page was a FRIENDLY asset modified to say that he wasn’t.
        2. Renewal of the FISA warrant AFTER it’s contents were found to be and KNOWN to be pure garbage.

        That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

        And, BTW, Durham’s report, which isn’t guaranteed to be released to the public (!), won’t be out until the spring or summer of 2020.

        Liked by 1 person

        • OlderAndWiser says:

          There is talk of the FISC disciplining the guilty parties involved in the fake FISA applications. Let’s see what comes of that.
          As to Clinesmith, I would suspect that he has already been questioned in front of a grand jury and that his indictment is sealed while Durham works his way up. Did Clinesmith act alone? Does he know of others who did nefarious things? No point tipping your hand too early.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Despicable Me says:

          Zippy. I would be very much surprised if the two items you mentioned aren’t included in the charges brought by USA Durham. Also, unlike IG Horowitz, Durham is NOT in the business of providing a report of his team’s efforts The results of Durham’s work will be unveiled within in a federal court of law.

          Like

        • GB Bari says:

          I agree, so reasonable people will assume that the AG & Durham would agree to prosecute the perpetrators.

          Like

      • Despicable Me says:

        No prosecutor worth his/her salt would ever seek an indictment in any case (much less than high profile case such as these and there will be multiple subjects of indictment) before he/she has assembled enough evidence to convince a jury of the subject’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Like

        • GB Bari says:

          Fully Agree, that’s why I suggested those three possibilities from my limited view. But I’m just spitballin’ here so if I missed another option , by all means please add it.

          Like

    • Mark says:

      Barr talks a good game but so far NO ONE has been held the slightest bit accountable. Brennan is shooting his mouth off now. This is garbage. I think Tom Fitton nailed it. Durham is going to produce yet another report but there will be no indictments. Why hasn’t McCabe been indicted?

      Liked by 2 people

      • T Carroll says:

        “Barr talks a good game but so far NO ONE has been held the slightest bit accountable”.

        Didn’t you hear what he was saying? Jump the gun and lose the race. He’s dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. He can’t let them get away on technicalities or “reasonable doubt”.

        Wake up..

        Liked by 3 people

      • T Carroll says:

        “Barr talks a good game but so far NO ONE has been held the slightest bit accountable”.

        Didn’t you hear what he was saying? Jump the gun and lose the race. He’s dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. He can’t let them get away on technicalities or “reasonable doubt”.

        Wake up..

        Like

      • T Carroll says:

        “Barr talks a good game but so far NO ONE has been held the slightest bit accountable”.

        Didn’t you hear what he was saying? Jump the gun and lose the race. He’s dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. He can’t let them get away on technicalities or “reasonable doubt”.

        Wake up..

        Like

      • Despicable Me says:

        Untrue! Comey, McCabe, Strzok, L. Page, Baker, Kortan and Clinesmith have been held accountable and as a consequence are no longer drawing on the taxpayers dime and that is before USA Durham is finished with any of them and where the real consequences will be meted out,

        Like

  3. vikingmom says:

    Sundance – does this interview change your views on Barr in any way? I don’t know what to think but I am slightly encouraged that he does seem to be pushing back pretty hard against the conclusions of the Horowitz Report.

    Liked by 14 people

    • sundance says:

      An arrest will change my opinion….

      Liked by 27 people

    • ILOT says:

      I can’t speak for SD or the many other posters that referred to Mr. Barr as “Bondo Barr” or a “fixer”. I can say I’ve taken issue with those monikers on MANY occasions and remind them of a number of issues…all just observations from a chump in flyover country.
      1. PDJT and the “art of the deal”. He will not let this go absent justice, it’s not in his DNA and he is working this all back to him for a play, perhaps a grand bargain of sorts. I still think there is only a 40% chance PDJT is actually impeached.
      2. Mr. Barr at the outset said he would look at “policy and procedures” at which time many came unhinged he stepped over “treason”, I found comfort in Mr. Barrs approach and how he shied away from the hyper political treason allegations, even though it may be that.
      3. I felt it was a soft coup back in early 2017 and it wasn’t hard to ID. The fact is if successful it’s the end of the Republic. Allowing it to go unpunished spells the same end result. Mr. Barr sees what we all see in that the Office of the President is under constant and violent assault. Mr. Barrs speech at the Federalist Society supports his historical perspective on equal branches / powers etc and he’s even called out the media.
      4. The “small group” as is referred to here is small enough, and the actions egregious enough that it can be taken out without entirely compromising the institutions. Nearly ALL of the IC is damaged goods of their own doing, the small group only needs to convince the public that the damage was inflicted by PDJT. It’s not working and now that the former top echelon is attacking Mr. Barr, it’s fully exposed. Lawyers, actors and politicians don’t have to be right or even do the right thing…they ONLY need to be convincing. Right now those groups on the left are failing to convince = so they better wise up and do right.
      5. Mr. Barr was approved with 100% Senate support in 1991 and a mere 54 Senators (GOP) supported him in 2019. That spells partisan fear to me.
      6. Finally, in the back drop is the Ukraine geo-political debacle(s) that dovetails with the corruption on display state side. Just in terms of $ impact, the small group is chump change in comparison.

      Folks are seeing what I felt all along…PDJT WILL survive this and that fact has people making choices. Different choices than they made 2 years ago when they were sure he wouldn’t.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Angel Martin says:

      Ignore what they say. Watch what they do.

      How’s the declassification going ? For one, look at the un-necessary redactions in this OIG report.

      Barr is an Executive Branch powers guy. A wholesale exposure of DOJ/FBI /Intel Bureaucracy corruption and misconduct would weaken the Executive Branch – so Barr won’t do it.

      God willing, Trump re-elected to a 2nd term may be able to really go after Deep State dirtbags – starting with Swamp Man Wray. But he will have to replace Barr to do it.

      Pray for President Trump !

      Liked by 1 person

      • Zippy says:

        “How’s the declassification going ?”

        SD has pointed that out that big old horse fly in the Barr ointment.

        “For one, look at the un-necessary redactions in this OIG report.”

        Another clue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Despicable Me says:

        The dates of the FISA application approvals and expiration dates for the Carter Page (CP) FISA, while redacted, can be intuited based on the date of the first one (10/21/16) detailed in the executive summary (the initial CP FISA date was curiously NOT similarly redacted and could have been a simple oversight or perhaps an effort by someone to provide a datapoint for those paying attention to figure out the other dates). Using the stated date of the first CP FISA of 10/21/16 and factoring in the 90-day duration limit of FISAs of US persons you get this likely timeline:

        The initial CP FISA was approved by DAG Yates and signed by the FISC on 10/21/16 (expiring 01/18/17)

        The 1st renewal was approved by DAG Boente and signed by the FISC on 01/13/17 (expiring 04/12/17)

        The 2nd-3rd renewals were approved by DAG Rosenstein and signed by the FISC on 04/07/17 (expiring 07/05/17)and 06/30/17 (expiring 09/27/17)

        I’m still going through report and putting together my own timeline with IG details meshed with things we know from other sources. Good stuff in the IG report.

