Fear of Barr (Strassel)

HUGH HEWITT reads Kimberly Strassel’s column, earlier today:

A little POWRLINE intro please: The Democrats’ hysteria over Attorney General William Barr is directly proportional to their fear of the damage they fear he might do, Kim Strassel explains in her Wall Street Journal Potomac Watch column HERE:

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.

The Washington Post Steps In It Again #FakeNewsHeadline

Larry Elder dismantles the Washington Post’s VERY misleading headline, “Mueller Complained To Barr About His Summary Of Russia Probe.” You have to read to the 13th paragraph to read this:

  • nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading

(DAILY WIRE | PJ-MEDIA)

Talk about FAKENEWS HEADLINES!

I added some video of Ted Cruz, as well as James Evans Jr. (JJ from the CBS television series Good Times) — WHY YOU ASK — because when “the Sage” acted out Bill Barr calling Mueller, it reminded me of this. I add Stewie Griffin from Family Guy for good measure in my “video ‘added emphasis’.”

When “Spying” Was Acceptable To The MSM

NEWSBUSTERS notes well how the current media blames the use of “spying” as a “right-wing” term. Except, just weeks ago they were using it handily…

Cable news talking heads suffered a collective conniption on Wednesday at Attorney General William Barr’s continued use of the word “spying” in reference to an FBI informant in the Trump campaign. Yet many of those melting down over this so-called “loaded language” had previously (repeatedly) used that same term in reference to the FBI’s surveillance of former Trump campaign official Carter Page.

On the day of Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell did his best to explain precisely why everyone was suddenly treating “spy” like a curse word. “It’s only used to refer to what foreign governments do to us, for example when you’re trying to stop foreign spies, foreign threats,” he pontificated as the panel nodded approvingly.

Over at MSNBC, host Brian Williams was evidently appalled by Barr’s chosen terminology:

Obviously, what we just saw there was an attempt by [Senator] Sheldon Whitehouse to nail down this Attorney General on the charge of shilling for the President who appointed him. Spying, being a word preferred by the Trump right-hand side of the media to describe authorized surveillance techniques by the government the United States.

[….]

Andrew McCarthy On Shady Obama

Andrew McCarhty was on Dennis Prager’s show today to discuss the investigations still going on regarding FBI/DOJ misuse of power. After these reports come in we will most likely see a Grand Jury conveigned and criminal cases started. But Andrew and Prager walk through the machinations that got us to this point as described in Andrew McCarthy’s peice in the NEW YORK POST: “Behind The Obama Administration’s Shady Plan To Spy On The Trump Campaign” (https://tinyurl.com/y6ms7h6r). Enjoy the conversation:

Denying Spying and Defending It (Mathews vs. Todd)

Circling the wagons around Obama has begun…

Despite mounting evidence that the FBI pursued an array of efforts to gather intelligence from within the Trump campaign — and the fact that the FBI successfully pursued warrants to surveil a former Trump aide in 2016 — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News that Barr’s loyalties were compromised….

PRO-TIP: If the FOX video plays automatically, there is an off switch in the settings gear to turn it off

I commented on my Facebook about this on my Facebook, and it was in response to Chuck Todd (Chuckles) saying this (h-t, NEWSBUSTERS):

By-the-by… while Chuckles is denying it, Chris Matthews is leading the defense of it:

Here is my response to Chuckles:

  • Let me just say that for Chuck Todd to call what Barr said a conspiracy theory when Mark Levin pieced it all together from leaks reported in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other mainstream (so called) sources in March of 2017, noting then that this operation had been going on a year — mentioning FISA warrants, spying, and the like…. shows just how out of touch Todd is with evidences he would normally accept (WaPo and NYT) if not for Levin (over 2-years ago) and Barr (today).

Here is the (March 5th 2017) video of Mark Levin using MSM sources:

Chuckles should do some soul searching. The latest news of course is this — via SARA CARTER:

PRO-TIP: If the FOX video plays automatically, there is an off switch in the settings gear to turn it off

Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian historian at the center of Michael Flynn investigation for ‘alledge contacts with Russians’, told Fox News in an exclusive interview with Catherine Herridge, that she is not a Russian spy and that she thought “there’s a high chance that is was coordinated, and believe it needs to be properly investigated.”

Here is Hannity’s show from yesterday… And he spoke of the BAKER TESTIMONY a bit: