Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the Mueller report will be ready to greet its eager public by mid-April. That’s only a week or so away. So why are Democrats embarrassing themselves by calling nonstop for its immediate and total release, even when they know perfectly well that it contains material –- classified records, grand jury proceedings, etc.--- that would be illegal for Barr to make public. Barr has made it plain that he wants to be transparent and will turn over as much as he can, even though he’s not obligated to turn over anything at all. Trump is saying the same.

So why is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler acting like he’s got a wasp in his underwear? (Apologies to the late Morey Amsterdam.)

There’s a clip of Nadler from a couple of decades ago that’s been making the rounds: Nadler argues that Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Clinton should NOT be released. It’s quite hilarious, considering that this time, Nadler wants every last unredacted word of the report on President Trump, even all the supporting documents (which I understand run into the millions of pages). At this writing, he’s readying the subpoena (which the DOJ will refuse, simply because complying with it would be breaking the law). Nadler’s hypocrisy is even worse when you consider that today’s special counsel statute is different from the independent counsel law that governed Ken Starr. Barr is not compelled to give the entire report (or for that matter, any of it) to Congress; Starr was supposed to.

Commentary continues below advertisement

In fact, Barr is behaving exactly as the Democrats would want him to if it were a Democrat President under investigation. Fair, ethical, deliberate, transparent, lawful. But this is Trump, so as far as the Dems are concerned, all that is out the window, ‘cause fairness ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it. In the spirit of Festivus, they want an “airing of grievances” against Trump. Ironically, they want Barr to treat Trump the same way that then-FBI Director James Comey treated Hillary in his infamous July 2016 press conference: Detail a list of accusations even though there’s no indictment.

Alan Dershowitz continues to point out what was wrong with treating Hillary that way. He’s right: Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged. What Dershowitz keeps ignoring, though, is that the most egregious part of Comey’s press conference wasn’t the “airing of grievances” part –- it was the “declining to charge” part. Hillary clearly had broken the law and just as clearly should have been charged with crimes. It would have been quite appropriate for Comey to detail Hillary’s crimes as he did if he had also done the right thing and indicted her.

Dershowitz, who supported Hillary for President, likes to call her misdeeds “political sins” that didn’t call for indictment. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, and Dershowitz is an esteemed one, but I have to disagree with him on that one point. There’s plenty of evidence that Hillary broke the law, and quite spectacularly. To save her from indictment, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to essentially rewrite the Espionage Act –- to require “intent,” which is almost impossible to prove.

In fact, it’s hard to compare these two cases because of that key difference: Hillary broke the law and Trump didn’t. Hillary should have been indicted. Thus it’s hard to have much sympathy for Hillary over Comey’s public recitation of her misdeeds; Comey’s worst mistake was in not following through.

As for the issue of obstruction, Dershowitz reminded viewers in a Thursday night interview with Sean Hannity that the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly on any issue. To do so is NOT obstruction. “I’ve never heard of a case where somebody was charged with obstruction of justice for speaking in public, or tweeting,” he said. “And if you’re the President, you can fire, and you can’t be charged if you engage in your constitutionally protected acts.”

While waiting for Barr to release the report, someone, apparently from Mueller’s team, is strategically leaking, first to The New York Times and then to just about everybody else, to further the narrative that the report is much harder on Trump than Barr had made it seem in his summary. And, of course, the media are salivating over this news, and happy smiles have returned to their faces. On the other hand, John Solomon at THE HILL has sources of his own, at the DOJ, and according to them, the Mueller team wrote their report in “snippets” designed for public dissemination, pieces that read like more like campaign material than a prosecutor’s final report. Also, these do include grand jury information. This certainly is not the sort of material that’s supposed to be released to the public.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437496-note-to-team-mueller-if-you-dont-indict-you-cant-incite

In the meantime, if you’d like to read about some ACTUAL obstruction, here’s some great reading material. Sara Carter has learned still more about how the Hillary email “investigation” was conducted. She’s reviewed some yet-unreleased congressional testimony from James Rybiki, who was chief of staff to James Comey, dealing with how the DOJ tried to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to the laptops of Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity in June of 2016, about a month before the FBI closed their “investigation” into Hillary. In exchange for the immunity, they were supposed to get access to the laptops. But according to Rybiki, the DOJ did not want the FBI to have the laptops. Of course, the FBI believed they contained classified information, and normally in such a case they would have sought a grand jury subpoena or warrant. But this time, they didn’t play hardball; they negotiated with Clinton and her lawyers, who set the terms of the deal.

