On Tuesday, the day before Attorney General William Barr was set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Post oh-so-coincidentally came out with a sensational story about Robert Mueller complaining in a letter to Barr a month ago that Barr’s four-page conclusion didn’t capture the “context, nature and substance” of the special counsel report. Predictably, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) went into histrionics over that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called it “an unprecedented, stunning rebuke” of the attorney general by the special counsel. Rep. Maxine Waters said Barr should resign or otherwise face (what else?) impeachment. It went on and on, so I’ll spare you any more.


Commentary continues below advertisement


Let’s dispense with this non-event so we can move on to more important things. Way far down in that same story, it was reported that Mueller “emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 conclusion was inaccurate or misleading,” that he was just concerned that the media coverage of it might be giving the wrong idea. Well, Washington Post, that just totally cancels out your headline and renders this a non-story, doesn’t it? Did you read your own story, WAPO? Are you aware that Mueller had to know from the start of his investigation that it was based on essentially nothing in the way of evidence, so he would have had to draw the same conclusion as Barr, albeit reluctantly? Are you also aware that Mueller was given the option of reading Barr’s conclusion before it was released to Congress but chose not to?

 

Another reason this story means nothing is that the full report was made public very soon after Barr got that letter from Mueller. Nothing was ever intended to be kept under wraps. At the time he was writing his conclusion, Barr knew he’d be releasing the whole thing, so there was no point in trying to slant it. Also, Mueller could have refuted the conclusion right away –- publicly –- if there had been anything to refute. So, who cares?

 

Yet another reason this means nothing is that Barr and Mueller spoke by phone right away to discuss Mueller’s concerns.  They spoke cordially about whether to release additional material for context, with Barr deciding the full report should just come out all at once, not piecemeal. Contrary to news accounts, it was not a big deal. After all, Mueller (Rod Rosenstein, too) had worked with Barr on the redactions to the report as well as the four-page conclusion that came out in March, the one Mueller was supposedly complaining about. There is nothing to this story at all.


Commentary continues below advertisement


As Byron York tweeted, “Interesting situation. We have Barr’s letter. We have Mueller report. Unless there’s some huge, decisive stuff in the redactions (and early indication is there’s not), we can judge for ourselves, can’t we? Does it really matter what Barr, Mueller or Andrew Weissmann thinks?”

 

Keep in mind that the more we find out about the fraudulent FISA warrants and the spying on Trump even after he was elected President –- and, especially, start to question how high this goes –- the more Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will try to distract with non-stories such as this one. They will do whatever they can to discredit Barr. Like FBI officials who can smell the Trump support inside a small-town Walmart, I smell the anxiety and desperation of government officials, both present and former, who are scared to death of being found out.

 

As with so many stories that come out in WAPO and the NYT that turn out to be flat-out wrong or based on nothing, this one isn’t worth spending much time on. But here it is...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

 

And here’s the FOX News version…

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

 

Moving on. At this writing, House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler is still insisting that staff attorneys should be able to question Barr in his Thursday hearing, in an hour-long follow-up to the regular session. Here’s why this is a ridiculous demand: it’s obvious they’re just trying to make this look as much like an impeachment hearing as possible, even though it’s nothing of the sort. There is no need to have a team of slick, unelected attorneys pose questions to the attorney general, as, according to the rules, members of Congress would normally do the questioning and the attorneys can always pass suggested questions to them, like paid SAT cheaters passing the answers to children of rich, famous celebrities. Barr knows perfectly well that this is just a big show designed to make it look as if he --- and, by extension, the Trump administration --- were guilty of something, even though the special counsel investigation has finished and Trump was found guilty of NOTHING.


Commentary continues below advertisement


No matter how Barr decides to handle this, it’ll play as political theater –- melodrama, to be more descriptive. If he comes to testify, there will be the video of him being grilled by a cadre of attorneys like someone on trial. If he doesn’t come to testify, there will be the video of Nadler taking to the microphone and shaking his head at the attorney general’s lamentable dereliction of duty, which of course he’ll say was undertaken to “protect the President.” Then Barr will be served with a congressional subpoena –- which is unenforceable, by the way, though he could be held in contempt –- and the drama will continue. In fact, I think Nadler would dearly love to be able to serve Barr with a subpoena, just to make it look as though Barr has something to hide when he really doesn’t.

