First, thanks to all who have written in response to my commentary about Attorney General Bill Barr’s hesitance to bring charges against Obama and/or Biden. Before getting into the latest on Susan Rice’s fishy Inauguration Day email –- which does appear to be an attempt to shield the outgoing President from later scrutiny –- I’d like to start by highlighting a particularly thoughtful "Barr" letter, from Janet:

RELATED READINGBarr: charges "unlikely" against Obama and Biden

"I think people posting here have many good points, but I have a slightly different opinion than many, it seems. I think that most definitely, Barr is going to get to the bottom of this and there WILL be justice in the end. It's just going to take a while to ‘thread the needle’ and build cases against ALL of those who have been involved in this shameful travesty of our Constitution and Public Trust.

"Barr's no fool. He's been around DC for a long time and survived with his integrity and wit intact. I don't doubt that he's got a solid plan for bringing these people to justice –- a plan that will leave no doubt about their guilt and keep us from having another civil war if Obama and Biden are prosecuted. Remember when Barr chastised Trump for making it impossible for him to do his job when Trump interjected his opinions into the issues du jour? Barr is shrewd and wise to the ways of the DC swamp monsters. Let's let him do his job and have faith that he is going to see justice served. It just takes time.”

Thanks, Janet, and I hope you’re right. (Barr did qualify what he said with the words “as of today.”) Many readers sent much more cynical and despairing replies --- understandably so --- but I don’t want to condemn Barr’s DOJ just yet. Here’s an interesting take from Al:

"I agree mostly, Governor. However, if you are Comey, Brennan, Clapper and crew, how are you hearing what Barr said about Obama? What's your first thought? ‘They're pinning this whole mess on me. I'm the fall guy. And the top person, the guy who I was doing this for, who was at the center of all this, is going to walk?!’ Barr is describing the most grave of political crimes, worst in US history. Someone is going to pay. How much pressure will be on these people to cut a deal and point the finger at Obama? Sure, some will fall on their sword for Obama. But some won't. ESPECIALLY when Obama, as is his habit, tries throwing them under the bus.

“Barr is shrewd. HE can't be the one pointing the finger at Obama. It's got to be Obama people pointing the finger at Obama people before people will see it as not just political. (That's why I'd give Lisa Page immunity and a gift certificate for a high-end matchmaker for all she knows.)

“The game has begun. And at least Obama's name is in the conversation.”

True, the fact that Obama’s name now figures in this is a huge step forward. For now, let’s consider the evidence as it emerges; that brings us to Susan Rice. Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell has done it again by finally releasing the FULL TEXT of what may have been Susan Rice’s last official act in office, her “by the book” email, written 15 days after the big Oval Office meeting of January 5, 2017, that it memorializes. Here it is.

I sure wish everyone in government were as on the ball as Grenell; the attorney general got a request for this from Sen. Ron Johnson on Monday and –- boom –- Grenell declassified the email on Tuesday. Catherine Herridge at CBS first shared this; Tom Fitton tweeted it out with the comment that a special counsel should be appointed to investigate that meeting. Here’s a great round-up of the buzz generated on Tuesday afternoon.

Unfortunately, a tiny portion is still redacted, showing someone else was copied on the email. One name in the “cc” line is revealed, though: Curtis R. Ried; I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that name sometime in the future. There’s a “Curtis R. Ried” listed on as a foreign service officer at the U.S. State Department.

Sean Davis has an outstanding piece at THE FEDERALIST on the significance of this email, parts of which had been previously released and had already given us an idea of how knowledge of the Flynn investigation was being kept from the incoming President. Why would they be keeping President-elect Trump in the dark unless HE were the ultimate target?

Davis writes: “The newly declassified portion of the Jan. 5 Rice email confirms that the targeting of Flynn was coordinated within the inner sanctum of the White House and that both Obama and Biden were deeply involved in the campaign to take down Flynn.”

Folks, this is all going to come out. I don’t know if the criminal justice system is going to prevail against Obama himself or if the long arm of the law isn’t quite long enough to reach him. Presidents have a lot of power and ways to shield themselves, typically by using “plausible deniability” and, if necessary, by throwing their order-takers under the bus (that’s why they’re called “under”-lings, ha). This is why it’s so important to elect someone who cares more about the Constitution than his own power.