        Liked by 1 person

    • ms doodlebug says:

      I don’t see it so much as pushing back on Horowitz’s report as it is saying there’s more to it beyond the narrow investigation of the IG. Horowitz repeatedly testified that there is a very low bar for initiating an investigation and that his investigation had a limited scope. But even so he was very forthcoming that only the first FISA application could be legitimate. The others were not.

      Like

  4. CopperTop says:

    Barr paraphrase. “Cannot see why and there is no explanation why, they never went to the campaign to tell them of the Russian threat….{wait for it}…ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WENT TO THE RUSSIANS. Obama called Putin himself but he couldn’t talk to someone on the President’s campaign?”

    Liked by 33 people

    • CopperTop says:

      “Aug 4 they contacted Russia”
      “President Obama directly in September”

      Barr had those dates top of mind for this interview

      Liked by 16 people

      • WhiteBoard says:

        seee the clues

        both dates are prior to the Fisa warrant 0ct 2016.

        both are communications prior.

        to me thats looks like communication – we cant define what type that is yet.

        a guilty person would call the communication a defensive briefing

        an investigator mind find that communication was coordination ( and when it didnt work, many russians were eliminated by someone to clean the evidence, i think 10 – 11?; deaths on our soil. assasinations in public overseas in crowds.. etcc)

        Liked by 4 people

      • joeknuckles says:

        They were talking to Russia 4 days after supposedly opening the investigation? It sounds more like they were coordinating with Russia.

        Liked by 5 people

        • ann says:

          Or these accusatory commmunications w Russia, Brennan & Obama, were done to prop up their narrative of implicating Russia & Trump. That’s how I perceive the claims.

          Why is Hillary’s UNPUNISHED COMPROMISE of Intell not mention3d as the source of the entire to do?
          How do they figure she’s a victim & its ONLY Russia? That sounds like an invented explanation, it doesn’t ring true intuitively or with known facts & pattern of behavior.

          .
          Neither of these “hacks” are credibly verified as having a Russia connection. We are expected to believe DWS, Brazille & Clinton? Please, spare me.

          Liked by 5 people

      • CopperTop says:

        “Certainly Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions were not Russian assets. What’s wrong with telling them?”

        Catherine Herridge has vigorously highlighted text that talks about High Office campaign staff engaged in ‘consensual’ cooperation
        pic.twitter.com/zXJR1dLlbx

        (the above tweet says “a High Level campaign person agreed to ‘consensual monitoring’).

        Well did Barr just hint that Chris Christie is that person…and that the President was never told that Obama called him after calling Putin (or something like that).

        “One of the investigative techniques that the FBI may use in predicated
        investigations is consensual monitoring, which means the monitoring and/or
        recording of conversations, telephone calls, and electronic communications based
        on the consent of one party involved, such as an FBI CHS. 1”

        Like

        • Carrie says:

          Someone else posted again that it was Chris Christie who recommended Wray for the FBI. Well, that speaks volumes.

          Liked by 5 people

        • ms doodlebug says:

          What she highlighted says a ‘CHS’ consented to recording a conversation, not that individuals or a high level campaign person consented to it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • CopperTop says:

            I re-read. I initially thought the same as you ms dodlebug. Then asked about who would a high level person talk to… if CHS was talking to high level campaign person…that means the CHS would have to be ‘high’ level to go talk to that person.

            There’s nothing in this that indicates the CHS is overseas to indicate it’s a Halper, Mifsud…convo being referenced. So it’s a stateside CHS.

            “Is Christie a Russian agent.?” Hell no but, did he end up with his own Delta file??? Possible.

            Barr saying surely Christie/Sessions are not working with Russians why not tell them…seems a little too specific to be an innocent name drop.

            Liked by 1 person

            • CopperTop says:

              I should stipulate that I’m only taking the question to all ends. I suspect this CHS is the law enforcement officer that Gowdy referenced about the time he was leaving as being in trouble because:

              Even if consenting a law enforcement officer cannot record a phone call in a single party consent.

              IF that’s the case than IG is omitting that the FBI approved the consent oppo on the ‘single party’ laws but failed to understand a Federal agent cannot by definition be a single party consenter. (Gowdy said settled case law…he never referenced case)

              Like

            • ms doodlebug says:

              Or…it could be someone like Patrick Byrne who got sucked into the FBI intrigue to introduce Maria Butina to prominent Republicans. AG Barr may have named Sessions and Christy because he specifically knows they were not working with Russians so it would be safe to talk to them.

              Like

    • trump20162024 says:

      AG Barr won’t publicly say the obvious, at least not yet, so I will. Obozo and his bots were attempting to ENTRAP the Trumpster, not protect the election. What is the penalty for attempted entrapment?

      Liked by 6 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        Yes, like you I feel that AG Barr is dropping hints at “entrapment” only he chooses not to come out and use that word just yet. He’s building up, little by little, to saying in a future setting just like these two that it has become evident, that is “there is a bunch of evidence now” that tells us there was 1) a conspiracy in that there were people working together to 2) FRAME the candidate Trump, the POTUS-Elect Trump, and then the President of the United States and that conspiracy persisted into the very third year of his Presidency with attempt to impeach him….thus the outright lies by one Adam Schiff, thus, the lack of transparency in the actual impeachment proceedings. Yes, to Frame.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jederman says:

        What is the penalty for the president in a current administration using the resources of his executive office to sabotage the presidential campaign of his political opposition, then taking active measures against his political opposition once he is elected?

        Like

      • Zippy says:

        As Dan Bongino has pointed out, the BHO WH was already conducting surveillance of political adversaries like General Flynn who was critical of their Iran policies, long before they were doing the same to Trump. Hundreds of unmaskings anyone? Also, remember when the Russians were kicked out of their Virginia resort for spying? That was timed for when Flynn was out of country so his call to the Russian ambassador would be virtually guaranteed and monitoring it technically less illegal since he wasn’t within the CONUS. And what legally justified the NSA (or ?) to monitor THAT call, the transcript of which the FBI had in their hands during their “You don’t need your lawyer” ambush questioning of Flynn?

        This scandal goes much, -MUCH- deeper that “just” THE MOST SERIOUS POLITICAL SCANDAL IN US HISTORY which was the spying on Trump and Co. and if EVERYONE significantly involved in that isn’t put in BUBBA PRISON for it, you can consider real justice in this country is DEAD. I have near -ZERO- confidence that anyone will be.