 

Sean Hannity on Tuesday night pointed out the exact rule that deals with the questioning: “Rule III. Hearings, (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.” Nothing there about interrogation by staff attorneys. “Member” means “member of Congress,” not “member of the American Bar Association.”

 

By the time you read this, Bill Barr will likely be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, as led by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, WILL follow the rules. So let’s move on to what I’d planned to lead with today…

 

The few investigative reporters who have been chasing the story of Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier and the phony “Trump/Russia” investigation have started to look seriously into Obama’s role in the whole thing. They know it doesn’t make sense for the likes of John Brennan, Loretta Lynch and James Clapper to have been working on this unbeknownst to the President. When reporters turn up texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that say things like “potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” it keeps them pressing on.

 

Here’s something from the archives that shows they’re on the right track. In 2016, Hillary for America paid Perkins Coie, the law firm that hired Fusion GPS, just under $5.1 million. The DNC (which, as we know, was also working for Hillary) paid them nearly $5.4 million. And...(drum roll, please)...Obama for America, described as “Obama’s official campaign arm,” paid them nearly $800,000 that year. Obama wasn’t running for anything by then, so I wonder what they got for their money.  You know, it's really interesting to look back on this and other stories from that time (2017) because back then, we didn't know a lot of what we know now about Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr and the rest.  The picture is slowly filling in.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

Finally, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch is still trying to get information on how the FBI communicated with Christopher Steele after he was let go for being an unreliable source (which they never told the FISA court). He’s suing the Justice Department under the Freedom Of Information Act to get key emails between Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr after the FBI just couldn’t seem to find them. Some of those records are as elusive as files from the Rose Law Firm. But Fitton never gives up. He knows we'll thank him later.

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-for-communications-between-key-anti-trump-collusion-officials-peter-strzok-and-bruce-ohr/

 

 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 26-36 of 36

  • Steve McDonnough

    05/01/2019 12:48 PM

    Mr. Mueller wasted almost two full years, and 10's of millions of dollars on a rigged investigation trying to prove that there was collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians to rig the 2016 election.
    He found no evidence of collusion, therefore the only conclusion one can draw from that is that there was "no collusion". Unless of course you are a Democrat or the Washington Post (synonyms) grasping for straws and reach out to fairy tales for your make believe stories and conclusions.

  • Mark Stripling

    05/01/2019 12:01 PM

    Deep State=Deep Corruption=Deep Trouble, for them. Now I know why they are all trying to get a book published. They know they are going to need mucho dinero for lawyers.

  • Michael J Guagenti

    05/01/2019 11:56 AM

    Full disclosure I schemed , but the bottom line will the true traitors ever really brought to justice? I am referring to Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, all the FBI people not doing what they were hired to do. If not this is an exercise I futility that is so frustrating it is exhausting. Equal justice under the law appears to me to be none existent and that saddens and scares me. We need a bulldog, a Winston Churchill to go after this.

  • Terry Ingle

    05/01/2019 11:50 AM

    Nothing + nothing= nothing. They know there is nothing there and so does the press, but they are counting on the stupidity of their sheeple to keep this going. All they need to do is throw them a couple of scraps now and then and the TDS crowd will keep going for the bait.

  • Marlene Helfrick

    05/01/2019 11:48 AM

    Nadler was the same person who claimed that the Bill Clinton report should not be put out in it's entirety because it would mention and embarass persons who were not charged with any crimes. Now he wants everyone named no matter if they not charged with any crimes. More DemocRAT hypocrisy on display. This corrupt officials even want grand jury information on pending cases released, which is illegal. DemocRats don't mind breaking the law as long as it profits them. A second point is that no matter what is redacted, if given to Nadler, it will be leeked to the democratic propaganda machine media at once.

  • Mary Gobbo

    05/01/2019 11:27 AM

    I would also like to see publicized the fact that Adam Schiff was pranked- and a recording of it is out there- of him looking to obtain Russian dirt on Trump. Why is this not being discussed! Thank you, Governor, for your on-the-money commentary.

