September 28, 2020
By Mike Huckabee
REVEALED: SPECIAL COUNSEL PLAYED GAME OF "COLLUSION 'CLUE'"
I don’t know if Maria Bartiromo had something in her eye during this weekend's edition of SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, but it sure looked like a small tear running down her cheek as she reported that, according to her sources, John Durham’s report on the “Trump/Russia” investigation would not be out until after the election.
Durham’s office reportedly had concerns that delivering his conclusions this close to the election would be considered too politicizing, but I strongly disagree. I’m with Sen. Ron Johnson, who appeared on her show later in the hour. We’ve long been saying that it’s the withholding of information until after the election that should be seen as politicizing, not the releasing, as voters deserve all the information they can get before casting their ballots. Sen. Johnson said essentially the same thing on Sunday.
One of Bartiromo’s guests, Sen. Lindsay Graham, did have encouraging news: the Senate Judiciary Committee intends to call William Barnett, the FBI agent who opened the Michael Flynn case –- after being personally selected by Joe Pientka, who supervised “Crossfire Hurricane” –- and learned over time that it was all about “getting Trump.” Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway have a new report on the interview with Barnett conducted just under two weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the special counsel’s handling of the Michael Flynn case.
One thing that stood out to me in reading this was that Barrett said special counsel agents would actually joke about it being a game of “Collusion ‘CLUE.’” In this game, he said, investigators choose any character, in any location, conducting any activity, and pair this person with another character and interpret it as evidence of collusion. Hilarious.
Barnett is essentially a whistleblower now –- not the kind Democrats like –- and the transcript of his interview with Jensen, or at least the summary, was obtained by Flynn lawyer Sidney Powell and filed with Judge Emmet Sullivan. (If Durham isn’t going to release any report before the election, we’re dependent on this sort of process to get the facts out.)
Barrett said in his interview that there was never any basis for the Trump/Russia “collusion” theory. He told DOJ investigators that “the handling of the probes [Flynn and Paul Manafort] troubled him so much that he threatened to quit working on it in one case, and threatened to go to the Inspector General in another."
In 2016, when Barrett was first assigned to the case, he thought that reading through the evidence would give him a better understanding of why the investigation into Trump’s “collusion” with Russia was launched. But after about six weeks, he still couldn’t figure it out. He characterized their theory as “groping.”
Bartlett is the agent who moved to close the Flynn case due to lack of evidence. He’s the one who was told by Peter Strzok that the “7th Floor” wanted to keep it open and that Flynn should be investigated for a Logan Act violation. (Recall that then-Vice President Joe Biden was present at the January 5 Oval Office meeting during which this was discussed and, according to Sally Yates, was the one to bring up the Logan Act.) Bartlett was not familiar with the Logan Act –- who was? –- but after researching it, knew that it didn’t apply to Flynn, who was not a private citizen but the incoming national security adviser.
Read the Davis/Hemingway piece for details of how Bartlett was cut out of Strzok and Pientka’s “ambush” interview with Flynn. Apparently, Bartlett was left out of other meetings as well, as the Flynn probe was directed “from the top down,” meaning all the direction was coming from senior officials. (My speculation is that at by then, they would've liked to have him off the case but were worried about what he might say publicly.)
By February 2017, Bartlett had had his fill and asked to be removed from the case. In his interview, he said that the Flynn investigation “was problematic and could result in an IG investigation.” (He didn’t need a crystal ball for that one!)
Ironically, it was the supervision by top officials that had made him think it must be legal, as uncomfortable as it made him. Bartlett added that one analyst who was “very skeptical of the Flynn collusion investigation” ---name not provided, but it wasn’t Bartlett --- was indeed removed from the Flynn investigation. (Surely Jensen has interviewed that person.)
When the Flynn investigation was made part of Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe in May 2017, Barrett told team member Jeannie Rhee that there was “no evidence of a crime” committed by Flynn. She dismissed his concerns. He said he didn’t want to be involved in the special counsel, but Peter Strzok urged him to move over there. Davis and Hemingway report that Bartlett “decided to work at the special counsel office in the hope his perspective would keep them from ‘group think.’”