        And now, back to your regularly scheduled games and circuses…

        Like

    • ILOT says:

      There is but on explanation and Mr. Barr knows it! They couldn’t warn the campaign about Russia because there were no Russians. In strzoks own words…”there is no there, there”.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. mikeyboo says:

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/12/10/my-theory-on-what-barr-and-durham-are-doing/
    I urge people to read this powerful, thought full analysis by Rush Limbaugh as to what Barr is taking on and what he is trying to accomplish.

    Liked by 14 people

    • WhiteBoard says:

      i think this website has it correct. Barr knows he has to defend the institutions and make them stand. he has to deal with what WE ALREADY KNOW (per constant informing from this site). the institution does not stand (all based on trust and illusion like all societal norms are; nothing stopping anarchy truly just look at how the projects can make police whimper and walk out with their tails tucked).

      because of us being informed, Barr must prosecute to the level that meets WHAT WE KNOW ( and know in a large enough population percentage that it MATTERS)

      if we want people held accountable – we must inform as many people as possible in a beleiveable way TO GET THAT STATISTICAL NUMBER OF people that know into one that MATTERS. BARR will not LET the TRUST in the INSTITUTIONS FAIL CAUSE IT SO< SO GOES THE REPUBLIC. (as the site says – i didnt intend to not pay my taxes, etc,,)

      Liked by 3 people

      • MNBV says:

        Nonsense, the Institutions only fall if their current management goes on unhindered. Put Joe G as AG, our problems with DoJ disappear.
        Your contention that corrupt Institutions are ok and must remain so because…”we need Institutions” is silly.
        Lay waste Barr.

        Liked by 1 person

    • vikingmom says:

      A very thorough analysis and I certainly hope and pray that his conclusion turns out to be accurate!

      I think I understand even more now WHY Hillary Clinton was such a lousy, lazy campaigner. All she has done, her entire political career, is to dig up (or make up) dirt on her opponents in order to discredit them…so much easier than actually having a legislative agenda or a vision for governance. With Hillary it has always been about two things – acquiring power and becoming filthy rich! She was actually the one who started all of the rumors about Obama not being a US Citizen in 2008 and we still have never gotten any good explanation of all of the holes in his story, but this time, all of her investigations couldn’t turn up anything to slow down Donald Trump so she had to have her Perkins-Coie goons hire Fusion GPS, who then reached out to Steele, who then created the fake dossier that started this whole debacle!!

      Liked by 20 people

      • ann says:

        Thank you! Also, what was the DoJ Bureau thinking when they accepted a Fusion GPS work product?

        Those founders, the WS journalists already had a very dirty record and bad reputation. Their hit jobs on Thor Halvorson, Human Freedom, being hired by a middleman to smear people eosing a 2 bil Venezuelan power plant fraud.

        There was no predicate.

        Like

    • Boknows says:

      Like many, I heard Rush live stating what Barr and Durham are fighting.

      It’s worth anyone to read the link in the post above or try to get an audio of it to listen.

      Rush pulled the curtain back.

      In a nutshell, Barr and Durham are fighting the core of evil in our country and across the globe who have tried to hurt this country or our President.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Jim in TN says:

        The President is fighting that core of evil. Has been for a long time,

        But seriously, that is a huge stretch to say that Durham’s investigation is going to turn into the tool that Barr will use to achieve victory over all those evils.

        Sounds like Rush has joined the Smoke Up Our Asses blowing team. Tick tock, trust The Plan, etc.

        I personally believe in taking Barr at his word. He said the FBI has taken too much blame. And he supports Wray every chance he gets. He said there was spying. And there really was spying. He said spying is ok if properly predicated. And he has a respectable disagreement with Horowitz over how proper the predication was.

        Barr is cautiously moving to clean this up, but he has shown no signs of cleaning up any of the rest of the DOJ. Think about all the groups in the DOJ that have assisted Democrat abuses this past decade. Need to okay some conflicts of interest while preventing innocent people from acting, we have a group for that. Need to have your cohorts exonerated, we have a group for that too. There is the group that illegally sought IRS records and the group that made sure Lois Lerner was never charged, conveniently protecting the first group. Trayvon, Ferguson, Baltimore. Fast and Furious. Every where we turn, there is a DOJ group acting corruptly. How about all the crooked self serving redactions. C O R R U P T. To the core. And none of that was cleaned up by Sessions or Barr. And neither has even tried.

        So, Barr will do some good. And he will do what he thinks is necessary to protect the DOJ. Don’t forget, Barr’s DOJ decided not to prosecute Comey despite Horowitz’s referral.

        Liked by 5 people

    • EvenT says:

      Agree Mikeyboo 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      That was a great read. Rush said what I’ve been saying for some time to the eyores here and elsewhere…..Trump and Barr have one shot. It’s like D-Day: go only when you are ready and think you have best chance at success.

      Liked by 6 people

      • justlizzyp says:

        Given the battle they are fighting, I am beyond impressed with how far they’ve come. Unless I’m misreading the extension of the timeline they are investigating. Now that I think about it, I may be, based on the emphasis Barr put on the second and third renewals and the fact that they continued the FISA warrant even after the election and after they knew it was all hogwash….

        Liked by 3 people

  6. joeknuckles says:

    I still say Barr is the U.S. Grant of the current “civil war”.

    At least we’re not shooting at each other this time.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. CopperTop says:

    SD: In re your O’Mara Zimmerman comparisons.

    Is it POSSIBLE you are right but you left off identifying the current ‘West’. And not taking into account the two attorneys are prosecutors not defenders.

    Isn’t Durham –West? And isn’t he leading and O’mara (Barr) sitting on the sidelines?

    As the prosecutorial team. The assistant is usually the lead, and given all the leeway to decide the case direction. Very different than the defense side where the lead defense decides the angle.

    Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      That is a tough one…I can see this both ways.

      AND, our President has made a few comments, that as the chief LEO, he may be behind the scenes at the very least within the huddle.

      “We caught them all.” Wink.

      Liked by 6 people

  8. Rex says:

    I prefer not to bet the country on a suspicious fellow suddenly becoming our “friend “.
    It Barr is MAGA, deeds will always weigh more than words.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. :-) says:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/william-barrs-connection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/

    Sundance’s instincts are keen. ‘Ruby Ridge Bill’ talks a great talk, but his past history strongly suggests what we can expect going forward.

    Liked by 3 people

    • WhiteBoard says:

      Trumps survivability status is rare! never seen before. people kept their heads down cause they werent confident a true uprising would last. The Masses of us have never been seen before or advertised in such a manner that OTHERS CAN see and GAIN CONFIDENCE.

      you will seee many men see this as the CHANCE and one WORTH THE RISK. True men and women will arise to this occasion because they ALWAYS HAVE WANTED TO and this TIME shows HOPE OF IT TRULY BEING POSSIBLE TO WIN.

