Sidney Powell Discusses DOJ in The Lawfare Era: “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”…

Not enough people understand the role of the Lawfare group in the corruption and political weaponization of the DOJ, FBI and larger intelligence community.

What Media Matters is to corrupt left-wing media, the Lawfare group is to the corrupt DOJ and FBI.

All of the headline names around the seditious conspiracy against Donald Trump assemble within the network of the Lawfare group.

Three days after the October 21st, 2016, FISA warrant was obtained, Benjamin Wittes outlined the insurance policy approach.

FBI Director James Comey, FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, Comey memo recepient Daniel Richman, Deputy AG Sally Yates, Comey friend Benjamin Wittes, FBI lead agent Peter Strzok, FBI counsel Lisa Page, Mueller lead Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller team of lawyers, all of them -and more- are connected to the Lawfare group; and this network provides the sounding board for all of the weaponized approaches, including the various new legal theories as outlined within the Weissmann-Mueller Report.

The Lawfare continuum is very simple.  The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan.  Weissmann and Mueller delivering their report evolved the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting.  Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal.

The current “impeachment strategy” is planned-out within the Lawfare group.

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.

Remember, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller didn’t come into this process as an ‘outsider’, and Mueller didn’t select his team. The corrupt Lawfare team inside government (FBI Counsel James Baker, DOJ Deputy Andrew Weissmann, FBI Deputy McCabe etc.) already knew Mueller.  The team had established personal and professional connections to Mueller, and they brought him in to lead the team.

When you realize that Robert Mueller didn’t select the team; rather the preexisting team selected their figurehead, Robert Mueller; then results make sense.  Robert Mueller can never be allowed to testify to congress because if questioned he actually has very little understanding of what took place.

A disconcerting aspect to the Lawfare dynamic is how current U.S. Attorney General William Barr has knowledge of this.  Barr knows and understands how the Lawfare network operates. Barr is from this professional neighborhood. Like Mueller, Barr also knows these people.

“As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers“…


Under Eric Holder, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Tom Perez, Robert Mueller, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the focus of the DOJ and FBI became prismatic toward politics and tribalism.  All of the hired senior lawyers and officials had to be aligned with the political intents of the offices.

[CIA Director John Brennan brought the same political goals to an intelligence apparatus that held a preexisting disposition of alignment, see Mike Morell: “I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton”.]

Their agencies were used against their ideological enemies in large operations like Fast-n-Furious, IRS targeting, Gibson Guitar etc.  And also smaller operations: Henry Louis Gates, George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, Baltimore etc.  All of these activist Lawfare examples were pushed and promoted by an allied media.

Many of the ‘weaponized’ approaches use radical legal theory (ex. disparate impact), and that ties into the purposes and methods of the Lawfare Group.  The intent of Lawfare is described in the name: to use Law as a tool in Warfare.  The ideology that binds the group is the ideological outlook and purpose: using the legal system to target political opposition.

The Lawfare group ensures you have the right to remain guilty until they verify your politics and determine your alignment with the tribe.  If accepted, your disposition shifts to innocent and you receive a pass to avoid any legal jeopardy…

When special counsel Robert Mueller formally closed the Russia investigation on May 29th, he opened the door to wide-ranging speculation as to the intent behind his statement. In the eyes of Former Texas Prosecutor Sidney Powell, Mueller’s words stood the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on their heads.

Unnoticed with the focus on the Mueller Report we find there are strange events happening, Update


 Over the past almost 3 years, Donald Trump has been under some kind of surveillance, spying and investigation, to either first stop him from becoming the 45th President of the United States or to remove him from office after he won the 2016 election, by hard work. There was the initial coup d’état (Crossfire Hurricane) conducted by the Obama administration in 2017 through the FBI and CIA that found nothing, then there were two investigations by the Republican Congress that found nothing from 2017 to 2018, and lastly the Mueller investigation which was basically a second coup d’état by the deep state that just finished.

However, that process has not ended with the release of the Mueller investigation that also found nothing.

The Democrat control House will not accept the Report that was released by AG Barr at 11:00 AM April 18, 2019 and they will continue their efforts to find “something” that they can use to try and impeach him which will a third coup d’état. Also the mainstream media will not support the concussions from The Mueller report and so the process to get rid of President Trump will continue until Tuesday November 3, 2020; and if President Trump is elected to a second term that process against him will continue until he leaves office on Monday January 20, 2025.

Now that being said there is something else going on that very few in the media, even FOX, are talking about, with the possible except of Martin Armstrong. So I will explain a couple of events that he has posted on his blog that got my attention. There are nine interesting bits of information in them. Followed by my interruption of what is going on.

One, from the New York Times January 17, 2017 President Obama on Tuesday commuted all but four months of the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence analyst convicted of a 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted Mr. Obama’s administration and brought global prominence to WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures.

Two, from Armstrong on Friday March 8, 2019: “US district judge Claude M. Hilton threw Chelsea Manning into solitary confinement, which is TORTURE, for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. Chelsea Manning was thrown into a dark cell of solitary confinement where they can make the conditions so hot that wearing even underwear is too much, or so cold that you can see your breath. Judges always rule in their own self-interest of power that this is not torture like waterboarding. Of course, there are some judges who retain their humanity. Unfortunately, they are the minority.” The treatment of MS Manning is similar to what was done to Manafort by the Muller investigation, and is commonalty used today to “break” a person, few can stand up to what is unconstitutionally done to them in the process.

Three, from Armstrong on Thursday April 11, 2019: “Julian Assange was arrested in the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police and taken to jail. The USA will no doubt want to put him on trial for ensuring Hillary lost the White House. The British police say they were invited in the Ecuadorian embassy where he has been holed up since 2012 after the Ecuadorian government’s withdrawal of asylum. You can bet that there have been threats against Ecuador, and rumor has it that the threats were rising to the level of blocking them from the Swift system. The rumblings behind the curtain are that the Democrats are behind this, hoping to force him to say he got Hillary’s emails from Putin. The danger of all of this nonsense is simply the plain fact it will bring us one more step closer to world war.”