Once again, “the fix was in,” apparently from the DOJ.

We already know that Clinton and her lawyers got other concessions, too. Unbelievably, Cheryl Mills, a State Department confidant of Clinton and a witness in the case, was allowed to sit in as Clinton’s attorney for Clinton’s FBI interview. They also did not record her interview.

We still don’t know what happened to the laptops --- whether they were destroyed or are still in the custody of the FBI. Even Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not say in his report what happened to them. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has never been able to find out what happened to them, either.

According to Rybiki, there was much discussion and disagreement about who should have access to the laptops, with the DOJ (“I don’t know what level”) trying to restrict it.

Anyway, with all the hysteria over the Mueller report --- the result of an investigation based on made-up evidence --- THIS is the material that the media should be clamoring for. THIS is the evidence of actual lawbreaking by a Presidential candidate and actual obstruction of justice, by our own DOJ no less, a bureaucratic cover-up at the highest levels of government. I’m referring to the many pages of testimony that Judicial Watch and Republicans in Congress have been requesting seemingly forever and that are now gradually dripping out, verifying our worst suspicions.

https://saraacarter.com/former-top-fbi-official-doj-didnt-want-to-grant-access-clinton-attorney-laptops/?utm_source=Darkwire+Inc&utm_campaign=5b6efc2b8a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_23_12_11_COPY_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5f3d745e4f-5b6efc2b8a-283239405

 

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-39 of 39

  • Marcia Standifer

    04/05/2019 01:12 PM

    Governor - I believe the “wasp” in Nadler’s underwear is actually someone called “Screwtape” (thanks, CS Lewis!)

    A quote from this evil and ancient sage: “Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

  • Debra L Marrero

    04/05/2019 12:56 PM

    I don't know why this is not happening to Hillary Clinton.... or any other democrat….. its appalling that the government or any other entity cannot expose or charge the ones who have done wrong. Your correct, if it was a democrat they would not release anything just as they refused with ex president Clinton.

  • d c oliver

    04/05/2019 12:51 PM

    We have so many things in this country that really need attention and the Dems are fixated on Trump. The sadly don't understand they are helping him win. They were elected by the people to busy themselves at doing the country's business and making this country a better place. It is sad to watch supposedly grown people acting so childish.

  • Robert Brewer

    04/05/2019 12:50 PM

    They aren't going insane...
    Those Dumb Ass DemonRats have always been insane!

  • Luetta Wood

    04/05/2019 12:46 PM

    Unbelievable, isn't it?? ??

  • Beth Chisholm

    04/05/2019 12:45 PM

    Thank you for being a voice of sanity in this country where many seem to have lost all sense of reason.

  • Katherine Richardson

    04/05/2019 12:40 PM

    It overwhelms me how many people are either too afraid to stand up for the truth, or they devise ways to present evil information. My friends and I are soooo sick of the Mueller report, fake news and Dems that keep twisting the truth. With evil people, you could be so transparent that your internal organs would be exposed, and they would say you aren't transparent enough!

  • William Kim Gardner

    04/05/2019 12:36 PM

    The Democrats want full discloser because they want to know if their name is on a sealed indictment. So they can leave the country before the military arrives at their front door.

  • Lauren R MacArthur

    04/05/2019 12:23 PM

    I have always been under the impression that our Constitution operates using a presumption of innocence. Therefore, since nothing came out of the Mueller investigation for prosecution, isn't it illegal to make public all the testimony of witnesses that may....or may not....be telling the truth...or may even be mistaken? We do know that Hillary Clinton did things that should have been prosecuted....simply because Comey came out and listed all she had done wrong...and then refused to prosecute. IF he had simply kept quiet, she would have been exonerated. But, he was such a coward....he couldn't do that...because he was afraid of being charged with perjury. So, he made up this complicated explanation to appear that he was doing his job...by making public her "mistakes" and then downplaying the reasons for the mistakes, and claiming he couldn't indict.

  • Richard Payne

    04/05/2019 12:19 PM

    I keep asking the same question. Will anything ever happen to those who tried to bring the Government down? You keep talking about Hillary but no one seems to have any power to do anything. Why hasn't a Grand Jury been convened for anything?