  • albert ruhmann

    05/01/2019 11:25 AM

    "Thank You" for informing us on these things. I am sure Tom fitton will continue Judicial Watch investigations.

  • Joseph Trokey

    05/01/2019 11:22 AM

    This is simple. The second Barr said spying, alarm bells started sounding off on at least half of the Democrats in D.C. and they started to scramble like roaches when you turn on the lights.

  • Vicki Gordon

    05/01/2019 10:58 AM

    Thank you so much for continuing to dig up the truth. My self and many Americans want to know the truth and want the guilty parties to be exposed and brought to justice! Time to hound them like they are hounding our President! If we do not make public all the dirty, unlawful things they have done, our country will never be the great country it once was and the country our forefathers left us!

  • A. D. Vinke

    05/01/2019 10:53 AM

    Waters is a know nothing, big mouth, Nadler is grandstanding and the Washington Post would not be good toilet paper if it was in paper edition!!

  • Lawrence E. Foster

    05/01/2019 10:30 AM

    GovernorMike,

    Looking at the comments by Connecutt senator Bloominidiot and California (where else) rep Maxi Waters, and I keep aving the same two questions. 1) Where do they find these idiots? 2) Why do the people of these states keep sending idiots like this back to Congress? I think we need a constitutional amendment that allows only one village idiot in each chamber.

On Tuesday, the day before Attorney General William Barr was set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Post oh-so-coincidentally came out with a sensational story about Robert Mueller complaining in a letter to Barr a month ago that Barr’s four-page conclusion didn’t capture the “context, nature and substance” of the special counsel report. Predictably, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) went into histrionics over that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called it “an unprecedented, stunning rebuke” of the attorney general by the special counsel. Rep. Maxine Waters said Barr should resign or otherwise face (what else?) impeachment. It went on and on, so I’ll spare you any more.


Commentary continues below advertisement


Let’s dispense with this non-event so we can move on to more important things. Way far down in that same story, it was reported that Mueller “emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 conclusion was inaccurate or misleading,” that he was just concerned that the media coverage of it might be giving the wrong idea. Well, Washington Post, that just totally cancels out your headline and renders this a non-story, doesn’t it? Did you read your own story, WAPO? Are you aware that Mueller had to know from the start of his investigation that it was based on essentially nothing in the way of evidence, so he would have had to draw the same conclusion as Barr, albeit reluctantly? Are you also aware that Mueller was given the option of reading Barr’s conclusion before it was released to Congress but chose not to?

 

Another reason this story means nothing is that the full report was made public very soon after Barr got that letter from Mueller. Nothing was ever intended to be kept under wraps. At the time he was writing his conclusion, Barr knew he’d be releasing the whole thing, so there was no point in trying to slant it. Also, Mueller could have refuted the conclusion right away –- publicly –- if there had been anything to refute. So, who cares?

 

Yet another reason this means nothing is that Barr and Mueller spoke by phone right away to discuss Mueller’s concerns.  They spoke cordially about whether to release additional material for context, with Barr deciding the full report should just come out all at once, not piecemeal. Contrary to news accounts, it was not a big deal. After all, Mueller (Rod Rosenstein, too) had worked with Barr on the redactions to the report as well as the four-page conclusion that came out in March, the one Mueller was supposedly complaining about. There is nothing to this story at all.


Commentary continues below advertisement


As Byron York tweeted, “Interesting situation. We have Barr’s letter. We have Mueller report. Unless there’s some huge, decisive stuff in the redactions (and early indication is there’s not), we can judge for ourselves, can’t we? Does it really matter what Barr, Mueller or Andrew Weissmann thinks?”

 

Keep in mind that the more we find out about the fraudulent FISA warrants and the spying on Trump even after he was elected President –- and, especially, start to question how high this goes –- the more Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will try to distract with non-stories such as this one. They will do whatever they can to discredit Barr. Like FBI officials who can smell the Trump support inside a small-town Walmart, I smell the anxiety and desperation of government officials, both present and former, who are scared to death of being found out.