Four, From Armstrong on Tuesday April 15, 2019: “Right now, just look at the government throwing Chelsea Manning in prison on contempt indefinitely, the $4.2 billion handed to Ecuador for Assange by the IMF, and then his immediate indictment and move for extradition. This is all a coordinated attack to launch against Trump for the 2020 election after the Mueller Report failed. There are NO COINCIDENCES when it comes to political maneuvers. You are watching history in the making. The Deep State is determined to get rid of Trump. They desperately want one of their own in power — a team player

Five, From Armstrong on Tuesday April 16, 2019: “I looked at the indictment for Julian Assange which is freely available and am shocked that in the paragraph numbered 9, it specifically calls a ‘Linux Operating System’ a SPECIAL SOFTWARE for accessing part of a password. I have always felt a certain amount of skepticism regarding the whole Assange affair and this seems to me to be the seeds of outlawing Linux users like myself. I would not be able to find my own password using a Linux CD.”

Six, From Armstrong on Tuesday April 16, 2019: “In order for the USA to petition a UK court for extradition, the alleged crime MUST be also a crime in the UK. Typically, the charged person will raise that his case is “political” and judges, agents of governments, will usually dismiss it out of hand even when they know it is political. To date, claiming you are politically sought has NEVER carried the day in a court of law because courts just do as the government demands. However, Julian Assange’s case may be the rare one where it finds some traction at least among the population.

The WikiLeaks founder has a real live political prosecution claim against the extradition process on claimed computer hacking. The USA indictment unsealed immediately after Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by British police shows that this is also a coordinated effort to keep Chelsea Manning in prison again to compel her to ultimately testify against Assange. Manning was charged with 22 offenses, including aiding the enemy, which was the most serious charge and could have resulted in a death sentence. She was ultimately sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Anyone who thinks Assange will only face 5 years in jail should just go work for the government for you obviously believe in propaganda. They will expand Assange’s charges only when he gets to the USA for otherwise the US must put on its case in London to get their hands on him. They will allege that he aided the enemy being Putin to defeat Hillary and seek the death penalty. Their thirst for his blood stems from his publishing the Democrat’s emails that they regard cost them the election.

The extradition treaty provides for an exception – “political offenses.” There’s no clear definition of that term, however, it is known to cover crimes like treason, espionage, and sedition, as well as offenses that are directed in some way against the power of the state.”

Seven, from Armstrong on Saturday April 20, 2019: The following spoof was posted “Julian Assange – Governments against the People?”

Eight, from Armstrong on Sunday May 12, 2019: “Chelsea Manning was released from the Virginia jail where she spent 62 days for refusing to testify about her past ties to WikiLeaks before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. While contempt cannot be maintained beyond the term of the Grand Jury, they will simply conjure up another one. The attorneys for Manning said the release came after the grand jury’s term expired on Thursday which is required by law. However, her legal team has already been served another subpoena. It demands she appear before a different grand jury on May 17th. They will be able to throw her back in jail again for 18 months if she doesn’t testify.

Manning has vowed not to answer any questions and, therefore, will be imprisoned yet again. Then at the trial of Assange, she can be subpoenaed yet again and throw into prison and that time they may seek criminal contempt which she will be imprisoned for another 5 years. We no longer respect the rights of individuals. The demands of the state supersede all constitutional rights.”

Nine, from Armstrong on Tuesday May 28, 2019: Julian Assange of WikiLeaks was charged with conspiring to obtain national security secrets in what prosecutors have described as one of the largest compromises of classified information in U.S. history. They filed 18 new charges against Assange, which include allegations that he aided and abetted former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning’s efforts to leak classified documents to the anti-secrecy group. Prosecutors alleged that Assange did so with reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States or help a foreign country.

The charges include one count of conspiracy to receive national security information, seven counts of obtaining it, nine counts of disclosing it and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. They also have argued that Assange also revealed the names of intelligence sources in Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Naturally, they would love to imprison him for life, but will probably give him a number like 50 to 80 years so he remains there until he dies.

Assange was not charged for simply receiving classified documents like a journalist. They claim that no responsible journalist would release the classified names of intelligence sources. Therefore, they are seeking to distinguish him to avoid any claim of a journalist and First Amendment rights.

This ends Armstrong’s writing. I think Martin Armstrong is right however I would add Roger Stone to the mix. He is also awaiting trial right now and Between Stone, Manning and Assange they will probably be able to break one or more of them and I would guess with that they will also try to bring Trump Junior in on it . This will be kept very close to the vest until they are ready to spring it.

What I would do, if I were them, is use Adam Schiff (the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) and Jerry Nadler (the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) to start investigation into collusion and obstruction again a fifth coup d’état, and since they have already started that process they have no reason to stop. Timing is everything so keep the media active with leaks and then sometime next year, say a year from now in late spring or early summar, while that investigation is still going on the FBI Southern district of New Your City will make its move. Stone, Manning, Assange, and Trump Jr. (I can’t believe Thump Jr. is testifying again to the Senate Intelligent Committee as required by Bur and Warner) he will be charged with treason and maybe they will even bring in President Trump.

This investigation will be based on the “Trump Tower Meeting.” Manning will be broken to testify that Assage helped him break the password to the military system, and then they will be charged with treason.  Then, after they break him Assange, he will testify that Trump Jr. and Roger Stone (Stone was also linked to the Trump Tower incident and WikiLeaks) were in Communications with Assange.  Trump Jr. will be found to have lied to congress about talking to Assage based on Assage’s claims.  Manning and Assage will have the death penalty hanging over them and that will break them into giving the government what they want.  They can then use this to get President Trump to agree to resign or his son will go to prison; however they may not give him that opinion as they do need to make an example of him.  So the worst case would be they bring Trump in and change him with treason as well.

They think that the very indictment itself will shock enough of the voters that it will guarantee that the Democrat candidate will win the election no matter who they run! However, they could also start a Civil War; which some social theories such as identified in the Book “The Fourth Turning” and other have shown there are patterns on war and unrest that give a high probability that we are very likely to experience a 2nd Civil War.