Once Bartlett was working with the special counsel, he could see the “group think” in action --- what he characterized as “GET TRUMP.” The investigation was run in the opposite way of how an FBI investigation would be. He said, “There was always someone at SCO (special counsel’s office) who claimed to have a lead on information that would prove the collusion, only to have the information be a dead end.” It happened over and over.
Incidentally, Bartlett never wiped his phone, though he testified that other members of the special counsel would joke about wiping theirs.
The notes from Bartlett’s interview ended with this: “Bartlett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”
It seems there might be much more behind Durham’s delay than we ever imagined. RedState.com has some interesting observations on that.
This report came in after Maria Bartiromo’s show, and I hope she’s had a chance to read it. This writer doesn’t think that Jensen and Barr were prepared for what has been revealed by Bartlett about the political calculations involved in the Russia Hoax investigation. There is speculation that Barr is extremely upset that Mueller, now aging and perhaps fading a bit mentally, was being used as cover by Andrew Weissmann and others to overstep wildly in their desire to “get Trump.”
Something had to trigger Barr’s decision to have Barrett interviewed by Jensen. It’s possible that this has to do with Judge Emmet Sullivan’s (mis)handling of the Michael Flynn case, as it shows the case to be even more obviously politically motivated than we knew. The message to Sullivan: “Sure, you idiot, go ahead and keep this case open. The longer you keep it open, the more we’ll reveal.”
And apparently, there is more. What we’ve seen has to do with “Crossfire Razor,” the investigation into Flynn. The rest is known only to investigators. It seems that the information that Jensen got from Agent Barrett may indeed be a game-changer. Even so, it’s wrong to keep it under wraps, for whatever reason, until after the election—two words: interim report.
Saturday, President Trump made it official, nominating Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.
As you can see in the linked article, Democratic leaders are already resorting to their standard playbook: foaming and fulminating, citing the Constitution incorrectly and accusing the nominee of wanting to take health care away from American families (as the mother of seven kids, including a special needs child, obviously would.) And of course, we’re already hearing from some Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (whose previous government experience for the Senate was one term in the House) that Barrett is “clearly unfit for the Supreme Court.”
So in advance of the hearings, which Republicans hope to wrap up by October 26, I thought you might like to know a bit about her resume. She got a magna cum laude BA in English lit from Rhodes College and was inducted into the honors fraternity Phi Beta Kappa. She went on to study law at Notre Dame on a full scholarship, was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and graduated summa cum laude and first in her class. She spent two years as a law clerk, including for SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, and three years in private law practice, including doing research for the historic Bush v. Gore case.
She became a law professor, teaching first at George Washington University and then Notre Dame, where she received the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” award three times. Here’s an article by three former students of varying political views who all agree that she’s the embodiment of integrity and virtue, she “treats every person with whom she interacts with the utmost respect, kindness, and warmth” and “the nation could not ask for a more qualified candidate":
And here is a Notre Dame law school colleague who disagrees with her political views but says her “intellect and heart are unrivaled,” and that she is brilliant, humble, loving, kind, a principled and careful judge and “one of the most generous people I have ever met,” as well as “a leading constitutional law scholar and one of our best, and most challenging, teachers.”
She’s continued teaching law, even while serving as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and raising seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome. She also personally went to bat for a blind student who was having problems and mentored her for three years. She recently completed service as the first blind Supreme Court law clerk in US history.
If that’s what Democrats consider “unqualified for office,” what would they call AOC?
MUST-READ: VOTER FRAUD IN MINNESOTA
Project Veritas just released a new undercover video expose of alleged voter fraud tied to Rep. Ilhan Omar. It involves accusations of vote buying and ballot harvesting to keep Omar and other members of the DFL (Democratic-Farmers-Labor Party) in power in Minnesota. This is a must-read, and more details are at the link.
Just a few lowlights: alleged ballot harvester Liban Mohamed is on video showing piles of ballots in his car and bragging about harvesting 300 that day for his brother, Minneapolis City Council member Jamal Osman (state law bars anyone from acting as a “designated agent” for more than three absentee voters.)
An anonymous whistleblower also claims that before the August primary, Omar’s ballot harvesters went to the Charles Horn Towers public housing complex and took every ballot from seniors there. She said, “They have perfected this system…They will tell you we are applying for your ballot. They take a picture of your Social Security and your driver’s license. They have a database. When the ballot comes, they track it. Sometimes, they make fake emails. They track the ballot. Then they come and pick up the ballot, unopened…They don’t give a (bleep) about any Somali…The DFL wants to win this state at all costs…and the victims is the Somali people.”
She also claims that young people and women were paid for their votes in the primary and that campaign operatives “were carrying bags of money…When you vote and they mark you off, then you get in the van, they give you the cash.”
Read the whole thing and get justifiably and non-partisanly furious. These tactics not only put corrupt politicians in power over all of us, they also cancel out legitimate votes and disenfranchise real voters. I have little faith in Minneapolis officials to investigate this (they’re too busy defunding their police department), but maybe it will finally convince FBI Director Christopher Wray that vote fraud really is a problem worth dealing with.
THE PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST AMY CONEY BARRETT BEGIN
Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family are already receiving scurrilous personal attacks. We’ve seen a New York Times writer promote anti-Catholic bigotry against her…
And a CBS contributor and self-styled “anti-racist” and “anti-capitalist” scraped a little slime off the bottom of the barrel by suggesting she’s trying to hide her racism by adopting two black children from Haiti, comparing her family to “white colonizers” who “’civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of white people.”
Disgusting. So he’s fighting racism by condemning multi-racial families, in the way that college radicals are doing it by re-segregating campuses. What’s next on the agenda for “progressives,” bringing back bans on miscegenation? (FYI: If I were a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t bring up the subject of white Americans exploiting Haitians.)
And of course, we’re seeing this incredibly brilliant and accomplished woman smeared as a nut because of her religion by people who know jack squat about any religion. They actually think her Catholic church, People of Praise, which used to refer to women leaders as “handmaids,” inspired their favorite fear-fiction, “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which was specifically refuted by the author. They apparently don’t know that the term is not a reference to subjugating women. It refers to Jesus’ mother Mary, who told the Angel Gabriel, "I am the handmaiden (servant) of the Lord; let it be to me according to your Word" (Luke 1:38.)
But this type of slander is so desperate and so transparent, I have faith in the American people to see through it easily and reject it thoroughly.
In contrast to this cartoonish garbage, take a look at these heartwarming photos of Judge Barrett and her beautiful, loving family at the nomination announcement. A closeup crop of her youngest daughter looking up at her with awe and admiration not only became an Internet sensation, it should become an iconic image for feminists who want young girls to be inspired to greatness. Unfortunately, they only mean greatness as they define it.
Many commentators pointed out that Barrett is a living rejection of the clichés of modern feminism: she’s reached the highest levels of academia and her profession while raising seven children and enjoying a happy marriage to a man whom she thanked and credited at the nomination, saying he asks her every day what he can do to help her, even though he has a busy career of his own.
Liberal feminists spent generations fighting for women to be allowed to think, say or be whatever they wanted, and now, they want to dictate what it is that women are allowed to think, say or be. Sounds like they’re the ones who inspired “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett is under assault for having religious beliefs that leftists think will color her decisions. She already answered this attack brilliantly last year at Hillsdale College. Click this link and must-read her entire response:
In a nutshell, she pointed out that even people with no religious beliefs have personal moral convictions, and setting them aside is “a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.” But it’s the job of a judge to set aside personal convictions and follow the law and the Constitution. She said it’s “a dangerous road to go down to say that only religious people would not be able to separate out moral convictions from their duty.”
In this one response, she not only shot down the loudest leftist objection to her (religious bigotry), but if they continue to press it, then they’ll be admitting that they want judges who don’t make rulings based on their personal beliefs. That would be both a tacit endorsement of non-activist judges and a rejection of all the reasons for which they are currently deifying Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
MIKEHUCKABEE.COM ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)