 

As with so many stories that come out in WAPO and the NYT that turn out to be flat-out wrong or based on nothing, this one isn’t worth spending much time on. But here it is...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

 

And here’s the FOX News version…

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

 

Moving on. At this writing, House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler is still insisting that staff attorneys should be able to question Barr in his Thursday hearing, in an hour-long follow-up to the regular session. Here’s why this is a ridiculous demand: it’s obvious they’re just trying to make this look as much like an impeachment hearing as possible, even though it’s nothing of the sort. There is no need to have a team of slick, unelected attorneys pose questions to the attorney general, as, according to the rules, members of Congress would normally do the questioning and the attorneys can always pass suggested questions to them, like paid SAT cheaters passing the answers to children of rich, famous celebrities. Barr knows perfectly well that this is just a big show designed to make it look as if he --- and, by extension, the Trump administration --- were guilty of something, even though the special counsel investigation has finished and Trump was found guilty of NOTHING.


Commentary continues below advertisement


No matter how Barr decides to handle this, it’ll play as political theater –- melodrama, to be more descriptive. If he comes to testify, there will be the video of him being grilled by a cadre of attorneys like someone on trial. If he doesn’t come to testify, there will be the video of Nadler taking to the microphone and shaking his head at the attorney general’s lamentable dereliction of duty, which of course he’ll say was undertaken to “protect the President.” Then Barr will be served with a congressional subpoena –- which is unenforceable, by the way, though he could be held in contempt –- and the drama will continue. In fact, I think Nadler would dearly love to be able to serve Barr with a subpoena, just to make it look as though Barr has something to hide when he really doesn’t.

 

Sean Hannity on Tuesday night pointed out the exact rule that deals with the questioning: “Rule III. Hearings, (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.” Nothing there about interrogation by staff attorneys. “Member” means “member of Congress,” not “member of the American Bar Association.”

 

By the time you read this, Bill Barr will likely be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, as led by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, WILL follow the rules. So let’s move on to what I’d planned to lead with today…

 

The few investigative reporters who have been chasing the story of Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier and the phony “Trump/Russia” investigation have started to look seriously into Obama’s role in the whole thing. They know it doesn’t make sense for the likes of John Brennan, Loretta Lynch and James Clapper to have been working on this unbeknownst to the President. When reporters turn up texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that say things like “potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” it keeps them pressing on.

 

Here’s something from the archives that shows they’re on the right track. In 2016, Hillary for America paid Perkins Coie, the law firm that hired Fusion GPS, just under $5.1 million. The DNC (which, as we know, was also working for Hillary) paid them nearly $5.4 million. And...(drum roll, please)...Obama for America, described as “Obama’s official campaign arm,” paid them nearly $800,000 that year. Obama wasn’t running for anything by then, so I wonder what they got for their money.  You know, it's really interesting to look back on this and other stories from that time (2017) because back then, we didn't know a lot of what we know now about Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr and the rest.  The picture is slowly filling in.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

Finally, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch is still trying to get information on how the FBI communicated with Christopher Steele after he was let go for being an unreliable source (which they never told the FISA court). He’s suing the Justice Department under the Freedom Of Information Act to get key emails between Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr after the FBI just couldn’t seem to find them. Some of those records are as elusive as files from the Rose Law Firm. But Fitton never gives up. He knows we'll thank him later.

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-for-communications-between-key-anti-trump-collusion-officials-peter-strzok-and-bruce-ohr/

 

 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 26-36 of 36

  • Steve McDonnough

    05/01/2019 12:48 PM

    Mr. Mueller wasted almost two full years, and 10's of millions of dollars on a rigged investigation trying to prove that there was collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians to rig the 2016 election.
    He found no evidence of collusion, therefore the only conclusion one can draw from that is that there was "no collusion". Unless of course you are a Democrat or the Washington Post (synonyms) grasping for straws and reach out to fairy tales for your make believe stories and conclusions.

  • Mark Stripling

    05/01/2019 12:01 PM

    Deep State=Deep Corruption=Deep Trouble, for them. Now I know why they are all trying to get a book published. They know they are going to need mucho dinero for lawyers.