Mexico President Lopez-Obrador Enlists Support from ‘Big Club’ Chamber of Commerce (Dohonue)…

Well, this doesn’t come as a surprise.  Hoping to keep the borders open and fend off the Trump tariff’s on Mexican imports, Mexico’s President Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) enlists the help from Tom Donohue and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico’s president and the top U.S. business lobbying group called on President Donald Trump to back down from a threat to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican imports, in a dispute over migration that could shock Mexico’s economy.

[…] The ultimatum from Trump is the biggest foreign policy test to date for Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and a tall order for Mexican security forces struggling not only to combat migrant flows but also to fight a record level of gang violence and homicide.

Mexico’s economy, which is heavily reliant on exports to the United States, shrank in the first quarter and would reel under U.S. tariffs that could reach as high as 25% this year under Trump’s plan.

The influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce is looking at ways to challenge Trump’s tariff move against Mexico, including legal options. “We have no choice but to pursue every option available to push back,” Neil Bradley, the business group’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, told reporters. (read more)

On a positive note AMLO is not counting on Jesus Seade to bridge the diplomatic gap; that implies he recognizes he cannot influence President Trump based on personal affiliations. Apparently AMLO is sending Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard to lead the “negotiating” next week.

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he started negotiating with officials in Washington on Friday after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on imports of Mexican products but face-to-face talks will not happen until next week.

Ebrard said on Twitter that he had spoken to senior White House adviser Jared Kushner and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone, and that there was a willingness to resolve the dispute.

“The negotiations have started,” Ebrard said before boarding a plane to Washington. “I heard interest and respect about the letter from President Lopez Obrador. We are moving forward.”

However, Ebrard said in-person talks would not take place until Wednesday in Washington, and that Pompeo would lead the U.S. delegation. Ebrard will be accompanied by deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, a veteran trade negotiator. (read more)

I wouldn’t put too much faith in media statements about Mnuchin and Lighthizer being opposed to the tariffs beyond normal disagreements that would take place inside group debate by advisors.  Factually, I would fully expect Lighthizer to be adverse to the Mexico tariffs because he is appropriately protecting his work product, the USMCA.

However, as with the history of President Trump, he is looking at a bigger picture than all of the individual advisors on their specific area of responsibility; and ultimately it will be President Trump who makes the decisions.

Bottom line, the goal is to stop the insanity at the southern border and CTH fully supports any and all measures President Trump might take to deal with it.

Peter Navarro, assistant to the president and director for the White House Trade and Manufacturing Council, to discusses President Trump’s calls for Mexico to stop illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border:

Flynn Filing Shows Mueller Team Manipulated Transcript in Report…

In the Michael Flynn sentencing phase Judge Emmet Sullivan requested the Mueller prosecution team provide records related to the case. [Backstory Here]

Among other evidence, the judge ordered the government to file on the public docket “the transcript of the voicemail recording” from President Trump’s attorney John Dowd to Michael Flynn.  The transcript of that voicemail recording was cited in the Mueller report as evidence that team Trump was trying to obstruct justice by shaping witness testimony. 

Today, the Mueller team released the transcript of the call (full pdf below). However, as originally noticed by RosieMemos the released transcript clearly shows the Mueller team  selectively edited the transcript to weaponized their portrayal of the contact. 

Compare the actual transcript [Source] to the Mueller Report [source]:

[Mueller Report, Volume II, pg 121]

Notice how Mueller leaves out (via edits) the context of the call, and the important qualifier: “without you having to give up any confidential information.”   Clearly Dowd does not want to interfere in Flynn’s cooperation with the special counsel, which is opposite to the twisted claim presented by Weissmann and Mueller’s report.

After attorney Techno Fog shared the new information with Mr. Dowd, Trump’s former attorney provided the following reply:

Additionally, there’s another sketchy aspect to the Mueller team filing today.

It is heavily suspected that Michael Flynn was under a FISA surveillance warrant which seems confirmed by the Weissmann/Mueller report. The FBI admitted to intercepting, recording and later transcribing the Flynn conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Judge Sullivan worded his prior order to say: “and the transcripts of any other audio recordings of Mr. Flynn, including but not limited to, audio recordings of Mr Flynn’s conversations with Russian officials.”  It sure seemed like the judge was suspecting additional surveillance.

Within the earlier order, Judge Sullivan asked the DOJ to provide the transcript of the 12/29/16 call between Mike Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak.

Why is this important? Because it appears Judge Sullivan suspects the transcript of the phone call will match statements from Flynn to the FBI. Ergo: Flynn did not lie to the FBI.

Since reviewing the November 30th, 2017, pleading we’ve been pointing out how the FBI admits to intercepting the Flynn-Kislyak call, but the FBI never put a factual transcript in the court record. Why not?  {Go Deep}

Today the Mueller team responded to the request for a transcript from the Flynn/Kislyak call by refusing to provide it.

Look how carefully the Mueller team (Brandon Van Grack) worded this response about FBI recordings of Michael Flynn. Notice how they avoid production, by parsing, there are no recordings “that are part of the sentencing record”.

The recordings are part of the underlying case against Flynn, upon which the questioning took place. However, the FBI is claiming the recordings are not part of the prosecution for “lying to FBI investigators” aspect; therefore, no recordings will be produced.

It will be interesting to see if non-production is okay with Judge Sullivan.

Here’s the full production / non-production from today (Hat Tip Techno Fog):


BACKSTORY – The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had an issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the text messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

[We’re not sure who “John” is, but we know “Bill” is Bill Priestap, FBI Deputy Director in charge of Counterintelligence. And “Jen” is Jennifer Boone, FBI counterproliferation division]

So it’s the day before they interview Flynn.

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?

The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  In essence they were admitting to monitoring Flynn, that’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap and the difference in public statements by VP Mike Pence.

There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and Flynn likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative: if Flynn is brutally honest, the media now runs with a narrative about Vice-President Pence as a national liar.  (read more)

Adam Schiff Demands Authority Over Executive Branch Declassification, and Advanced Warning of Investigative Content…

Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Oh, this is rich….  Shifty and hyper-partisan Adam Schiff, quite possibly the world’s slimiest human, writes a letter (as below) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, demanding legislative branch authority over executive branch declassification.  The scale of obtuse, hypocritical and self-serving protestation is off-the-charts.