      OUR CHANCE TO WIN IS THE MASSES-

      eeeyors are kyptonite to us- they create doubters and lessen the CROWD appeal because we lose numbers and confidence of new members joining the trump train.

      we must hope everyone in power’s feet to the fire, and support them in any way possible. it is our only chance – because we actually have people in power now that feel the way we do.

      dont let eeeeyores make us becoem weak and get Barr and them to feel they SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR PROTECTION FROM HILLARY WINNING IN 2020..

      we need to let Barr know in 2020 they will win and he doesnt have to worry about schiff hanging him for treason.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. reggiemeezer says:

    We’ve heard nothing but talk for 3 years. Time is past due for some coup plotters to get the Manafort/Stone swatting, perp walk treatment

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Carrie says:

    Most important language I picked up on this was at 16:49- the standard is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. Well, it’s pretty clear they didn’t. Barr said so himself- the dossier was even disproven from their own source and they refused to disclose that evidence to the court and instead spun the language into him being “cooperative” and then got another renewal. It’s a travesty of justice and a complete abuse of the FISA Court- which is literally in existence to be used against foreigners- not political adversaries. Now let’s see what he and Durham actually do about it. This case has literally blown up the entire jurisprudence process, that has to irritate this man.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Zippy says:

      “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”

      I identified above two OBVIOUS examples of that standard being met and I have no doubt many more could be drawn from Horowitz’s report.

      So, where are the cuffs which would be out INSTANTLY for the same thing from any of us. And, BTW, two and a half months since McCabe was proven to have lied on major topics. Where’s the indictment?

      Like

  12. Republicanvet91 says:

    I’m curious why Barr is appearing in several media outlets explaining the IG report. Why would he do that before Horowitz testifies?

    Like

    • Ironclaw says:

      Perhaps a warning shot to Horowitz.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Republicanvet91 says:

        That may be, but the report is public. What would he be warning Horowitz about?

        I think it may be more of a shot at the Senate about spinning it as a nothingburger.

        Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        I happened to be in the car tonight during one of Barr’s interviews. His message was very simple.

        When stated by an interviewer that the IG exonerated the FBI, AG Barr stated that the IG cannot determine an outcome, because an IG does not conduct an investigation but seeks to look at internal failures for only corrective procedures within a department.

        Liked by 3 people

        • WhiteBoard says:

          i think horowitz is indicating that BIAS wasnt the reason for the failures, it was in fact a PURE CRIMINAL INTENT.

          Liked by 4 people

          • WSB says:

            If so, of course, he made no conclusion, as it were. Just no bias!

            Liked by 1 person

          • The Dark Lord says:

            the IG was clear … no DOCUMENTED bias found … in other words nobody openly admitted their bias … he didn’t get any confessions … doesn’t mean that is not the motive i.e. not exonerated …

            Like

            • Zippy says:

              “no DOCUMENTED bias found”

              Really? Like smelly Trump supporters in Walmart? Yes, I know what the excuse for that was, but in any jury would find that excuse lacking. So should Horowitz.

              Like

            • Despicable Me says:

              No documented or testimonial evidence of bad…..pretty worthless understatement. Can anyone imagine a coup participant actually leaving a paper trail of their biases or actually saying when questioned, “Why, yes, I acted with malice aforethought due to the extreme prejudice I had and continue to have against Candidate/POTUS Trump”

              Like

    • Zombie says:

      Because Horowitz will admit he doesn’t have the same scope and authority that Barr/Durham have.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Putting On Its Shoes says:

      Boxing Horowitz in.

      Giving senators ammunition.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Barnestormer says:

      I suspect Andrew Weissmann and his co-authors of the Mueller Report novella would recognize the Barr media initiative.

      And are likely no more thrilled about it than when Barr’s summary beat them to the news cycle.

      Liked by 2 people

    • LeperSandwich says:

      I would think Barr is doing it to stiffen the resolve of an indecisive IG (whose natural inclination is to split the political difference in every situation) prior to the 12/11 testimony. Horowitz can now EITHER venture forward with a bit more confidence in directly addressing clear misdeeds now that Barr has gone ahead and broken the narrative ice for him (and taken a few partisan slings/arrows for his efforts), OR he can boldly misdirect the public by contradicting or mitigating the straightforward interpretation that Barr has put out there. Horowitz may been a passable investigator, but he doesn’t strike me as bold. If he wasn’t going to already, Horowitz will now definitely be prepared to map out the weird contours of his purview and unpack how it precluded certain seemingly obvious steps, to speak to all the ways his report does NOT exonerate anyone and why he didn’t more thoroughly explore in the area of motives. It also helps focus/frame republican questions to Horowitz.

      OR, perhaps Barr’s just trying to keeps us few attentive patriots from getting totally black pilled while we wait for him/Durham…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tl Howard says:

        Barr explained that Horowitz didn’t say there was no intent to harm….instead that he had found no documentary evidence to prove that.

        Like

    • felipe says:

      Republicanvet: “why Barr is appearing in several media outlets today?”

      Well… AG Barr did at least acknowledge the extreme frustration of citizens in “the blogosphere” demanding some action to the lawlessness. That sort of answers one question that has been asked many times in these branches… basically: “Mr. Barr, if you’re listening…”
      So, if it’s true that that we’re only going to have one good shot at killing this beast, and the legal cases simply aren’t yet fully baked… this could explain Barr’s motivation to reveal a bit more of what’s going on right now. Hopefully, we’re not being played.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. WSB says:

    Does anyone know if the media cartel is even covering this?

    Dang, they must be sca’od.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. chojun says:

    This Barr media blitz taking place the day after the IG report drops, and the day after Barr and Durham independently issue caveats to the IG report, is very interesting to me.

    Liked by 8 people

    • delighteddeplorable says:

      Yep, chojun. Really an interesting turn of events and I expect to see the pieces fall into place as things progress. This is an intentional, calculated part of the process. Verrrry interesting.

      Liked by 2 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Yes. A LOT of words that all seem to be the right words to our ears.

      Except, as Sundance coldly (with hard objectivity) points out, no arrests (yet).

      When Barr replied to the question of any accountability by saying “They’re all gone”, it was a bit unnerving to think he intended that to suffice for “accountability.” Even the WSJ interviewer was a bit taken aback by that weak reply,… I think.

      Like

      • Zippy says:

        “They’re all gone”, it was a bit unnerving to think he intended that to suffice for “accountability.”

        That was also my take and I’ll bet it portends the future.