  • Michael J Guagenti

    05/01/2019 11:56 AM

    Full disclosure I schemed , but the bottom line will the true traitors ever really brought to justice? I am referring to Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, all the FBI people not doing what they were hired to do. If not this is an exercise I futility that is so frustrating it is exhausting. Equal justice under the law appears to me to be none existent and that saddens and scares me. We need a bulldog, a Winston Churchill to go after this.

  • Terry Ingle

    05/01/2019 11:50 AM

    Nothing + nothing= nothing. They know there is nothing there and so does the press, but they are counting on the stupidity of their sheeple to keep this going. All they need to do is throw them a couple of scraps now and then and the TDS crowd will keep going for the bait.

  • Marlene Helfrick

    05/01/2019 11:48 AM

    Nadler was the same person who claimed that the Bill Clinton report should not be put out in it's entirety because it would mention and embarass persons who were not charged with any crimes. Now he wants everyone named no matter if they not charged with any crimes. More DemocRAT hypocrisy on display. This corrupt officials even want grand jury information on pending cases released, which is illegal. DemocRats don't mind breaking the law as long as it profits them. A second point is that no matter what is redacted, if given to Nadler, it will be leeked to the democratic propaganda machine media at once.

  • Mary Gobbo

    05/01/2019 11:27 AM

    I would also like to see publicized the fact that Adam Schiff was pranked- and a recording of it is out there- of him looking to obtain Russian dirt on Trump. Why is this not being discussed! Thank you, Governor, for your on-the-money commentary.

  • albert ruhmann

    05/01/2019 11:25 AM

    "Thank You" for informing us on these things. I am sure Tom fitton will continue Judicial Watch investigations.

  • Joseph Trokey

    05/01/2019 11:22 AM

    This is simple. The second Barr said spying, alarm bells started sounding off on at least half of the Democrats in D.C. and they started to scramble like roaches when you turn on the lights.

  • Vicki Gordon

    05/01/2019 10:58 AM

    Thank you so much for continuing to dig up the truth. My self and many Americans want to know the truth and want the guilty parties to be exposed and brought to justice! Time to hound them like they are hounding our President! If we do not make public all the dirty, unlawful things they have done, our country will never be the great country it once was and the country our forefathers left us!

  • A. D. Vinke

    05/01/2019 10:53 AM

    Waters is a know nothing, big mouth, Nadler is grandstanding and the Washington Post would not be good toilet paper if it was in paper edition!!

  • Lawrence E. Foster

    05/01/2019 10:30 AM

    GovernorMike,

    Looking at the comments by Connecutt senator Bloominidiot and California (where else) rep Maxi Waters, and I keep aving the same two questions. 1) Where do they find these idiots? 2) Why do the people of these states keep sending idiots like this back to Congress? I think we need a constitutional amendment that allows only one village idiot in each chamber.

On Tuesday, the day before Attorney General William Barr was set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Post oh-so-coincidentally came out with a sensational story about Robert Mueller complaining in a letter to Barr a month ago that Barr’s four-page conclusion didn’t capture the “context, nature and substance” of the special counsel report. Predictably, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) went into histrionics over that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal called it “an unprecedented, stunning rebuke” of the attorney general by the special counsel. Rep. Maxine Waters said Barr should resign or otherwise face (what else?) impeachment. It went on and on, so I’ll spare you any more.


Commentary continues below advertisement


Let’s dispense with this non-event so we can move on to more important things. Way far down in that same story, it was reported that Mueller “emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 conclusion was inaccurate or misleading,” that he was just concerned that the media coverage of it might be giving the wrong idea. Well, Washington Post, that just totally cancels out your headline and renders this a non-story, doesn’t it? Did you read your own story, WAPO? Are you aware that Mueller had to know from the start of his investigation that it was based on essentially nothing in the way of evidence, so he would have had to draw the same conclusion as Barr, albeit reluctantly? Are you also aware that Mueller was given the option of reading Barr’s conclusion before it was released to Congress but chose not to?

 

Another reason this story means nothing is that the full report was made public very soon after Barr got that letter from Mueller. Nothing was ever intended to be kept under wraps. At the time he was writing his conclusion, Barr knew he’d be releasing the whole thing, so there was no point in trying to slant it. Also, Mueller could have refuted the conclusion right away –- publicly –- if there had been anything to refute. So, who cares?