First, the executive branch controls the declassification process unilaterally.  The legislative branch can request briefings; and customarily the executive informs the ‘gang of eight’ (when needed) on matters of intelligence releases.  However, the legislative branch has no authority over the independent decisions/purposes of the executive in that regard.

Second, Shiff-for-brains, claims the Declassification Directive is inappropriate because President Trump has empowered the U.S. Attorney General with discretionary decision-making; while Schiff simultaneously avoids/manipulates the inherent conflict avoided by President Trump in granting discretionary decision-making authority to the AG.

In material fact, President Trump is likely the target/victim of the underlying extra-constitutional and corrupt overreach by a seditious “small group” within the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community; and as a consequence prudence would dictate the abdication of declassification decision to the investigative agency, that’s Barr.  If Trump didn’t grant AG Barr the unilateral decision-making authority, the same Adam Schiff would start shouting that President Trump carried a conflict.  [Also, Schiff knows this – he’s playing politics.]

Additionally, Schiff is demanding advanced notice of the material as it is discovered and declassified…. AND advanced notification for all of the underlying investigative documents that may be part of the ongoing DOJ investigations of seditious activity.  Yes, he demands a ‘heads-up’ on anything adverse to his political interests.

Oh, no sketchy motive there I’m sure [/sarc].

Apparently the declassification directive has Adam Schiff in a flitter…. perhaps connected to the sunlight on his own participation as part of the seditious group.  Shiff participation is identified by evidence showing the Democrat HPSCI memo (FEB 2018, rebuttal to Devin Nunes memo) was filled with intentionally fraudulent statements and lies.

Here’s the Chairman’s ridiculous letter:

Yeah, no.

Sorry Schiffty…  Go Fish….

AG William Barr on DOJ/FBI Conduct in 2016: “Things are just not jiving” – Full Interview and Transcript…

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a 48 minute interview to CBS on a variety of issues related to recent events. The interview is packed with insight about the ongoing DOJ investigations of prior DOJ and FBI conduct in the 2016 election.

Rather than post the edited excerpts of the interview as broadcast, the full audio and transcript is below. Very interesting. [Hit orange play arrow to begin]:


[Transcript] JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn’t make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel’s office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would’ve stopped him in the regulations or in those…that opinion itself, he could’ve — in your view he could’ve reached a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.

JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion.

WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn’t really press him nor did Rod.

JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn’t going to have a conclusion?

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you feel because he didn’t do that, did he fulfill his responsibility as special counsel? If you look at regulations, it seems to anticipate that you would get a confidential report explaining why he made a decision to either prosecute or decline to prosecute. He didn’t do that, seems to me.

WILLIAM BARR: Right, but on the other hand he did provide us a report and what he viewed to be the relevant facts. And that allowed us as the, as the leaders of the department to make that decision.

JAN CRAWFORD: What is the fundamental difference? Why…I mean, he said he couldn’t exonerate the president. That he had looked at the evil there – these 11 instances of possible obstruction. He couldn’t exonerate the president, if he could he would’ve stated so. You looked at that evidence and you did. I mean, what is the fundamental difference between your view and his?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: As a matter of law?

WILLIAM BARR: As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

JAN CRAWFORD: Before you became attorney general you wrote a memo to the justice department looking at the — the question and the legal standards for obstruction and suggesting that the president has the authority to say back off of the Flynn investigation and could have fired James Comey under his executive authority, how much – I mean when you’re talking about, can you explain that a little more. When you’re talking about your judgment that no obstruction occurred based on the evidence that Mueller produced and your understanding of the law, can you explain a little more why wasn’t that obstruction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well let’s take the firing of Comey for example I think we would have said as a matter of law, and I’m not relying on my – my legal memo that I wrote as a private citizen but really on the views within the department of the people who think about these things and are responsible for framing the views of the department, and I think we would have said that as a matter of law the obstruction statutes do not reach facially valid exercise of core presidential authority or official authority even, decisions by the attorney general in administering the executive branch or litigation.

But we didn’t rely on that, we then looked at that issue let’s take the again the firing of Comey. One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases

JAN CRAWFORD: When you see some of the criticism and you’ve gotten quite a bit of it that you’re protecting the president that you’re enabling the president, what’s your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.

JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that’s going on it’s not lawful for me to just make that public.

JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress?


JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you’re not giving them the full report

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right, and so–

JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can’t?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn’t, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel’s office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess–

JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject–

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked..

JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?

WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being– we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn’t come in a form that identified the 6E material.

JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report?



WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible.

JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn’t think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth–

JAN CRAWFORD: And saying that publicly?

WILLIAM BARR: Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and–

JAN CRAWFORD: And you knew that to be false?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very–

JAN CRAWFORD: Wild and irresponsible. The former intelligence officials’ speculation–

WILLIAM BARR: Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States’ ability to function in the world. We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect – it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt- that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you’re announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that – that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line which I did in the four page memo.


JAN CRAWFORD: You didn’t say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line–

WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn’t find a crime, we didn’t exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter.

JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that.


JAN CRAWFORD: That, that was not in there, and there was some criticism that in the summary, and the attorney- I mean, the special counsel himself wrote the letter saying, People are misunderstanding. There’s been some confusion, that the summary had caused some confusion–

WILLIAM BARR: Right, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: That perhaps, and he didn’t say this, but the- the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction.

WILLIAM BARR: Well again, I wasn’t trying to provide all the flavor and nooks and crannies of the report. I was just trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes. He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and he- his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either. And, for the purposes of the point, I think that that was what was required for the body politic because actually most of the letter then goes on to explain how Rod Rosenstein and I reached a decision and the criteria we applied in finding no obstruction.

JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn’t he?

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t, I don’t know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven–

JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation–

JAN CRAWFORD: Because otherwise you would have picked up the phone?