We know, absolutely, that Obama was involved in this. Biden, too. The next several months may reveal to us a fascinating piece of history. I do believe that something perhaps even worse than jail –- and just as deserved –- is eventually going to happen to Barack Obama: the total rewriting of his legacy to reflect the FACT that he headed the most corrupt regime in the history of the United States.

I’ll close with another optimistic reader reply from Don, who says:

"Gov: I can't disagree with your conclusion. Justice must be served for crimes committed that violate the Rule of Law, regardless of the status of the parties involved. No one is above the Law!

"However, in closely reviewing AG Barr's statement, as it relates to Obama/Biden ‘at this time,’ he has left room in his statement to revisit and review the entire situation, should additional sufficient evidence surface that clearly [implicates] the Obama/Biden combo...In my opinion, legal cases, in administrative politically committed crimes , rarely turn on "slam dunk" smoking gun evidence, but unfold through ‘a thousand cuts,’ resulting in ‘guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt.’ AG Barr needs to be given the benefit of the doubt that he will adhere to the Rule of Law, at the end of the day.”

You’re right, Al --- he did leave the door open. That’s why I expressed curiosity about why he said what he did at this particular time. Much is going on right now that we just don’t know.

The timing of Bill Barr’s announcement was curious.

Over the weekend, it became clear even to those of us without a security clearance that President Obama was involved in the surveillance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He had to be. We know through Sally Yates’ testimony that on January 5, 2017, with just a couple of weeks left in office, Obama already knew all about the incoming national security adviser’s call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He and then-FBI Director James Comey had a conversation about it while Yates just stood there, amazed.

And that call wasn’t “unmasked,” as has wrongly been reported over and over. Now that the complete list of unmasking requests has been declassified and turned over by acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, we know there was no such request that would have applied to that particular call before January 5.

It means either that the CIA had been spying on Flynn, Obama’s most serious political nemesis, when he was in the Dominican Republic and somebody had briefed Obama on the call with Kislyak, or that Obama himself, as President, had ordered Flynn surveilled. IG Horowitz has testified that there was no FISA warrant on Flynn, so, really, what else is left?

Over the past several days, we’ve examined other evidence as well –- the Strzok/Page texts, for example --- that shows Obama was well aware this was going on. HE DID IT.

But now, just as we’ve seen the evidence and are able to put it together for ourselves, we hear from Attorney General Bill Barr, as reported in Law and Crime and discussed in this commentary by Victoria Taft, that the DOJ is “unlikely” to charge either Obama or Biden in the get-Trump spying scandal.

We have a lot to sort out. Unlikely to charge them?? Why would he say that at this particular time? Keep in mind, this is the same Bill Barr who called the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation “a grave injustice, unprecedented in American history.” The same Bill Barr who said the “Russian collusion” narrative used as a pretext for investigating Trump was “false and utterly baseless.” The same Bill Barr who called the spying operation “abhorrent.” The same Bill Barr who said there were “two different standards of justice” and that “we can’t allow this to ever happen again.”

"The Durham investigation is trying to get to the bottom of what happened,” he says simply.

Here’s what Barr had to say when the IG report on the spying came out. It was scathing.

Barr seems to want to safeguard the upcoming November elections from any consideration of this scandal, saying it’s “critical” that in 2020 the American people have a chance to vote based on “robust” policy debate –- not criminal debate. And he said he wouldn’t use his office for a political “tit for tat.”

Hey, if we’re going to have a “robust policy debate,” how about debating the policy that apparently lets an outgoing President spy on the incoming one?

And note that one of the people Barr is talking about, the former Vice President, happens to be running against the very incumbent they were trying to sabotage.

I realize that only in banana republics are incoming presidents allowed to subject outgoing presidents to criminal trial. But we’ve had a situation in which an outgoing president subjected the advisor of an incoming president to criminal trial. How is that better? We are way into banana republic territory here.

I guess that’s just part of the wonderful “Obama Legacy” we’ve heard so much about.

As Pete Hegseth commented on Sean Hannity’s TV show Monday night, “[Obama] called himself ‘the least corrupt administration in American history. He will go down as the most corrupt. And I believe that John Durham and Bill Barr are gonna get their day. They’re digging, they’re finding, the truth will come out, and...this President [Trump] will be exonerated for being someone who fights for people...Obama fights for the elite and the establishment…Their corruption will be some of the worst our country has ever seen.”