 

Yet another reason this means nothing is that Barr and Mueller spoke by phone right away to discuss Mueller’s concerns.  They spoke cordially about whether to release additional material for context, with Barr deciding the full report should just come out all at once, not piecemeal. Contrary to news accounts, it was not a big deal. After all, Mueller (Rod Rosenstein, too) had worked with Barr on the redactions to the report as well as the four-page conclusion that came out in March, the one Mueller was supposedly complaining about. There is nothing to this story at all.


Commentary continues below advertisement


As Byron York tweeted, “Interesting situation. We have Barr’s letter. We have Mueller report. Unless there’s some huge, decisive stuff in the redactions (and early indication is there’s not), we can judge for ourselves, can’t we? Does it really matter what Barr, Mueller or Andrew Weissmann thinks?”

 

Keep in mind that the more we find out about the fraudulent FISA warrants and the spying on Trump even after he was elected President –- and, especially, start to question how high this goes –- the more Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will try to distract with non-stories such as this one. They will do whatever they can to discredit Barr. Like FBI officials who can smell the Trump support inside a small-town Walmart, I smell the anxiety and desperation of government officials, both present and former, who are scared to death of being found out.

 

As with so many stories that come out in WAPO and the NYT that turn out to be flat-out wrong or based on nothing, this one isn’t worth spending much time on. But here it is...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/ar-AAAKJB8

 

And here’s the FOX News version…

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-to-face-dem-grilling-in-first-senate-hearing-since-mueller-report-release

 

Moving on. At this writing, House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler is still insisting that staff attorneys should be able to question Barr in his Thursday hearing, in an hour-long follow-up to the regular session. Here’s why this is a ridiculous demand: it’s obvious they’re just trying to make this look as much like an impeachment hearing as possible, even though it’s nothing of the sort. There is no need to have a team of slick, unelected attorneys pose questions to the attorney general, as, according to the rules, members of Congress would normally do the questioning and the attorneys can always pass suggested questions to them, like paid SAT cheaters passing the answers to children of rich, famous celebrities. Barr knows perfectly well that this is just a big show designed to make it look as if he --- and, by extension, the Trump administration --- were guilty of something, even though the special counsel investigation has finished and Trump was found guilty of NOTHING.


Commentary continues below advertisement


No matter how Barr decides to handle this, it’ll play as political theater –- melodrama, to be more descriptive. If he comes to testify, there will be the video of him being grilled by a cadre of attorneys like someone on trial. If he doesn’t come to testify, there will be the video of Nadler taking to the microphone and shaking his head at the attorney general’s lamentable dereliction of duty, which of course he’ll say was undertaken to “protect the President.” Then Barr will be served with a congressional subpoena –- which is unenforceable, by the way, though he could be held in contempt –- and the drama will continue. In fact, I think Nadler would dearly love to be able to serve Barr with a subpoena, just to make it look as though Barr has something to hide when he really doesn’t.

 

Sean Hannity on Tuesday night pointed out the exact rule that deals with the questioning: “Rule III. Hearings, (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.” Nothing there about interrogation by staff attorneys. “Member” means “member of Congress,” not “member of the American Bar Association.”

 

By the time you read this, Bill Barr will likely be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, as led by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, WILL follow the rules. So let’s move on to what I’d planned to lead with today…

 

The few investigative reporters who have been chasing the story of Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier and the phony “Trump/Russia” investigation have started to look seriously into Obama’s role in the whole thing. They know it doesn’t make sense for the likes of John Brennan, Loretta Lynch and James Clapper to have been working on this unbeknownst to the President. When reporters turn up texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that say things like “potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” it keeps them pressing on.