  • Bill Goldsby

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Personally I think the Democrats are still using the Mueller Report to cover up some devious rhetoric they are working on. ,

  • William R. Germer, Sr.

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Isn't there some way to withhold the paycheck of anyone in congress or the senate that obstructs everything and does not actually do the work that they were sent there to do for the good of the people/country. It angers me and I don't enjoy seeing my taxes wasted on foolishness.

  • Keethlyn Fletcher

    04/05/2019 12:04 PM

    I'm curious why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton always seem to show up for the prime photo ops in cases like the Jussie Smolette case. Those two plus Louis Farrakhan are some of the most hateful race baiters in the public eye and I'm surprised more people aren't seeing right through what they're doing . Wake up America these men don't want peace and racial equality. They want to make money and get themselves on TV.
    I think the Reverend Martin Luther king Jr would be ashamed of these actions.

  • David E Steuber

    04/05/2019 12:01 PM

    You say, "Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged."

    Not sure this is correct. My understanding is that the FBI is an investigative agency. It's supposed to send its conclusions to the DOJ, which makes the decision whether or not to indict and actually files the indictment in a court. In short, I don't think the FBI is supposed to make ANY announcements. Even if the DOJ decides to indict, any announcement it makes would be governed by the need to avoid pre-trial publicity that would make it difficult for the accused to get a fair trial. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the Mueller report will be ready to greet its eager public by mid-April. That’s only a week or so away. So why are Democrats embarrassing themselves by calling nonstop for its immediate and total release, even when they know perfectly well that it contains material –- classified records, grand jury proceedings, etc.--- that would be illegal for Barr to make public. Barr has made it plain that he wants to be transparent and will turn over as much as he can, even though he’s not obligated to turn over anything at all. Trump is saying the same.

So why is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler acting like he’s got a wasp in his underwear? (Apologies to the late Morey Amsterdam.)

There’s a clip of Nadler from a couple of decades ago that’s been making the rounds: Nadler argues that Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Clinton should NOT be released. It’s quite hilarious, considering that this time, Nadler wants every last unredacted word of the report on President Trump, even all the supporting documents (which I understand run into the millions of pages). At this writing, he’s readying the subpoena (which the DOJ will refuse, simply because complying with it would be breaking the law). Nadler’s hypocrisy is even worse when you consider that today’s special counsel statute is different from the independent counsel law that governed Ken Starr. Barr is not compelled to give the entire report (or for that matter, any of it) to Congress; Starr was supposed to.

Commentary continues below advertisement

In fact, Barr is behaving exactly as the Democrats would want him to if it were a Democrat President under investigation. Fair, ethical, deliberate, transparent, lawful. But this is Trump, so as far as the Dems are concerned, all that is out the window, ‘cause fairness ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it. In the spirit of Festivus, they want an “airing of grievances” against Trump. Ironically, they want Barr to treat Trump the same way that then-FBI Director James Comey treated Hillary in his infamous July 2016 press conference: Detail a list of accusations even though there’s no indictment.

Alan Dershowitz continues to point out what was wrong with treating Hillary that way. He’s right: Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged. What Dershowitz keeps ignoring, though, is that the most egregious part of Comey’s press conference wasn’t the “airing of grievances” part –- it was the “declining to charge” part. Hillary clearly had broken the law and just as clearly should have been charged with crimes. It would have been quite appropriate for Comey to detail Hillary’s crimes as he did if he had also done the right thing and indicted her.

Dershowitz, who supported Hillary for President, likes to call her misdeeds “political sins” that didn’t call for indictment. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, and Dershowitz is an esteemed one, but I have to disagree with him on that one point. There’s plenty of evidence that Hillary broke the law, and quite spectacularly. To save her from indictment, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to essentially rewrite the Espionage Act –- to require “intent,” which is almost impossible to prove.

In fact, it’s hard to compare these two cases because of that key difference: Hillary broke the law and Trump didn’t. Hillary should have been indicted. Thus it’s hard to have much sympathy for Hillary over Comey’s public recitation of her misdeeds; Comey’s worst mistake was in not following through.

As for the issue of obstruction, Dershowitz reminded viewers in a Thursday night interview with Sean Hannity that the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly on any issue. To do so is NOT obstruction. “I’ve never heard of a case where somebody was charged with obstruction of justice for speaking in public, or tweeting,” he said. “And if you’re the President, you can fire, and you can’t be charged if you engage in your constitutionally protected acts.”