WILLIAM BARR: Right, well, which I did, and we had a good conversation. And I think, I think the matter is now been fully vetted, and I think he was concerned that there should be more context and texture to his work given, and that in the absence of that, the vacuum had been filled with media reports that were then causing confusion, and he wanted it clarified by putting more of an explanation of his reasoning out. And I said that I didn’t want to put out dribs and drabs, I wanted the whole report out. And then I wrote a letter again to Congress saying, look, I didn’t- this is not intended to be a full summary. Bob’s thinking is reflected in the report. Everyone’s going to have access to it. They should look at that to determine, you know, what Bob’s reasoning was. So that’s where we let it sit till the report was released.


JAN CRAWFORD: You said that you had wanted to release the report in full, and you largely have with the grand jury material being, of course, the exception.

WILLIAM BARR: Right. And in the second volume that’s one tenth of one percent of the report has been taken.

JAN CRAWFORD: You, I just want to be clear on this. How long and how many, you expected the special counsel’s office to redact that material, so to point out what should be redacted —

WILLIAM BARR: Right. Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the four-page summary would have been unnecessary?


JAN CRAWFORD: You expected, could you just tell us again, you expected to get the report with the grand jury material identified and then what was your plan?

WILLIAM BARR: My plan was to figure out how long it would take us to redact what had to be redacted.

JAN CRAWFORD: And what did you anticipate that would be?

WILLIAM BARR: And if we could readily, if we could readily identify the 6E material, I thought we could do it in a you know less than a week. And if I had been looking at a matter of days like that, then I probably would have just told people what the timeline is do people knew when it would be coming out when they would see it, but once I realized it was going to take 3 or 4 weeks, I felt I had to say something in the interim.

JAN CRAWFORD: But if you had had that material pointed out this would have all been different, you wouldn’t have written the four-page summary?

WILLIAM BARR: Probably not, no.

JAN CRAWFORD: I guess just to finish up on this topic then, when we saw the special counsel yesterday, you put out the statement that there wasn’t really any kind of discrepancy in some of things that you had been saying.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, we both put out the statement.

JAN CRAWFORD: Was that the first time there had been a joint statement?



WILLIAM BARR: I believe so.

JAN CRAWFORD: — And why was that necessary?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, because I think there was some people who let the facts interfere with their narrative and were trying to suggest that there was a difference of opinion about the role played by the OLC opinion, which simply wasn’t true.

JAN CRAWFORD: The difference is your views on obstruction and–

WILLIAM BARR: — Well the difference was this so —


JAN CRAWFORD: I understand what you’re saying and I guess, I guess you focused on the role the OLC memo, opinion played–


JAN CRAWFORD: –In the statement?

WILLIAM BARR: The so-called discrepancy was that I had, I had testified earlier that Bob had assured me that he had not reached a decision that there was a crime committed but was not willing to pursue it simply because of the OLC opinion and that remains the fact. That’s what his position is. That’s consistent with what he said yesterday. And it certainly is consistent with the joint release we put out. The confusion arose because what Bob Mueller’s position was was that the OLC opinion coupled with other things as a prudential matter made him feel that he shouldn’t even get into the analysis of whether something was a crime or not and that’s a different question than —

JAN CRAWFORD: Right, because you…just because there’s evidence of obstruction or crime was committed doesn’t mean the person is going to be charged or indicted or found to have committed that crime.

WILLIAM BARR: Right and he didn’t’ even get into that analysis. In other words, what I was discussing earlier was, was Bob, did Bob make a decision there was a crime and the only reason he wasn’t saying that was because of the OLC opinion. The fact is Bob did not make a decision that there was a crime. He didn’t get into the analysis at all. Part of the reason for that was his judgment about the OLC opinion coupled with other things he just didn’t think it was proper exercise of his authority. So it’s a totally different issue and that’s why, that’s why both us feel that this idea that there’s been a discrepancy over the OLC opinion is simply wrong.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did you watch him give the statement yesterday?

WILLIAM BARR: I watched a re-run of it, yeah.

JAN CRAWFORD: Anything new or different?

WILLIAM BARR: No I mean to me it was a reiteration of some of the key elements of his report. I think he wanted to stress a number of things that were in the report. There had been a lot of commentary about his work. I had made some critical remarks about it. So I think it’s quite understandable he wanted to hammer home a few of the key points that were in the report and I thought that that was fine.

JAN CRAWFORD: He said he’s not going to be testifying.

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think he should?

WILLIAM BARR: You know, I think as I said, you know, it’s up to Bob, but I think the line he’s drawing which is that he’s going to stick what he said in the report is the proper line for any Department official.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you’ve testified under oath, answered questions under oath. He took no questions yesterday. Is that sufficient?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it’s sufficient because, you know, he was handling a specific investigation and normally we don’t, we allowed our prosecutors and have them interrogated about how they handled a particular case. I think —

JAN CRAWFORD: But you wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify?


WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify. I do think that his view that he should stick to what is in the report is consistent with the department’s views of these things.

JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How’s the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn’t happen again in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes, we do have. I think an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process. The FBI obviously has the lead in that and I’ve been briefed on it on a regular basis and I think it’s a very impressive effort but, we are ramping up. I talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we’re totally prepared for the upcoming elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies.

JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.

JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.


JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?

WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–

JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–

JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–

WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.

JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that’s suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn’t happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020?

WILLIAM BARR: We’ve discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and–

JAN CRAWFORD: —You have discussed that with him?


WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we’re working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.

JAN CRAWFORD: So when we are talking about the kind of the– well you have used the word spy. You have testified that you believe spying occurred.


JAN CRAWFORD: Into the Trump campaign.


JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve gotten some criticism for using that word.

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow. It hasn’t ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it’s an important tool the United States has to protect the country.

JAN CRAWFORD: On using the word, I mean, do you understand, and I know that some of the, some former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist.

WILLIAM BARR: You know, it’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You’re saying that spying occurred. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.


JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there’s a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it’s adequately predicated. And look, I think if we — we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: So it’s just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?

WILLIAM BARR: Well they’re both, they’re both troubling.


WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.

JAN CRAWFORD: Did that happen?

WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.


WILLIAM BARR: That’s one of the, you know, one of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General, core responsibilities of the Attorney General is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power. That’s the responsibility of the Attorney General.

JAN CRAWFORD: You know the- I guess- we’ve spent the last two years or more talking about and hearing about Russian interference into the elections and what occurred there. And so now we’re shifting to talking about actually investigating, reviewing that investigation and the people who did that. So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what’s- what is the concern? What have you seen, what’s the basis for that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well I don’t want to get you know, too much into the facts because it’s still under review. But I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.

WILLIAM BARR: But he has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorney generals to investigate these kinds of activities. And he’s always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s going- he’s going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this. And we’re working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?

JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn’t say small but he’s looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.

JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have… could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited

JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn’t have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily?


JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore.


JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.

WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.

JAN CRAWFORD: So he won’t be involved in this really at all then?


JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it’s done?


JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up–

WILL BARR: Yes, right.

JAN CRAWFORD: –this. So again, just to go, just so that I think so people can more fully understand this, I mean have you, and I know it’s early in the investigation, but when we are talking about the basis for this and why you think it is important and obviously any kind of government abuse of power, I mean, you were in the CIA in the ’70s. You can see how that can have….

WILLIAM BARR: Right, when I, when I joined the CIA almost 50 years ago as an intern and this was during the Vietnam, civil rights era and there had been a lot…there were a lot of pending investigations of the CIA and there the issues were what was- when was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation.

You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general.

The attorney general’s responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon first amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.

JAN CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I’ll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.

JAN CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?

WILLIAM BARR: That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I’m not saying at this stage that–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was it a timeline?

WILLIAM BARR: There was a timeline, there’s some timeline–

JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, there’s a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what…

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know…

JAN CRAWFORD: But you said there’s a timeline concern.

WILLIAM BARR: Well I won’t, I won’t confirm that, but I’ll just say that, you know, there’s some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.

JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve said, you’ve said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you’ve said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.

WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to- I don’t want to get into that.

JAN CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So kind of going back to what we were talking about with Director Wray, I mean obviously you’ve seen this like the people are raising concerns that this is going to undermine FBI morale. The rank and file- what are we saying here- but you said in recent Senate testimony, “this is not launching an investigation of the FBI frankly to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon.”

WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.

JAN CRAWFORD: So there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon?

WILLIAM BARR: Correct. In other words, I don’t believe this is a problem you know, rife through the bureau.

JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?

WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–

JAN CRAWFORD: And you’re talking about James Comey, McCabe?

WILLIAM BARR: I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they’re being very cooperative in helping us.

JAN CRAWFORD: They’re being cooperative?


JAN CRAWFORD: You’re working with the DNI, the head of CIA. I want to ask you about something- just declassification. But the president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I- as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he–



JAN CRAWFORD: You don’t think that they’ve committed treason?

WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.

JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you’re dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I’m not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.

WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn’t be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don’t see that. So that’s why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.

JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling. And if the shoe were on the other–

JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.

WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damningand I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?

JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it’s not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what’s your response to that? Is that legit?

WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify?


JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president?

WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts.

JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA?


JAN CRAWFORD: And what’s their response?

WILLIAM BARR: That they’re going to be supportive.

JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won’t will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I’m amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods.

I’ve been in the business as I’ve said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I’m in the best decision to make that decision

JAN CRAWFORD: I know you’ve seen some of the criticism and the push back on- on this. Do you have any concerns that doing this investigation, talking about de-classifying certain materials- that that’s undermining your credibility or the credibility of the department?

WILLIAM BARR: No I- I don’t. I think it’s- actually the reaction is somewhat strange. I mean normally–



JAN CRAWFORD: Their reaction?

WILLIAM BARR: Well the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who’s served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850.


JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You’ve had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets?

WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he’ll tell me directly. I don’t look to tweets for, you know, I don’t look at them as directives or as official communications with the department.

JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.


WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?

WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I’ve you know–

JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it’s the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?

JAN CRAWFORD: So you don’t regret taking the job?


JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?

WILLIAM BARR: I’d rather, in many ways, I’d rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?

WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.

[Transcript End]

Rep. Collins Identifies Peter Strzok as Likely FBI Official Who Leaked Grand Jury Information and Prosecution Declined…

This is rather stunning.  In letters from Representative Doug Collins to Inspector General Horowitz and AG Bill Barr, Collins identifies Deputy Asst. Director Peter Strzok as the official who leaked grand jury information to the media and yet the DOJ refused to prosecute.  Incredible.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today sent letters to the attorney general [HERE]  and inspector general [HERE] regarding the Office of the Inspector General’s investigation summary into misconduct by a former FBI deputy assistant director. The letter to the inspector general raises questions about the identity of the deputy assistant director in question, and the letter to the attorney general inquires about the status of criminal referrals made by the inspector general to the Justice Department. (link)

Here’s the original notification from the OIG noting the media leaks and the DOJ decision to decline prosecution.

Citing the ongoing internal investigation of FBI leaks to media, from the 2018 OIG report on FBI conduct, on Wednesday May 29, 2019, the Office of Inspector General outlined a preponderance of evidence against a corrupt FBI Deputy Asst. Director.  However, the DOJ is refusing to prosecute:

Devin Nunes Discusses Robert Mueller’s National Impeachment Address…

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Representative Devin Nunes responds to Robert Mueller’s national impeachment address:


It sure would be great if someone, anyone, could get Robert Mueller to publicly testify and face questioning… Unfortunately the UniParty rules the swamp.

Two-Tiered Justice and Professional Escape Artists – Prior IG Conclusions Impede Current AG Barr…

CTH shared a prediction in September 2018 which bears repeating.  However, prior to revisiting the past let us overlay today’s events. Keep in mind, much of what is happening is downstream from predicate events that took place long before AG Bill Barr was confirmed to run the DOJ.  Actually, while not intending to defend Bill Barr, some of the recent events are beyond his control.  Here’s how:

First, if you remember when the 568 page IG report on FBI/DOJ conduct was delivered in June 2018, you might remember how the ‘executive summary and conclusions’ were disconnected from the main body of evidence within the report.  In 2018 CTH warned this “disconnect” was by design; essentially the corrupt officials were laying down a defense for any conduct, later outlined, that is connected to the body of the IG review.

When IG Horowitz announced last year he could find no evidence of actions taken as a result of political bias by FBI and DOJ officials; he also stated he could not rule out bias within their investigation.  Horowitz pointed to the lack of action by FBI Agent Peter Strzok -following the September 28th, 2016, notification of Clinton emails on Abedin laptop- as lacking reasonable explanation.  Essentially, despite suspicions, the summary conclusion was the IG could find “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing“.

The 568-pages contained a multitude of examples of FBI misconduct (media leaks etc.), but the same IG report summary said “no illegal activity was discovered.”  In the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ there was a disconnect between the summary/conclusions and the body of evidence.

With that in mind, how could the Bill Barr DOJ prosecute on evidence of behavior from within a report where the Rod Rosenstein DOJ conclusion was no evidence of “intentional wrongdoing”?

In short, he can’t.

Think about how easy it would be for a defense attorney representing one of the accused officials detailed in the IG report…. Take the IG report, which outlines the events for which the client is being prosecuted, and simply say: “the conclusion of the FBI investigation said “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing” so why is my client being charged?”

It’s a circular defense created by a prior conclusion. If there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing, the downstream events cannot be prosecuted. This is by design. The design  explains this:

Now, having said that, let’s expand on prior words of caution.

QUESTION: If the DOJ Office of Inspector General found no intentional DOJ and FBI malfeasance in the June ’18 report covering the totality of the 2016 election; and no direct evidence of political bias within the decision-making of the officials being reviewed; what’s the likelihood of the same OIG finding malfeasance as it relates to DOJ/FBI *FISA activity* and the exact same people?

The extensive OIG election-period report found no DOJ/FBI misconduct (only some bad judgement). There were no criminal referrals. There were recommendations for internal improvement, which FBI Director Wray said the FBI would implement (link).

It’s important to note the Office of Inspector General FISA review/investigation of potential FISA abuses (opened March 28th, 2018) was launched three months prior to the “Election Activity” final report in June 14th 2018.  There was obvious investigative overlap; however, the June report said “no evidence of intentional misconduct.”

The time frame covered by the “Election Activity” review (OIG report 2) and the “FISA Activity” review (OIG report 3) are the same. The topics are different (FISA being more specific), but the people under review and time-frame therein are identical.

If the OIG found no intentional corrupt activity in the June ’18 report (only bad judgement); no referrals were made; and time period and people are exactly the same; how can the OIG produce a post-facto FISA review report with substantively different conclusions?  It seems unlikely.

However, that said, there is a narrow window of potential optimism for those seeking some measure of accountability inside IG report #3.

DOJ Official Bruce Ohr is likely still employed for the same reason the dispatch of Peter Strzok and James Baker was delayed prior to the finalization of IG report #2. The OIG and INSD (inspection division) can only reach those still inside the system.

On the narrow issue of how the DOJ and FBI assembled, handled and used the FISA application (and subsequent Title-1 surveillance warrant), against the Trump campaign and officials therein, Bruce Ohr is a key and central witness for the OIG (link).

Mr. Ohr has testified (transcript here) that he was interviewed by IG Horowitz about his role in assembling the information that was later used in gaining a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant without following the Woods Procedure.  [Note: Mr. Ohr was never interviewed by John Huber]

Unlike the previous OIG report #2 (Election-era Issues) if the OIG can find direct and intentional “gross misconduct” (by referencing traditional and historic FISA application assembly therein), toward those officials who participated in the FISA assembly, then it becomes possible the OIG report could potentially outline that the FISA application resulted in serious fourth amendment civil rights violations. And that perspective could be a narrow opening toward legal issues for DOJ and FBI officials who participated in assembling an *intentional* and fraudulently-based application to the FISA court.

That approach is a high bar for the OIG to reach. The OIG would have to find “direct evidence” of “gross misconduct” resulting in civil rights violations. The defensive arguments by the corrupt group would be filled with legal justification(s) and internal process discussion.  Lots of room for reasonable doubt.

However, with the introduction of John Durham, there’s a possibility that building this scale of evidence is exactly what AG Bill Barr is trying to accomplish.

Any finding of “fourth amendment” FISA-abuse would be adverse to the interests of the larger U.S. intelligence apparatus and institutional participants who rely on the current use of the FISA process.  Current officials would want to protect it.

I suspect the team of DOJ/FBI officials who abused the FISA court, and are now watching things unfold, are also relying upon the institutional necessity of the FISA process to protect themselves from too much scrutiny and sunlight.  An example of that unfortunate reality is found with HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes advocating for FISA reauthorization on January 11th, 2018 (link); right in the middle of the explosive revelations and discoveries of potential abuse.

As HPSCI Chairman, Devin Nunes knew back in 2017 the FISA process was abused for corrupt political intent.  However, he also knows FISA is a critical component and tool for the U.S. intelligence system and national security.  Currently Mr. Nunes is advocating for a much larger conversation about FISA and “Title-1” authority before any further congressional re-authorization.

We can only imagine the downstream political chaos if IG Horowitz started cracking open the doors to possible civil rights violations from Obama-era FISA abuse.

Oh, believe me, those gross civil rights violations are present. [SEE HERE]  The surveillance system that Obama officials assembled is massive and visible evidence of post-constitutional abuse of government databases, and violations of fourth amendment protections.  But will AG Bill Barr actually be able to bring evidence of those abuses to the public?

No-one really knows the extent of the current documents and/or information that may be subject to the AG Bill Barr declassification. However, this is the original list as outlined in September 2018, and the agencies who would be involved in the declassification process:

  1. All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (DoS) (FBI) (ODNI).
  2. All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)
  3. All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI), and supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
  4. All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
  5. All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)
  6. All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
  7. The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

♦ President Trump can prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus by exposing the preceding CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey. [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016. [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?] This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place. The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation. This is why Page and Strzok texts are redacted!