        Like

      • NC Nana says:

        GB, I was just reading the FBI’s response to the FISA IG Report. Starting at pdf page 468, paper page 428.

        It is a list of IG recommendations and the responsive FBI corrective action plan.

        The plan is written for honest cops doing an honest job.

        What are the legal penalties for cops committing fraud, perjury, bankrupting innocent people, harassing people, illegally imprisoning people, and unseating a duly elected President just because you have a different political goal?

        If you can quit your cop/government job and just walk away there are 2 justice systems in America.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. evergreen says:

    Barr will pursue proof beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which indictments will follow.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. California Joe says:

    Barr added that he directed Durham to EXPAND his probe into the events that occurred POST ELECTION….which means Mueller and the Special Counsel’s investigation!:

    Liked by 10 people

  17. hawkins6 says:

    Thanks for providing these interviews SD!

    A/G Barr is admirably making the rounds to make his case. At least he’s trying to present an alternative rational and factual view to a wider American audience to compete with the MSM “malarkey.”

    i wonder if these are Bill Barr’s “opening remarks” in preparation for further legal actions.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. bofh says:

    Not a complaint, but just a FYI: keep in mind that WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. They are not friendly to PDJT.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Rowdyone says:

    I think Barr’s top priority is the restoration of DOJ/FBI legitimacy. If it aids Trump it’s just coincidental and not personal as he apparently views him as the injured party. The question then becomes how many people and how high up the chain of command do they need to be charged for wrongdoing to accomplish this goal? Personally, I would like to see them all in orange but that would tie up the courts for years. It’s like the way the old Boston Celtics would play physical knowing that if all fouls were called it would make the refs look biased. So Barr will seek a few major scalps and rely on handslaps for most and proclaim legitimacy restored to the DOJ/FBI.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cantcforest says:

      R1, Don’t think that will convince me to ever talk to an FBI/DOJ/CIA… person. These “institutions” need to be razed and new policies, regulations, and personnel put in place.

      Like

  20. Linus in W.PA. says:

    I liked the NBC one more. In this WSJ one, Barr seems to be in a different mood, at least.

    You can see that he has some talking points that he’s determined to get out.

    At the end, though, he seems to hint and some people not getting indicted, or at least that it doesn’t happen on a whim.

    I still think he’s saying the right things.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. leon0112 says:

    Barr seems particularly upset that the FBI/Mueller did not close down the investigation in January 2017 since all of the information they had collected was exculpatory. There should have been no Special Counsel. The situation should have been closed down.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Obama/Soetoro had the bit in his teeth, and couldn’t be stopped. No use closing the barn door after the horses have already run out; the last month of Obama was the horses literally running away (and unmasking, or running down, the cowboys who might stop them).

      Like

  22. Fundamentally, I think that Mr. Barr is very wisely “running interference” against the otherwise very-popular notion that “Mr. Horowitz’s perspective is legally conclusive,” when the fact of the matter is that it was never designed to be. The Prosecutors are therefore very quickly and aggressively running ahead to ensure that the public fully understands that “the matter is far from over.” In fact, it has barely begun.

    Liked by 8 people

  23. Greg says:

    TFW (the feels when) Barr talks tough! What if the “Feels” is our reward and not actual justice. What if he’s playing us? His words had not cost to them. Has Comey been indicted? Has Strozke? Is Wray still in charge of the FBI and allowed to offer counter views to his boss? Is Boente still at the FBI? Did Tash get indicted or a cushy job with Boeing? So one fall guy, Clinesman? That guy must have been a rear horses rear end to be pegged.

    Like

  24. I for one like what I just saw and heard.
    If he means every word he just said the dems are in trouble.
    This is what we, as law abiding Americans have been looking for, someone that will stand up for us and our President.
    Pray that Barr hold up his end , and loves America like our President.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. hokkoda says:

    3:10 to about 7:00 Barr almost rolls his eyes twice at the suggesting that the political considerations/sensitivities were “discussed” at senior levels, and then he trounces the FBI leadership saying, “If the goal is to protect the elections, you do the defensive briefings.” Later, “We don’t assume the campaign is part of that plot.” (referencing campaign finance issues that often crop up during elections) But in this case, the FBI made the worst-case possible determinations in every instance that would promote the Russia hoax and damage the Trump team.

    “If you actually spent time to look at what happened, you would be appalled.”

    “What he was being truthful about was that the dossier was garbage.” (referencing the comment in the FISA where the FBI claimed the sub-source seemed truthful…to bolster their application…this is a clear indication of the agents’ state of mind)

    Still waiting for Barr and others to point out that the “three, separate hand picked, teams” (how the IG report describes them) all reported to the same people at the FBI. How can three, separate, hand-picked teams repeat the same comedy of errors again and again and always in ways that would be the most damaging to President Trump? Easy! You have the same half-dozen or so people in charge of them directing their actions.

    Always look for what seemingly different events have in common.

    Liked by 5 people

  26. CNN_sucks says:

    Cagey. Gasbag will not investigate Biden.

    Like

  27. repsortort says:

    Nice words.. I’ll be impressed when I see action.

    Like

    • keithinmissouri says:

      I have also been a sceptic of Barr and have been disheartened by the lack of action to date. My outlook was buoyed by an exchange with an acquaintance in federal law enforcement, who shared his instincts on Barr using the vernacular of McCabe’s “first we F Flynn and then we F Trump” remark.

      Two bulls are on a hilltop looking over a river bottom grazing area filled with cattle. The young bull (some Treepers) tells the old bull, “Let’s run down there and F one of the cows.” The old bull (Barr) replies, “No. Let’s WALK down there and F ALL the cows.”

      Liked by 3 people

  28. Fools Gold says:

    Who done the investigation of the DNC server Barr? Maybe you ought to look into that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • vikingmom says:

      Who killed Seth Rich? Would like to see an announcement that the investigation into his murder has been reopened…and that Julian Assange has been taken into US custody and flown to an undisclosed location.

      Liked by 3 people

  29. Roni says:

    For me, the only worrisome comments Barr made, was people who ask “why aren’t these people in jail for what they did to the President?”. To which he replied, “you can’t throw people in jail just because you don’t like what they do”, “……you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt”. Reminded me of Comey’s Hillary statement “no reasonable prosecutor would take the case”; and she wasn’t indicted.

    Liked by 2 people

    • J.Thomas says:

      Barr is drawing a very clear ethical distinction between how he intends to go about justice and how the Weissmann/Mueller team abused the justice system for political reasons. He is very clear that he believes they abused the system.

      He’s right.

      Not only does justice align with our morals and ethics much better than vengeance does, but the wide-reaching effects of such a deliverance of justice can be a pillar/standard by which a people can unite for generations to come.