While waiting for Barr to release the report, someone, apparently from Mueller’s team, is strategically leaking, first to The New York Times and then to just about everybody else, to further the narrative that the report is much harder on Trump than Barr had made it seem in his summary. And, of course, the media are salivating over this news, and happy smiles have returned to their faces. On the other hand, John Solomon at THE HILL has sources of his own, at the DOJ, and according to them, the Mueller team wrote their report in “snippets” designed for public dissemination, pieces that read like more like campaign material than a prosecutor’s final report. Also, these do include grand jury information. This certainly is not the sort of material that’s supposed to be released to the public.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437496-note-to-team-mueller-if-you-dont-indict-you-cant-incite

In the meantime, if you’d like to read about some ACTUAL obstruction, here’s some great reading material. Sara Carter has learned still more about how the Hillary email “investigation” was conducted. She’s reviewed some yet-unreleased congressional testimony from James Rybiki, who was chief of staff to James Comey, dealing with how the DOJ tried to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to the laptops of Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity in June of 2016, about a month before the FBI closed their “investigation” into Hillary. In exchange for the immunity, they were supposed to get access to the laptops. But according to Rybiki, the DOJ did not want the FBI to have the laptops. Of course, the FBI believed they contained classified information, and normally in such a case they would have sought a grand jury subpoena or warrant. But this time, they didn’t play hardball; they negotiated with Clinton and her lawyers, who set the terms of the deal.

Once again, “the fix was in,” apparently from the DOJ.

We already know that Clinton and her lawyers got other concessions, too. Unbelievably, Cheryl Mills, a State Department confidant of Clinton and a witness in the case, was allowed to sit in as Clinton’s attorney for Clinton’s FBI interview. They also did not record her interview.

We still don’t know what happened to the laptops --- whether they were destroyed or are still in the custody of the FBI. Even Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not say in his report what happened to them. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has never been able to find out what happened to them, either.

According to Rybiki, there was much discussion and disagreement about who should have access to the laptops, with the DOJ (“I don’t know what level”) trying to restrict it.

Anyway, with all the hysteria over the Mueller report --- the result of an investigation based on made-up evidence --- THIS is the material that the media should be clamoring for. THIS is the evidence of actual lawbreaking by a Presidential candidate and actual obstruction of justice, by our own DOJ no less, a bureaucratic cover-up at the highest levels of government. I’m referring to the many pages of testimony that Judicial Watch and Republicans in Congress have been requesting seemingly forever and that are now gradually dripping out, verifying our worst suspicions.

https://saraacarter.com/former-top-fbi-official-doj-didnt-want-to-grant-access-clinton-attorney-laptops/?utm_source=Darkwire+Inc&utm_campaign=5b6efc2b8a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_23_12_11_COPY_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5f3d745e4f-5b6efc2b8a-283239405

 

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-39 of 39

  • Marcia Standifer

    04/05/2019 01:12 PM

    Governor - I believe the “wasp” in Nadler’s underwear is actually someone called “Screwtape” (thanks, CS Lewis!)

    A quote from this evil and ancient sage: “Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

  • Debra L Marrero

    04/05/2019 12:56 PM

    I don't know why this is not happening to Hillary Clinton.... or any other democrat….. its appalling that the government or any other entity cannot expose or charge the ones who have done wrong. Your correct, if it was a democrat they would not release anything just as they refused with ex president Clinton.

  • d c oliver

    04/05/2019 12:51 PM

    We have so many things in this country that really need attention and the Dems are fixated on Trump. The sadly don't understand they are helping him win. They were elected by the people to busy themselves at doing the country's business and making this country a better place. It is sad to watch supposedly grown people acting so childish.

  • Robert Brewer

    04/05/2019 12:50 PM

    They aren't going insane...
    Those Dumb Ass DemonRats have always been insane!

  • Luetta Wood

    04/05/2019 12:46 PM

    Unbelievable, isn't it?? ??

  • Beth Chisholm

    04/05/2019 12:45 PM

    Thank you for being a voice of sanity in this country where many seem to have lost all sense of reason.

  • Katherine Richardson

    04/05/2019 12:40 PM

    It overwhelms me how many people are either too afraid to stand up for the truth, or they devise ways to present evil information. My friends and I are soooo sick of the Mueller report, fake news and Dems that keep twisting the truth. With evil people, you could be so transparent that your internal organs would be exposed, and they would say you aren't transparent enough!

  • William Kim Gardner

    04/05/2019 12:36 PM

    The Democrats want full discloser because they want to know if their name is on a sealed indictment. So they can leave the country before the military arrives at their front door.

  • Lauren R MacArthur

    04/05/2019 12:23 PM

    I have always been under the impression that our Constitution operates using a presumption of innocence. Therefore, since nothing came out of the Mueller investigation for prosecution, isn't it illegal to make public all the testimony of witnesses that may....or may not....be telling the truth...or may even be mistaken? We do know that Hillary Clinton did things that should have been prosecuted....simply because Comey came out and listed all she had done wrong...and then refused to prosecute. IF he had simply kept quiet, she would have been exonerated. But, he was such a coward....he couldn't do that...because he was afraid of being charged with perjury. So, he made up this complicated explanation to appear that he was doing his job...by making public her "mistakes" and then downplaying the reasons for the mistakes, and claiming he couldn't indict.

  • Richard Payne

    04/05/2019 12:19 PM

    I keep asking the same question. Will anything ever happen to those who tried to bring the Government down? You keep talking about Hillary but no one seems to have any power to do anything. Why hasn't a Grand Jury been convened for anything?

  • Bill Goldsby

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Personally I think the Democrats are still using the Mueller Report to cover up some devious rhetoric they are working on. ,

  • William R. Germer, Sr.

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Isn't there some way to withhold the paycheck of anyone in congress or the senate that obstructs everything and does not actually do the work that they were sent there to do for the good of the people/country. It angers me and I don't enjoy seeing my taxes wasted on foolishness.

  • Keethlyn Fletcher

    04/05/2019 12:04 PM

    I'm curious why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton always seem to show up for the prime photo ops in cases like the Jussie Smolette case. Those two plus Louis Farrakhan are some of the most hateful race baiters in the public eye and I'm surprised more people aren't seeing right through what they're doing . Wake up America these men don't want peace and racial equality. They want to make money and get themselves on TV.
    I think the Reverend Martin Luther king Jr would be ashamed of these actions.

  • David E Steuber

    04/05/2019 12:01 PM

    You say, "Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged."

    Not sure this is correct. My understanding is that the FBI is an investigative agency. It's supposed to send its conclusions to the DOJ, which makes the decision whether or not to indict and actually files the indictment in a court. In short, I don't think the FBI is supposed to make ANY announcements. Even if the DOJ decides to indict, any announcement it makes would be governed by the need to avoid pre-trial publicity that would make it difficult for the accused to get a fair trial. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the Mueller report will be ready to greet its eager public by mid-April. That’s only a week or so away. So why are Democrats embarrassing themselves by calling nonstop for its immediate and total release, even when they know perfectly well that it contains material –- classified records, grand jury proceedings, etc.--- that would be illegal for Barr to make public. Barr has made it plain that he wants to be transparent and will turn over as much as he can, even though he’s not obligated to turn over anything at all. Trump is saying the same.

So why is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler acting like he’s got a wasp in his underwear? (Apologies to the late Morey Amsterdam.)

There’s a clip of Nadler from a couple of decades ago that’s been making the rounds: Nadler argues that Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report on President Clinton should NOT be released. It’s quite hilarious, considering that this time, Nadler wants every last unredacted word of the report on President Trump, even all the supporting documents (which I understand run into the millions of pages). At this writing, he’s readying the subpoena (which the DOJ will refuse, simply because complying with it would be breaking the law). Nadler’s hypocrisy is even worse when you consider that today’s special counsel statute is different from the independent counsel law that governed Ken Starr. Barr is not compelled to give the entire report (or for that matter, any of it) to Congress; Starr was supposed to.

Commentary continues below advertisement

In fact, Barr is behaving exactly as the Democrats would want him to if it were a Democrat President under investigation. Fair, ethical, deliberate, transparent, lawful. But this is Trump, so as far as the Dems are concerned, all that is out the window, ‘cause fairness ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it. In the spirit of Festivus, they want an “airing of grievances” against Trump. Ironically, they want Barr to treat Trump the same way that then-FBI Director James Comey treated Hillary in his infamous July 2016 press conference: Detail a list of accusations even though there’s no indictment.