But there’s a terrible irony, as it does seem that Barr, in trying to save our system of justice from politics, is, in effect, caving to the politicized “two systems” that were a reality under Obama.

No President is above the law. How do we know this? Because Trump’s political opponents have been saying it nonstop since he took office –- since even before he took office. But when it comes to Obama, well, THAT President does seem to be above the law. Just as Hillary was.

"I have a general idea of how Mr. Durham’s investigation is going,” Barr said. “THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ABUSE OF POWER AND A FEDERAL CRIME” [emphasis mine]. Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime. Now, as to President Obama and Vice President Biden, WHATEVER THEIR LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT [emphasis mine], I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

When he says “others,” we know the big names: James Comey, John Brennan, and Andrew McCabe, for starters. But what if there’s proof they were directed by Obama?

By the way, did you know that there was an unmasking request made the very morning of Trump’s inauguration? Trey Gowdy dropped this last Thursday in a discussion of other such requests. He said that even the names of President Trump’s family members were unmasked.

I’m sorry, but this sort of thing SHOULD be part of a policy debate, and before an election as opposed to after. When is abuse of power criminal? Who is criminally responsible?

Legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy never expected criminal charges against Obama and/or Biden. He noted in recent weeks that Barr had said the subjects of the Durham investigation were not candidates for public office. He said Barr’s goal is “to get the politics out of the Justice Department and the Justice Department out of politics.” I’m sorry, but the very decision not to make elected leaders criminally responsible for their deeds, in itself, affects politics. The left will have a field day with this; they’ll twist it and weave it into their false narrative that Obama did nothing wrong and that to think otherwise (as Trump does) is to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist incapable of leading. They’ll be saying this right up to Election Day.

McCarthy’s piece provides us with some insight into Barr’s thinking; I recommend that you read it, down to the last confounding line. Obviously, neither Barr nor McCarthy wants the criminal justice system to be used as a political weapon. After all, that’s what Obama’s side did, and we oppose it because it’s wrong.

But I don’t think a political weapon is what most Republicans are looking for when we’re thinking indictments should come. We don’t want “tit for tat”; we want JUSTICE. The attorney general did say that “those who broke the law...will be held to account.” But today, I wonder.

Sharon K.

05/08/2020 10:35 AM

Thank you for your use of common sense as you bring us the news of the moment. You are the calm in this storm of falsehoods.


Tracey P.

05/08/2020 10:03 AM

Governor Huckabee,

Thank you for your newsletter. It helps to bring a sane perspective in the chaos.

Lois Anne M.

05/08/2020 10:02 AM

Another fantastic newsletter; thank you!!!!!!!


Even L.

05/08/2020 08:46 AM

Another spot-on commentary Governor.


Larry W.

05/08/2020 06:06 AM

That was good, Governor. Keep the fire in your belly - it inspires the rest of us!


Shelley J.

05/08/2020 03:17 AM

Thank you for the superb detail which is very fulfilling to read. God Bless America!


LeAnn K.

05/08/2020 02:05 AM

I'm so thankful for your daily posting. It's the only place I get a sane view of the mess we are in. And somehow the daily bible verus fits exactly what I need to hear.


Cathy M.

05/08/2020 01:41 AM

I look forward to reading the Evening Edition every night. It kind of sums up the day. I especially love the scripture at the end. God's Word gives us hope! Thanks and Blessings!


Allegra G K.

05/07/2020 11:49 PM

Thanks for the big laugh. I was feeling a little down tonight...


Deborah W.

05/07/2020 08:34 PM

LOVE this newsletter! Thank you sir!


James D. Jr

05/07/2020 07:38 PM

Thanks Mike & Staff.


William A.

05/07/2020 07:26 PM

Wow! Just got my first Evening Edition. Great reading! Can't wait for next one!


Wanda M.

05/12/2020 02:25 PM

Mike, I read your articles but I don’t comment each time, but you’re right on each time! God Bless you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Jan J.

05/12/2020 12:34 PM

This is complicated and can be confusing, especially given the skewed versions the media puts out, so thank you for clarity!