      Vengeance brings war. Justice brings peace.

      Let Barr demonstrate the difference between us and them. Let people see it for generations.

      Liked by 3 people

    • hokkoda says:

      The flaw of course being that Comey was in no way authorized to make those public statements.

      Barr’s statements are more carefully measured, and rightly so. This week, the Clint Eastwood movie about Richard Jewell comes out. It’s a good lesson in the damage the FBI/DOJ can do to innocent people by acting stupidly during a media feeding frenzy. The immediate release of tandem “we don’t agree” statements by Barr and Durham matter more than the IG report does.

      Liked by 1 person

    • spren says:

      I share your reservations. But after watching the interview, and then gaining additional insight and perspective from the wise comments of Treepers, I am gaining heart.

      Barr is going to be assaulted like no one else before ever has, even Trump. They are all scared to death of what is unfolding and what Barr/Durham are likely to do. He (Barr) is setting the stage of purity for true justice to take place. “Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t indicating a whitewash and absolution of those who are guilty. He is stressing that when his hammer drops on these miscreants, they will have been benefited with full due process and then were found guilty.

      Barr and Durham have to be pristine in their adjudications. Any slight gaps in what they do will afford inroads (even if irrational) for their detractors (and who isn’t) to come in and try to say this is all political and they are just paid lapdogs to Trump. Unlike Obama, who Susan Rice’s late-term memo tried to indicate saying “Make sure it’s by the book” , Barr and Durham really are going to conduct their process in that justful manner.

      Liked by 3 people

      • California Joe says:

        Absolutely! Barr and Durham have to prepare bulletproof cases to deal with zealot Lawfare defense attorneys making $1,000 an hour, hostile Obama judges foaming at the mouth with hatred and minority juries in cities like New York and Washington DC.

        Liked by 2 people

  30. Linda K. says:

    All I have to say is, Holy Macaroni! How many layers in this onion.

    Like

  31. “Gentlepeople, surf into this video at about 15:00 and I do think that Mr. Barr says something both extremely important and extremely relevant to these present discussions …” Insightful, even …

    Like

  32. JIM COMEY IS A WEASEL_DOUG says:

    Wow, Laufman, Bromwich and other beach friends are smearing Barr and Durham over on MSLSD tonight, and to some extent are getting the same treatment here.
    Talk about a thankless job.

    Like

  33. Talkofthetown says:

    This is nothing more than mere words! Divide the untied states in pieces. Oh my Barr came out and done a interview for the last few left that believe or the last of the ones that want to hold on. #Stability

    Of course this was going to happen. Just like Huber. Even tho he never done sh.t #Stability Drag it out, Forget about it! Spin a few more news cycles and shi.s washed. America

    Like

  34. Chris Biggins says:

    See Milne News.com for Barr indictments 12/10/19

    Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      Yes those indictments occurred last Friday and werediscussed to some extent. Nothing there that affects any of the soft coup team offenders.

      Like

    • Spooky says:

      Barr didn’t indict anyone. A US Attorney indicted George Nader, who is already a notorious figure under multiple indictments. Schiff and the other Demonrat politicos will easily beat the rap for receiving illegal campaign funds. At most their campaigns will have to pay a modest fine. Only Trump assoc. go to jail for this kind of thing. Don`t make too much of this, it’s very small potatoes and Barr may not even have known it was coming.

      Like

      • LULU says:

        One.More.Time.

        Barr does not indict. (Horwitz does not indict.) Durham does not indict. But Durham the prosecutor takes evidence and witnesses to a grand jury who will indict or not depending on their view of the evidence and witnesses. From what I have learned about Durham, the cases he presents are known to be airtight and appeal-proof…

        We can only wait.

        Like

  35. Linda K. says:

    A prosecutor does not indict unless he can prove his case. Lawyers are the ultimate realists, but I think they have the goods or they would not open a criminal investigation.

    Like

  36. LeperSandwich says:

    At 6:20 in, Barr says that BHO reached out to RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, telling them to “***stop it***” (HUGE wink/nod) in September (while he’s condescendingly/preemptively informing any Americans who will listen that the very idea of our elections being de-legitimatized is pathetically silly! IF he really believe there is foreign interference, the only (bad) reason not to tell the Trump campaign is to catch them in the act of “colluding”, but if you wanted to catch folks red-handed you wouldn’t tell their co-conspirators to lay off. You also wouldn’t risk the legitmacy of a presidential election. That they did go to Russians but didn’t go to Trump suggests that this was Barry’s personal attempt to add his own flourish to the BS RussiaGate hoax, and the fact that he hasn’t bragged about this confrontation of a supposed threat to the electorate is because he knows that when it comes out it will obviously look like what it is (beyond massive self-contradicting): an attempt to paper a narrative, and therefor complicity in the scheme. Am I wrong, or DID BARR JUST OUT BARRY???

    Liked by 2 people

  37. GP says:

    AG Barr cuts it smooth…real smooth. But, no one is going to jail. For those that think Barr and Durham are going to “DROP THE HAMMER” on the Spygate traitors, I hope you are right. I’m just not seeing that.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Paul Gallant says:

    Yah But –

    At 15:38 “BUT here I want to say…………………………”

    No indictments folks.

    Barr: “Question of “adequately predicated” is off academic interest only”

    Q: Senior people involved are they going to be held accountable?

    A: “well they are all gone”.

    Barr: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is a pretty substantial hurtle if you are going to indict.”

    Durham will say the same thing and then announce no indictments of anyone substantial.

    If you charge one of substance you have to charge them all and then where does that end? It’s a Crime Syndicate, to many loose ends to eliminate.

    I don’t trust the senate on an impeachment vote either. Turtle says Impeachment vote before USMCA.

    Like

    • Tl Howard says:

      I think he was merely suggesting that the predicate didn’t start with the FBI. We all suspect it started with ringleader Brennan…and I think Durham is now trying to find out if Durham was working in tandem with foreign governments/actors.

      Like

      • Tl Howard says:

        I think Barr is easing into the subject of Obama being in on this. Here at this blog we’ve talked about the danger of simply announcing, “Obama tried to frame Trump” in that last election, to help Hillary win and probably to exact revenge for the birth certificate thing, and to save his “legacy.” Attack Barry too fast w/out leading the American voter to that realization gradually and you have a situation in which Trump loses the black vote, the just enough % to cause him to lose in 2020.

        Like

  39. 12 to 15 minute mark should be clipped for time pressed Americans. I shoulda learned to code.

    Like

  40. Liberty ONE says:

    At this juncture, AG Barr & Durham have a VERY simple choice…..PROTECT the “institutions” i.e. FIB’s, DOJ, CIA & DNI….OR uphold the Rule of Law , Constitution, and PROVE justice WILL be served.