Alan Dershowitz continues to point out what was wrong with treating Hillary that way. He’s right: Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged. What Dershowitz keeps ignoring, though, is that the most egregious part of Comey’s press conference wasn’t the “airing of grievances” part –- it was the “declining to charge” part. Hillary clearly had broken the law and just as clearly should have been charged with crimes. It would have been quite appropriate for Comey to detail Hillary’s crimes as he did if he had also done the right thing and indicted her.

Dershowitz, who supported Hillary for President, likes to call her misdeeds “political sins” that didn’t call for indictment. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, and Dershowitz is an esteemed one, but I have to disagree with him on that one point. There’s plenty of evidence that Hillary broke the law, and quite spectacularly. To save her from indictment, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to essentially rewrite the Espionage Act –- to require “intent,” which is almost impossible to prove.

In fact, it’s hard to compare these two cases because of that key difference: Hillary broke the law and Trump didn’t. Hillary should have been indicted. Thus it’s hard to have much sympathy for Hillary over Comey’s public recitation of her misdeeds; Comey’s worst mistake was in not following through.

As for the issue of obstruction, Dershowitz reminded viewers in a Thursday night interview with Sean Hannity that the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly on any issue. To do so is NOT obstruction. “I’ve never heard of a case where somebody was charged with obstruction of justice for speaking in public, or tweeting,” he said. “And if you’re the President, you can fire, and you can’t be charged if you engage in your constitutionally protected acts.”

While waiting for Barr to release the report, someone, apparently from Mueller’s team, is strategically leaking, first to The New York Times and then to just about everybody else, to further the narrative that the report is much harder on Trump than Barr had made it seem in his summary. And, of course, the media are salivating over this news, and happy smiles have returned to their faces. On the other hand, John Solomon at THE HILL has sources of his own, at the DOJ, and according to them, the Mueller team wrote their report in “snippets” designed for public dissemination, pieces that read like more like campaign material than a prosecutor’s final report. Also, these do include grand jury information. This certainly is not the sort of material that’s supposed to be released to the public.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437496-note-to-team-mueller-if-you-dont-indict-you-cant-incite

In the meantime, if you’d like to read about some ACTUAL obstruction, here’s some great reading material. Sara Carter has learned still more about how the Hillary email “investigation” was conducted. She’s reviewed some yet-unreleased congressional testimony from James Rybiki, who was chief of staff to James Comey, dealing with how the DOJ tried to limit the FBI’s ability to gain access to the laptops of Hillary confidants Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity in June of 2016, about a month before the FBI closed their “investigation” into Hillary. In exchange for the immunity, they were supposed to get access to the laptops. But according to Rybiki, the DOJ did not want the FBI to have the laptops. Of course, the FBI believed they contained classified information, and normally in such a case they would have sought a grand jury subpoena or warrant. But this time, they didn’t play hardball; they negotiated with Clinton and her lawyers, who set the terms of the deal.

Once again, “the fix was in,” apparently from the DOJ.

We already know that Clinton and her lawyers got other concessions, too. Unbelievably, Cheryl Mills, a State Department confidant of Clinton and a witness in the case, was allowed to sit in as Clinton’s attorney for Clinton’s FBI interview. They also did not record her interview.

We still don’t know what happened to the laptops --- whether they were destroyed or are still in the custody of the FBI. Even Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not say in his report what happened to them. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has never been able to find out what happened to them, either.

According to Rybiki, there was much discussion and disagreement about who should have access to the laptops, with the DOJ (“I don’t know what level”) trying to restrict it.

Anyway, with all the hysteria over the Mueller report --- the result of an investigation based on made-up evidence --- THIS is the material that the media should be clamoring for. THIS is the evidence of actual lawbreaking by a Presidential candidate and actual obstruction of justice, by our own DOJ no less, a bureaucratic cover-up at the highest levels of government. I’m referring to the many pages of testimony that Judicial Watch and Republicans in Congress have been requesting seemingly forever and that are now gradually dripping out, verifying our worst suspicions.

https://saraacarter.com/former-top-fbi-official-doj-didnt-want-to-grant-access-clinton-attorney-laptops/?utm_source=Darkwire+Inc&utm_campaign=5b6efc2b8a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_23_12_11_COPY_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5f3d745e4f-5b6efc2b8a-283239405

 

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-39 of 39

  • Marcia Standifer

    04/05/2019 01:12 PM

    Governor - I believe the “wasp” in Nadler’s underwear is actually someone called “Screwtape” (thanks, CS Lewis!)