 

Here’s something from the archives that shows they’re on the right track. In 2016, Hillary for America paid Perkins Coie, the law firm that hired Fusion GPS, just under $5.1 million. The DNC (which, as we know, was also working for Hillary) paid them nearly $5.4 million. And...(drum roll, please)...Obama for America, described as “Obama’s official campaign arm,” paid them nearly $800,000 that year. Obama wasn’t running for anything by then, so I wonder what they got for their money.  You know, it's really interesting to look back on this and other stories from that time (2017) because back then, we didn't know a lot of what we know now about Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr and the rest.  The picture is slowly filling in.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

Finally, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch is still trying to get information on how the FBI communicated with Christopher Steele after he was let go for being an unreliable source (which they never told the FISA court). He’s suing the Justice Department under the Freedom Of Information Act to get key emails between Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr after the FBI just couldn’t seem to find them. Some of those records are as elusive as files from the Rose Law Firm. But Fitton never gives up. He knows we'll thank him later.

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-for-communications-between-key-anti-trump-collusion-officials-peter-strzok-and-bruce-ohr/

 

 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 26-36 of 36

  • Steve McDonnough

    05/01/2019 12:48 PM

    Mr. Mueller wasted almost two full years, and 10's of millions of dollars on a rigged investigation trying to prove that there was collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians to rig the 2016 election.
    He found no evidence of collusion, therefore the only conclusion one can draw from that is that there was "no collusion". Unless of course you are a Democrat or the Washington Post (synonyms) grasping for straws and reach out to fairy tales for your make believe stories and conclusions.

  • Mark Stripling

    05/01/2019 12:01 PM

    Deep State=Deep Corruption=Deep Trouble, for them. Now I know why they are all trying to get a book published. They know they are going to need mucho dinero for lawyers.

  • Michael J Guagenti

    05/01/2019 11:56 AM

    Full disclosure I schemed , but the bottom line will the true traitors ever really brought to justice? I am referring to Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, all the FBI people not doing what they were hired to do. If not this is an exercise I futility that is so frustrating it is exhausting. Equal justice under the law appears to me to be none existent and that saddens and scares me. We need a bulldog, a Winston Churchill to go after this.

  • Terry Ingle

    05/01/2019 11:50 AM

    Nothing + nothing= nothing. They know there is nothing there and so does the press, but they are counting on the stupidity of their sheeple to keep this going. All they need to do is throw them a couple of scraps now and then and the TDS crowd will keep going for the bait.

  • Marlene Helfrick

    05/01/2019 11:48 AM

    Nadler was the same person who claimed that the Bill Clinton report should not be put out in it's entirety because it would mention and embarass persons who were not charged with any crimes. Now he wants everyone named no matter if they not charged with any crimes. More DemocRAT hypocrisy on display. This corrupt officials even want grand jury information on pending cases released, which is illegal. DemocRats don't mind breaking the law as long as it profits them. A second point is that no matter what is redacted, if given to Nadler, it will be leeked to the democratic propaganda machine media at once.

  • Mary Gobbo

    05/01/2019 11:27 AM

    I would also like to see publicized the fact that Adam Schiff was pranked- and a recording of it is out there- of him looking to obtain Russian dirt on Trump. Why is this not being discussed! Thank you, Governor, for your on-the-money commentary.

  • albert ruhmann

    05/01/2019 11:25 AM

    "Thank You" for informing us on these things. I am sure Tom fitton will continue Judicial Watch investigations.

  • Joseph Trokey

    05/01/2019 11:22 AM

    This is simple. The second Barr said spying, alarm bells started sounding off on at least half of the Democrats in D.C. and they started to scramble like roaches when you turn on the lights.

  • Vicki Gordon

    05/01/2019 10:58 AM

    Thank you so much for continuing to dig up the truth. My self and many Americans want to know the truth and want the guilty parties to be exposed and brought to justice! Time to hound them like they are hounding our President! If we do not make public all the dirty, unlawful things they have done, our country will never be the great country it once was and the country our forefathers left us!

  • A. D. Vinke

    05/01/2019 10:53 AM

    Waters is a know nothing, big mouth, Nadler is grandstanding and the Washington Post would not be good toilet paper if it was in paper edition!!

  • Lawrence E. Foster

    05/01/2019 10:30 AM

    GovernorMike,

    Looking at the comments by Connecutt senator Bloominidiot and California (where else) rep Maxi Waters, and I keep aving the same two questions. 1) Where do they find these idiots? 2) Why do the people of these states keep sending idiots like this back to Congress? I think we need a constitutional amendment that allows only one village idiot in each chamber.