    Like

    • jx says:

      “protect the institutions” actually destroys the institutions, which already are heavily damaged.

      Also, these DOJ/FBI crimes are crimes of the praetorian guard. The central crimes have disappeared into the past, haven’t they?

      Horowitz repeatedly delayed for 21 months and Barr is not going to do anything until the summer – at best (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-says-john-durham-could-finish-inquiry-into-russia-investigation-by-late-spring-2020). No one is going to face serious consequences.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Brutalus says:

        You mean the summer…..like when the Dems will be finalizing who their candidate is going to be? Might that time frame be an opportune time to drop a nasty bit of bad news for them? Steal their thunder before their convention?

        Like

      • Steve Saaf says:

        I have seen no mention of,or investigation about, the Statute of Limitations regarding who/what/where/ and how. I think Barr dropped a hint at the end of the MSNBC interview yesterday, but I don’t think it was mentioned here….please correct me if I am wrong. In any case the reaction to Horowitz was too quick to be anything but staged..

        Like

  41. Matt Bracken says:

    Like

  42. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Conceding that the regulations allow opening the FBI to launch CI investigations on the thinnest of predicates……
    bar rumors uttered by Merlot-soaked breath……
    grafitti on a rest-stop bathroom stall…..
    an off color (or on-color) SNL joke….
    sweet nothings whispered in interviews for Schiff job openings…

    (In other words there are NO regulation to speak of….)

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Horowitz is one of the most unique mathematicians on the planet.
    There is an amazing mathematical formula that Horowitz discovered that Barr has hinted at in these interviews:

    There appears to be a inversely proportional relationship between
    The validity of the premise and the spontaneous occurrence of “errors” over time.

    In other words…..
    As their case got shittier and shittier as they collected evidence……
    oddly the rate of the unexplained “errors” rose exponentially.

    Admittedly they appear to have gotten off to a pretty bad start…..as they apparently
    “FELL far short” of the REQUIREMENT that they be “scrupulously accurate”
    FALLING……SEVEN TIMES.
    (Ouch)
    Not being as smart as an normal FBI Executive or obviously a COMEY
    It would appear they misunderstood “requirement” in this context.
    This isn’t like going to the amusement park and sneaking onto the roller coaster at 46″ even though not meeting the posted “YOU NEED TO BE THIS TALL” regulation

    In this context “requirement” is more like
    you need 500,000 tons of fuel in your rocket to get to the moon….
    AND BACK HOME.
    100,000 tons just won’t do. (See Lost In Space…..60’s version)

    That isn’t the only term that appears to have been….well….misinterpreted.
    “Accurate” is giving the correct answer to the question “What does 2 + 2 equal?”

    “Scrupulously accurate” is answering WHY 2+2 = 4
    And ONLY FOUR.
    (Sorry millennials)

    So…..not having a thesaurus handy in the Hoover building clearly lead to some early missteps.
    (Hopefully this is the one of the recommendations Horowitz makes that Wray accommodates
    along with training as to how it’s used….I haven’t got to the end yet so I’ll keep my fingers crossed)

    Now amazingly as time went on and they collected more and more evidence that showed their premise (Trump’s in Cahoots with Ruskies) was probably wrong……

    The rate of the “FALL SHORTS” INCREASED.
    Horowitz actually documents they MORE THAN DOUBLED.
    Notice he even numbers the first seven faceplants of the first FISA 1 thru 7.
    and picks up where he left off at 8-17 for the FISA Renewal F-ups.
    Coincidentally demonstrating that none of the earlier errors were corrected so they eventually
    FELL LONG.
    America’s Funniest Home Videos should consolidate the 17 and play them in between the obligatory
    “Pant’s falling down” and “OW! My Balls!” montages.

    So if you’re keeping up with this calculus
    “Error Rate” Increases as “Validity” Decreases

    Even more interesting is that we can overlay the findings from another Horowitz math experiment:
    MYE
    And discover another correlation:
    Leaks from “Unnamed Sources FAMILIAR with the matter” ALSO INCREASED
    and those leaks
    EXCLUSIVELY WENT IN ONE DIRECTION……
    That contrary to reality……THE VALIDITY WAS IN FACT INCREASING
    So weird.

    So now
    “Unnamed Source” Increases + “Error Rate” Increase as “Validity” Decreases.
    US + ER = -x(V)

    But this math could only go so far before reaching it’s “Event Horizon”
    for as the Validity Decreased to the point of OBLIVION
    Horowitz discovered an additional variable to save it.

    In his COMEY REPORT….
    The PENULTIMATE LEAK was the missing variable (PL)
    A negative value that could be added to the validity variable to save the whole thing
    so
    US + ER= -x(V) + PL
    where PL=(-(V)*MUELLER)

    Pythagoras would be proud.
    God I love math.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. bessie2003 says:

    Thank you Sundance.

    Sundance had this Rolling Stone article on his twitter feed.

    As disappointed as I am that no actions, arrests, have yet happened, yesterday I posted the youtube link to this full length AG Barr interview on my FB feed yesterday commenting, because my friends/family know I read the full texts, reports and ignore the news, commenting that even though “only 2/3 through the report this interview confirms what’s in the report” and then

    this morning, posted a link to this Rolling Stone article as a comment to that FB post saying “even Rolling Stone gets it, the Dossier was phony and the news that so many family and friends have believed for the past 3 years is, as we were told in the beginning – fake news. So now, hopefully family and friends who have been torn apart over these past few years because of their reliance on this fakeness will begin the process of healing friendships and family relationships in time for this year’s Christmas.”

    It seems the least we can do for those we love is use these interviews, stories from TDS sufferer’s compendium of “neutral” or “left leaning” news outlets as an out for those who want to wake up, stop being such asses, and repair the damage their misguided beliefs have caused.

    Here is the Rolling Stone article Sundance found:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

    Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine says:

      I saw that story elsewhere today. Hadn’t read it, probably won’t, but the headline certainly looked promising.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bessie2003 says:

        Just re-posted the Rolling Stone article on a FB friend’s page because she and her buddies were all happy about a Rolling Stone article that had been written 6 days earlier saying how the Dem’s were all fighting to save the U.S. from traitor Trump –

        my comment when posting this article was simply “and this was written 6 days later by the same magazine”. Comments will be interesting, ‘un-friending’ may ensue (by my friend if they’re one of those who can’t see beyond the TDS).

        Liked by 1 person

  44. Flabbergasted says:

    Greater interview but I was troubled by his statement that the “Government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before indicting someone.” He suggested that this high hurdle prevented indictment in many cases and I wanted to hear him answer a follow up question concerning General Flynn and why the Dems seem to be able to indict whomever, whenever but Republicans seem to never Lerner.

    Like

    • Roni says:

      I found that statement troublesome, too. And if indicted, would a DC jury convict?
      The Dems have been in power so long, they’ve stacked the DOJ with partisans. I’m guessing, had the R’s referred Lerner to the DOJ, the DOJ wouldn’t bother to take it up.
      Remember Comey’s statement about Hillary “…..no reasonable prosecutor would take the case”?

      Like

  45. Pew-Anon says:

    Barr’s relentless insistence on the Russia-hacked-the-DNC canard is the 0 in the denominator of his calculus. The way he talks makes it seem like there is “area under the curve”, but in reality the Russiagate gaslight nullifies it all. As far as the “high standard” of indictment, tell that to Flynn. Or Stone. Or Manafort.

    Like

  46. NC Nana says:

    AG Barr says all the Senior Officials from Crossfire are gone (mark 14:45 – 14:57).

    The names I could come up with in the IG Report are listed below.

    I am not familiar with the names: Michael Steinbach, Carl Ghattas, and Jennifer Boone. Does anyone know if they are “gone”?

    IG Report Page 114 -116 of pdf – (Page 81- 83 of Report), Figure 3.1 – 3.3 lists the Crossfire Chain of command names and units involved.

    Also Clinesmith is not listed in the IG Figure 3.1 through Figure 3.3 by name is he one of the multitude known as:

    SSA 1
    Case Agents 1-4
    Staff Operations Specialists
    Intel Section Chief
    Supervisory Intel Analyst
    Analyst
    OGC Unit Chief
    OGC Attorney
    SSA 2
    SSA 3
    Washington Field Office
    Chicago Field Office
    New York Field Office
    Washington Field Office, White Collar Criminal Squad
    Case Agent 1
    Case Agent 6
    Case Agent 7

    Crossfire Names Listed in IG Report:

    James Comey
    Andrew McCabe
    Lisa Page
    Michael Steinbach
    E. W. Priestap
    Peter Strzok
    James Baker
    Trisha Anderson
    Carl Ghattas
    Jennifer Boone

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Zippy says:

    Let’s see if we ever hear the details about what they found:

    Barr visited Italy on Aug. 15 and Sept. 27, 2019.

    The first article is about Barr’s second visit to Italy:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-went-to-rome-to-hear-a-secret-tape-from-joseph-mifsud-the-professor-who-helped-ignite-the-russia-probe

    ROME—When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita here on tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, who would be sitting in as his right-hand man.

    Barr was in Rome on an under-the-radar mission that was only planned a few days in advance. An official with the embassy confirmed to The Daily Beast that they had to scramble to accommodate Barr’s sudden arrival. He had been in Italy before, but not with such a clear motive. Barr and Durham are looking into the events that led to Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and suddenly all roads were leading to Rome.

    The Daily Beast has learned that Barr and Durham were especially interested in what the Italian secret service knew about Joseph Mifsud, the erstwhile professor from Malta who had allegedly promised then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign aide George Papadopoulos he could deliver Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The Italian justice ministry’s public records show that Mifsud had applied for police protection in Italy after disappearing from Link University, where he worked and, in doing so, had given a taped deposition to explain just why people might want to harm him.

    A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape [presumably the one he made in the summer of 2018 – Z]. A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud.

    The sources in Rome who confirmed that Barr and Durham came to learn more about Mifsud also told The Daily Beast that they expected Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet the same intelligence agencies on his state visit that began Tuesday.

    William Barr discussed FBI Russia inquiry with UK intelligence
    US attorney general raised review of Trump-Russia inquiry at meeting in London, say sources

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/01/william-barr-us-attorney-general-discussed-mueller-inquiry-uk-intelligence

    The US attorney general met UK intelligence agencies in the summer to discuss Britain potentially cooperating with Donald Trump’s administration on an inquiry examining the FBI’s investigation into alleged collusion with Russia, according to sources.

    William Barr met British intelligence officials in London on 29 July [2019] at a meeting attended by intelligence agencies from the Five Eyes group. He was accompanied by the US homeland security department’s acting deputy secretary, David Pekoske.

    The meeting was formally about the risks and opportunities of new technologies but Barr also raised his inquiries into the FBI investigation.

    A Whitehall official said the issue of UK cooperation was discussed informally and only on the margins of the meeting. US officials have said Barr’s role is confined to ensuring that the official inquiry team members are introduced to the right people.

    It has been reported that Barr is pressing a range of foreign powers to cooperate with his effort to piece together the origins of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s links with Russia.

    Papadopoulos: William Barr And John Durham Went To Italy To “Connect Dots”
    October 6, 2019

    Video interview. Interesting that this -FOX- interview was never placed on YouTube. I can only find a bad quality copy here:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/06/papadopoulos_william_barr_and_john_durham_went_to_italy_to_connect_dots.html

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bendix says:

      Pelosi had been to Italy on a couple of occasions, long before Barr’s trip.
      I don’t know how that fits in, but it does.

      Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      Someone, President TRUMP?, recently said that all of the overseas intelligence agencies already knew the Russia Hoax was a hoax. They knew immediately and told them so. They aren’t stupid or gullible.

      Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      On the PapaD video not being on Fox News YouTube, suggest it to them. I think they would add it if you tell them you want to be able to share it.

      Like

  48. ChampagneReady says:

    That interview made me feel just as good as the one with NBC. Barr has now called the Steele Dossier “garbage.” Prior to that, stated unequivocally that Trump was “spied” on which turned the media on him like AnitFa. Put those two things together and it foretells nothing but rock solid indictments. In fact that’s anything where Barr laid that predicate already–that a DOJ case has to be proveable beyond a reasonable doubt, which he knows Durham is now in the process of doing.

    Barr knows what John Durham has already found because he was in fact with him in Italy. He’s setting the table for what he knows is about to come with forthcoming charges. He has a ninja-like way of sticking the knife in and he’s enjoying it with his casual almost catatonic manner.

    These 2 interviews now back to back should be scaring the bejesus out of the obama creeps who have orchestrated the blueprint and are up to their eyeballs in seditious crimes.

    Like

  49. Anon says:

    I think it’s tough to turn a corrupt system against itself in the hope of reducing corruption. Not sure what Barr can do. Is it worth arresting people if DC judges throw out the case or juries refuse to convict no matter what?

    My understanding is that the cases will be tried in areas that voted 90% for Hillary (not an exaggeration), and poorer minorities are overrepresented on juries as well (another Democrat demo)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_the_District_of_Columbia

    You need 12 people to agree to convict. Appealing to “justice” won’t work with liberals who are liberal precisely because they think old ideas like that are wrong and should be changed. The worst of the worst on that side get treated as heroes.

    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