    A quote from this evil and ancient sage: “Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

  • Debra L Marrero

    04/05/2019 12:56 PM

    I don't know why this is not happening to Hillary Clinton.... or any other democrat….. its appalling that the government or any other entity cannot expose or charge the ones who have done wrong. Your correct, if it was a democrat they would not release anything just as they refused with ex president Clinton.

  • d c oliver

    04/05/2019 12:51 PM

    We have so many things in this country that really need attention and the Dems are fixated on Trump. The sadly don't understand they are helping him win. They were elected by the people to busy themselves at doing the country's business and making this country a better place. It is sad to watch supposedly grown people acting so childish.

  • Robert Brewer

    04/05/2019 12:50 PM

    They aren't going insane...
    Those Dumb Ass DemonRats have always been insane!

  • Luetta Wood

    04/05/2019 12:46 PM

    Unbelievable, isn't it?? ??

  • Beth Chisholm

    04/05/2019 12:45 PM

    Thank you for being a voice of sanity in this country where many seem to have lost all sense of reason.

  • Katherine Richardson

    04/05/2019 12:40 PM

    It overwhelms me how many people are either too afraid to stand up for the truth, or they devise ways to present evil information. My friends and I are soooo sick of the Mueller report, fake news and Dems that keep twisting the truth. With evil people, you could be so transparent that your internal organs would be exposed, and they would say you aren't transparent enough!

  • William Kim Gardner

    04/05/2019 12:36 PM

    The Democrats want full discloser because they want to know if their name is on a sealed indictment. So they can leave the country before the military arrives at their front door.

  • Lauren R MacArthur

    04/05/2019 12:23 PM

    I have always been under the impression that our Constitution operates using a presumption of innocence. Therefore, since nothing came out of the Mueller investigation for prosecution, isn't it illegal to make public all the testimony of witnesses that may....or may not....be telling the truth...or may even be mistaken? We do know that Hillary Clinton did things that should have been prosecuted....simply because Comey came out and listed all she had done wrong...and then refused to prosecute. IF he had simply kept quiet, she would have been exonerated. But, he was such a coward....he couldn't do that...because he was afraid of being charged with perjury. So, he made up this complicated explanation to appear that he was doing his job...by making public her "mistakes" and then downplaying the reasons for the mistakes, and claiming he couldn't indict.

  • Richard Payne

    04/05/2019 12:19 PM

    I keep asking the same question. Will anything ever happen to those who tried to bring the Government down? You keep talking about Hillary but no one seems to have any power to do anything. Why hasn't a Grand Jury been convened for anything?

  • Bill Goldsby

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Personally I think the Democrats are still using the Mueller Report to cover up some devious rhetoric they are working on. ,

  • William R. Germer, Sr.

    04/05/2019 12:07 PM

    Isn't there some way to withhold the paycheck of anyone in congress or the senate that obstructs everything and does not actually do the work that they were sent there to do for the good of the people/country. It angers me and I don't enjoy seeing my taxes wasted on foolishness.

  • Keethlyn Fletcher

    04/05/2019 12:04 PM

    I'm curious why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton always seem to show up for the prime photo ops in cases like the Jussie Smolette case. Those two plus Louis Farrakhan are some of the most hateful race baiters in the public eye and I'm surprised more people aren't seeing right through what they're doing . Wake up America these men don't want peace and racial equality. They want to make money and get themselves on TV.
    I think the Reverend Martin Luther king Jr would be ashamed of these actions.

  • David E Steuber

    04/05/2019 12:01 PM

    You say, "Comey wasn’t supposed to make public any allegations that weren’t going to be charged."

    Not sure this is correct. My understanding is that the FBI is an investigative agency. It's supposed to send its conclusions to the DOJ, which makes the decision whether or not to indict and actually files the indictment in a court. In short, I don't think the FBI is supposed to make ANY announcements. Even if the DOJ decides to indict, any announcement it makes would be governed by the need to avoid pre-trial publicity that would make it difficult for the accused to get a fair trial. Correct me if I'm wrong.