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also Release the October 20th, 2017, second scope memo recently discovered. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]


Too Deep To Drain? – OIG Finds Preponderance of Evidence Against FBI Deputy Asst. Director – DOJ Refuses to Prosecute…

Citing the ongoing internal investigation of FBI leaks to media, from the 2018 OIG report on FBI conduct, today the Office of Inspector General outlined a preponderance of evidence against a corrupt FBI Deputy Asst. Director.  However, the DOJ is refusing to prosecute:


The most alarming aspect is the OIG finding of the Deputy Asst. Director leaking grand jury information to the media, and yet the DOJ is declining to prosecute.

Incredibly, the inspector general (IG) indicated, without explanation, that “prosecution of the DAD [deputy assistant director] was declined.”  Instead, the investigation’s findings will be referred to the FBI for “appropriate action”.   What the hell is going on?

Unfortunately this is a pattern; and bears striking similarities to the FBI finding clear evidence of former Senate Intelligence Committee Security head James Wolfe leaking the classified FISA application on Carter Page, and yet never facing charges for those leaks.

From the 2018 OIG report, here is how Michael Horowitz explained the media leaking:

What do the following four points have in common?

  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to need to protect politicians. (House of Representatives) The sweetheart plea deal.
  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clearfrom the outset how he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians. (SSCI, Senate) The sweetheart plea deal.
  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig; and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians (Obama White House). Sweetheart double standards.
  • The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018); Status?… Oh, wait for it….

If you note the common thread is: U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie K Liu, well, you would be entirely accurate. Oh, but wait, we’ve only just begun.

Pay attention to the timelines.

While newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr was “getting his arms” around ongoing corruption within the organization he is now attempting to lead, there was an announcement on March 5th, about U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu becoming the #3 official at the DOJ.

Three weeks later, on March 28th, there was an announcement about a change of plans, and U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu’s name was withdrawn from consideration.

In addition to AG Bill Barr “getting his arms around” issues within the department, what else happened between March 5th and March 28th that would so drastically change plans for Ms. Liu?:

On March 21st Representatives Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows send a letter (full pdf available here) to Attorney General William Barr wanting to know what is the status of the year-old (April 19th, 2018) criminal referral for fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. (link)


Answering the letter from Jordan and Meadows would be easy. The AG picks up the phone, calls Ms. Liu, asks the question and then sends back a response. Except, well, there was no response. Instead, a week after receiving the letter Ms. Liu’s name is withdrawn from consideration for promotion…. and later AG Barr admits there was ‘spying’.

Keep in mind Meadows and Jordan obviously suspected –as did we– that no DOJ case against McCabe was being pursued; after all, the evidence was previously gathered, it doesn’t take a year. Additionally, when Mark Meadows is directly asked about the status of this specific issue today with Maria Bartiromo what does he answer? He doesn’t… [watch the interview] he avoids the question completely.

Put it all together and be intellectually honest…. McCabe’s current non-worried book-tour status is directly in-line with the politically convenient Awan, Wolfe and Craig approach.

See the picture?

Obviously we don’t yet have a solid history to reference AG Barr’s motive and intentions (cautious optimism). However, granting benefit of doubt, CTH can imagine an eyes-wide-open diplomatic response from any Bill Barr ‘hands-around-it‘ line of inquiry….

Hence, Liu withdrawn.

Now some might ask why Barr would simultaneously make Jessie Liu the chair of the Attorney General Advisory Committee on the same day her name is withdrawn (March 28th announcement); however, Barr doesn’t have a choice about the DC U.S. Attorney sitting on the AGAC. By law [28 CFR § 0.10] the Attorney General can pick all of the AGAC members, with one exception. The DC U.S. Attorney is required to be a member.

[Nice little deep state continuity trick]

Given that Barr is bringing in people from outside the DOJ –specifically from his prior law practice- that he knows he can trust, CTH suspects Barr made Liu Chairwoman of the AGAC for two reasons: (1) keep eyes on her; and (2) busy her with administrative work.

But wait…. it gets better.

Accepting that Ms. Jessie Liu is a career participant in the DOJ aspects of deep state preservation; even acting in a role as Deputy Chief of Staff for the DOJ National Security Division (yes, the DOJ-NSD division at the heart of the FISA issues); and remembering that Ms. Liu was also a member of the Trump transition team…. well, who the hell recommended her for those roles?

Someone ‘inside’ the Trump operation had to recommend Jessie Liu as a member of the transition team knowing full well her ideology would protect the administrative state. Who was that person who recommended her, and brought her in?

Additionally, regarding the recent March 5th, 2019, recommendation for Associate Attorney General (position #3), there has to be a point-of-contact between the DOJ and the inner circle of the White House. A person who would carry a recommendation from the DOJ institution, internally, to President Trump. Who was/is that person specifically?

If the 2016/2017 recommending transition member is the same as the 2019 recommending administration member… well, that’s the person who is directly working to the detriment of President Trump’s agenda.

Again, for those who might prefer to look-away from cold data, go back to the four points of specific reference we started with and research:

  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to need to protect politicians. (House of Representatives) The sweetheart plea deal.
  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clearfrom the outset how he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians. (SSCI, Senate) The sweetheart plea deal.
  • The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig; and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians (Obama White House). Sweetheart double standards.
  • The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018); Status?…

Look up those specific backstories.

Right there, in combination with the non-accountability outcomes of the two previous inspector general reports, is a big part of the corruption problem. If AG Bill Barr intends to save these institutions, he has his work cut out for him.

When we overlay a day when corrupt special prosecutor Robert Mueller takes to the podium to state prosecutors cannot prove guilt, but rather President Trump must prove his innocence; and simultaneously the DOJ refuses to prosecute a demonstrably corrupt Deputy Asst. Director…. Well, things are beyond FUBAR.

When we see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion; when we  see that in order to invoke our sixth amendment right to due process, we need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution; when we see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics; when we see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but protect them against us; when we see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – we may well know that our freedom too is soon to perish…