Attorney General General William Barr told lawmakers today the public can expect to have the redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference “within a week.”  AG Barr noted his team is working with the special counsel to provide “explanatory notes” describing the basis for each redaction.  WATCH:

Full congressional hearing below:

Representative Doug Collins has released the transcript from former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker during his first day of testimony to congress on October 3rd, 2018. (full pdf below)

Baker was part of the FBI small group who claimed to be somewhat skeptical of the manner in which the FBI investigation was taking place. James Baker told Congress during his testimony the investigation was “highly unusual.”

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/405636514/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-hSbU5u4s2gbRLNvuY77m

A late day submission to DC Circuit Court in a FOIA case previously discussed, reveals the content of Mueller’s probe & use of multiple, previously unknown, James Comey memos. Additionally, within the filing we discover how Comey documented multiple events, meetings and information surrounding the FBI investigation of Donald Trump.

The documents surface as part of the FOIA case [Backstory Here] where DC Court Judge James E. Boasberg -an Obama appointee and also a FISA judge- asked the FBI to file an opinion about the release of Comey memos to the public.  There are two issues: (1) can the memos be released? and (2) can prior sealed FBI filings, arguing to keep the memos hidden, be released?

In a very revealing filing last night (full pdf below) the lead FBI investigator for the Mueller special counsel, David W. Archey, informs the court that with the ending of the special counsel some of the memo material can be released, such as their existence; however, Archey also states much of the memo content and sealed background material from the FBI must continue to remain sealed and redacted.

The FBI will file a further declaration on or before April 15, 2019, to explain why the remaining redactions to the Third Archey Declaration continue to be necessary. (page 2)

Within the filing we discover the lead FBI agent was David W. Archey (background here). Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when the special counsel took over the counterintelligence investigation from Special Agent Peter Strzok. According to ABC: “Agent David Archey is described by colleagues as a utility man of sorts within the FBI”. However, until now his exact role was not known.

(Source pdf)

Following the conclusion of the Mueller probe, David Archey was moved.  Effective March 8, 2019, Archey became head of the Richmond, VA, FBI field office. (link) Due to the corrupt nature of the special counsel, this is somewhat concerning. I digress…

The first three pages of the filing consist of David Archey explaining to the court that some of the material can be released, but other material must be withheld.  He then goes on to reference two prior sealed attachments outlined as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B”.

“Exhibit A” is a filing from the FBI on January 31st, 2018, essentially supporting an earlier “in camera ex parte declaration” requesting continuance of a prior court order to keep the background material sealed from public view.  In essence, the FBI didn’t want the public to know what was/is contained within the Comey memos (including the scale thereof).

“Exhibit B” is where the action is.

This is the original declaration outlining to the court on October 13th, 2017, why the Comey memos must be sealed.  It is inside this exhibit where we discover there are many more memos than previously understood, and the content of those memos is far more exhaustive because James Comey documented the FBI investigation.

In essence Comey created these memos to cover his ass. (pg 13):

FBI Agent Archey then goes on to explain what is inside the memos: It is in this section where we discover that Comey made notes of his meetings and conversations with investigators.

Along with writing notes of the meetings and conversations, apparently Comey also made notes of the sources and methods associated with the investigation.  Why would Comey generate classified information in these notes (sources and methods) unless he was just covering his ass because he knew the investigation itself was a risk…

The content of the memos seems rather exhaustive; it appears Comey is keeping a diary for use in the event this operation went sideways. (page #14, exhibit B)

All of those investigative elements would likely be contained in official FBI files and notes by the investigative agents.  There is no need for a contemporaneous personal account of meeting content unless Comey was constructing memos for his own protection. These memos appear to be motivated by the same mindset that caused Susan Rice to generate her email to self on inauguration day.

In the next section FBI Agent David Archey explains the scale of the memos.  There are obviously far more than previously discussed or disclosed publicly.  Additionally, look carefully at the way the second part is worded.

Archey is saying Comey’s written recollections should be withheld because it might affect the testimony of people familiar with the “memorialized conversations”. (page #15, Exhibit B)

This is an October 2017 filing, Comey was fired May 9th.  FBI Agent Archey is outlining Trump as the target who might adjust his testimony.  Again, more evidence of the special counsel focus being motivated by the obstruction case they were hoping to build. [Reminder, Comey was still FBI director at the time these memos were written]

The next section gets to the heart of why the FBI wants to keep the Comey memos hidden and not released.

In this section Archey outlines how FBI Director James Comey wrote down who the sources were; what code-names were assigned; how those confidential sources engaged with FISA coverage initiated by the FBI; what foreign governments were assisting with their effort; and what the plans were for the investigation.

Again, why memorialize all of this classified information unless the memos were intended as CYA protection for himself?

There’s also really good news in here.  Think about it.  Now we know the entire anti-Trump operation is memorialized in writing.  There is documentary evidence of the entire operation within these memos.  We did not know that before this moment.

Therefore, it looks like President Trump can add the Comey Memos to the pre-existing declassification list.  At any time, President Trump now has a set of documents he knows to exist that his office can ask to be released.  The investigation is over.

If the FBI was running an honest and genuine investigation; what do they have to fear from the release of the Comey Memos now that the investigation is over.

Here’s the full filing:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/405516262/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-gtj781vTQdRUwWLPG0EE

Ranking member of the HPSCI Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to announce a $150 million lawsuit against the McClatchy News Group for their part in a conspiracy to derail and manipulate the Clinton and Russia probes. –Details Here–

“The attacks on Nunes were pre-planned, calculated, orchestrated and undertaken by multiple individuals acting in concert, over a continuous period of time throughout 2018. The full scope of the conspiracy, including the names of all participants and the level of involvement of any agents or instrumentalities of foreign governments, is unknown at this time and will be the subject of discovery in this action.” (more)

It’s always important to remember when Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI he successfully won a lawsuit against Fusion-GPS to gain access to their bank records.

There’s a distinct possibility Devin Nunes knows which reporters and media outlets were paid by Fusion (via Glenn Simpson) for their collaborative efforts. Was McClatchy paid by Fusion-GPS for participation in an organized smear effort? Stay tuned…

Adam Schiff’s little toady Eric Swalwell has entered the 2020 presidential race; and therein the Club moves to activate the Second Amendment removal coalition represented by the Parkland Shooting narrative builders.

38-year-old Congressman Swalwell is one of the most slimy creatures in a swamp of bile dependent on slimy creature comfort.

(Via NYT) […] he has said the top focus of his campaign would be something else: gun control. His first major event as a candidate will be a town hall on Tuesday near Parkland, Fla., which he planned with Cameron Kasky, one of the Parkland students who organized the March for Our Lives.

“I’ve talked to kids who sit in their classroom afraid that they’ll be the next victim of gun violence,” he told Mr. Colbert on Monday. “And they see Washington doing nothing about it after the moments of silence, and they see lawmakers who love their guns more than they love our kids.” (read more)

Swalwell is not a viable candidate.  Again, winning by one vote, or ten million votes in New York, Illinois or his home state of California doesn’t help win the electoral college. Schiff’s little toady is an issue candidate.  The Club’s agenda/benefit is from the data within the network of Cameron Kasky, Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg et al.

Overall the “Parkland Activist Crew” has around 2 million followers within their social media reach.  Blind sheeple, ripe for harvesting. Believe me, The Club is predictable…. just watch them.

That said, we are still not seeing the launch of the ‘chosen one‘, the intended party donor candidate; however, we have now entered the timeline most favorable for launch, April to May/June/July 2019.

The DNC is predictable; it’s a club.  Inside the club the board members are debating viability within a select team of unannounced potential candidates.  It appeared like Joe Biden held the most board member votes; however he’s having ‘creepy Joe’ trouble.

There is likely an elevated internal debate now.  Again, planning and strategy is one of the key elements of the Democrat party.  It might seem weird at first, but the DNC club is not chaotic; and, from my perspective, that is their weakness. It makes them predictable.

The chosen-one would generally come into play immediately after the democrats have set down a larger trumpeted baseline. The chosen-one roll out would be designed to flow from the club’s baseline narrative. The Democrats rarely, if ever, go off script….

Knowing it’s likely the ♦UniParty DNC is following a similar ♦UniParty RNC strategy, we can start to put the personal characteristics and political traits together and contrast them against 2016. Here’s the way it looks so far:

• Senator Ted Cruz was to 2016…. as Senator Elizabeth Warren is to 2020
• ♦Governor Jeb Bush was to 2016 as….
• Senator Marco Rubio was to 2016… as Senator Bernie Sanders is to 2020
• Governor John Kasich was to 2016… as
• Senator Lindsey Graham was to 2016 as… Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is to 2020
• Governor Mike Huckabee was to 2016… as Senator Corey Booker is to 2020
• Senator Rand Paul was to 2016…. as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is to 2020
• Dr. Ben Carson was to 2016… as Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke is to 2020
• Governor Chris Christie was to 2016 as… Governor J. Hickenlooper is to 2020
• Governor Scott Walker was to 2016 as… Governor Jay Inslee is to 2020
• Senator Rick Santorum was to 2016…. as Senator Sherrod Brown is to 2020
• Governor George Pataki was to 2016 as…. Eric Swalwell is to 2020
• Governor Rick Perry was to 2016…. as Senator Kamala Harris is to 2020
• Governor Bobby Jindal was to 2016…. as Julian Castro is to 2020
• Carly Fiorina was to 2016 as…. Senator Amy Klobuchar is to 2020
• Governor Jim Gilmore was to 2016 as… Rep. Tim Ryan is to 2020

Reminder, despite their current stumbling with their executive suite efforts, anyone who is announcing their presidential bid ahead of Speaker Pelosi and the DNC delivering the election narrative (impeachment or similar) is not part of the DNC plan.

Pelosi and Club leadership will not easily give up on an impeachment plan that took months of effort.  They will work to modify it, shift angles of attack, adjust to Barr and yet still hope to retain the goal for as long as possible.  They don’t give up on these schemes easily….. As we saw admitted this past weekend from Jerry Nadler, they are modifying their plans as each roadblock presents.

The “Chosen One” will likely surface during the April/May to June/July period when the legislative ‘impeachment‘ crew, the DNC crew and the media crew have been able to align the scheme for maximum political benefit.

We will most likely be able to identify the “Chosen One” by: (#1) the Pelosi narrative (when cemented) and everyone falls in line; and (#2) the “roll out” that accompanies the announcement. [ex. remember the Greek columns, trumpets, pomp, etc.?]

Once we get a few more names (approx. 16), and we discover the ‘Chosen Candidate’, we can start to have fun with the celebrity squares graphics and the top 16 contenders.

Every narrative needs a foundation; every investigation, false or genuine, needs a predicate upon which to launch.  Remove the predicate and everything is exposed.

The predicate is the reason why so much effort was put forth by the conspiring Obama administration; and corrupt intelligence officials; and all political operatives; and the entirety of the mainstream media; to drumbeat that “Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election.”

Without that predicate forming the motive for all subsequent action, the house-of-cards collapses; everything is exposed.

There is no amount of hindsight manipulation that can cover for a fraudulent basis of origination.  This is one of the reasons why voices like Diana West are so important.  Question the underlying assumption and the entire dynamic changes.

By now the intellectually honest reviewers of information all accept there was no effort from the Trump campaign to collude or conspire with ‘Russians’.  That narrative was always false; even Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers and FBI investigators have conceded their inability to substantiate those Trump-Russia assertions.  There never was any ‘there’there.  All effort was instead trying to set up the obstruction case.

But further back in the narrative construct, those Trump-Russia assertions are predicated on there actually being some grand conspiratorial attempt by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.  Without a factual basis for that claim, none of the CIA, FBI and DOJ-NSD operations hold any validity.

CTH has often stated one of the key ‘tells’ surrounding Rod Rosenstein was his willingness to go forth with grand public proclamations of Russian indictments. However, despite the very thin evidence behind the boisterous and promoted indictment claims, there’s no actual substance to show any interference campaign of any scale that matches the scale of the DOJ’s public protestations.  The reason for the disparity between claims and scale, is the absence of any substantive evidence.

And there’s the “tell”.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Rosenstein had no choice than to go along with Mueller’s team and their thin evidentiary proclamations behind the Russian indictments.  Without those Russian indictments, the background predicate is exposed…. and, as a direct consequence, all of the intelligence operations that are predicated on the ‘Russia Interference‘ premise begin to be exposed.

Without the Russian Interference predicate, why was the CIA running early 2016 operations against the Trump campaign?  Without the Russian Interference predicate why was the July 31st, Crossfire Hurricane operation even begun?  Etcetera… Etcetera… Etcetera…. All of it.

There’s where we find the need for the big lie.

Whenever there’s a need for a big cover-up, there’s always a need for a big lie.

The Russians HAD TO have made efforts to interfere in the election, or else the factual basis for the surveillance operation against candidate Donald Trump is naked to the world.

That’s why so much energy was exhausted framing the predicate.

“Seventeen intelligence agencies”….. The December 29th Joint Analysis Report…. The expulsion of the Russian diplomats which was an outcropping of the JAR…. The rushed January Intelligence Community Assessment…  Shoving microphones in everyone’s faces and demanding they answer if they believed Russia interfered…  All of it, and I do mean every bit of it, is predicated on an absolute need to establish that Russia Attempted to Interfere.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf below) is pure nonsense.  It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This might as well be a report blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  DUH!  Just because your grandma didn’t actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian Mafioso are targeting your employer to hold you accountable for her portion of the bill.

This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure horse-pucky.

However, what the report does well is using ridiculous technical terminology to describe innocuous common activity.   Example: “ATPT29” is Olaf, the round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and “ATPT28” is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom’s basement down the street.  This entire FBI report is nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/335307016/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-qvjYK3gLD9WdgOskmgoe

.

As time went on, and as the Clinton-Steele dossier was revealed, the 17 agency Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) grew even weaker.  In late October 2017 former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted the Clinton-Steele dossier was part of the ICA.  Eventually, our research indicated the dossier and the intelligence report were likely the underlying evidence behind the FISA Title-1 application for surveillance on Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign.

Later we discovered our independent suspicions appeared to be exactly what House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes was also investigating.

(Via New York Post) […]  After learning Obama Justice and FBI officials relied heavily on unsubstantiated rumors in the dossier to wiretap a Trump adviser during the election, congressional leaders now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.

The report was released Jan. 6, 2017 — the same day intelligence officials attached a written summary of the dossier to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave Obama about the dossier, and the day after Obama held a secret White House meeting to discuss the dossier with his national-security adviser and FBI director.

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the dossier.

[…]  The Defense Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, State Department’s intelligence bureau and other agencies with relevant expertise on Russia were excluded, in violation of normal rules for drafting such assessments. And in another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from outside reviewers.

US intel veterans suspect the administration “manipulated” the process to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” in order to delegitimize Trump.  (read more)

Take the ‘Russia Attempted to Interfere’ predicate away and what becomes visible behind the lifting-fog is an extensive multi-agency operation, encompassing multiple intelligence institutions and all three branches of government, to conduct political operations under the guise of counterintelligence.  Yes, that’s what was factually taking place.

The Russian Interference narrative is the larger cover story.

It’s time to stop accepting it.

♦ Prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane operation originated from fraud by exposing the CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo.  Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.

♦ 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?]

♦ 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. Squeeze this bastard’s nuts in the proverbial legal vise.

♦ 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.

♦ 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.

♦ 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]

Diana West discusses her new book “The Red Thread” with Stefan Molyneux in a recent interview.  Mrs West asks why the conspiracy against President Trump took place; and she is one of the few people openly challenging the false narrative about Russia intefering in the 2016 election.  This is a great interview to watch:

.

“There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government — designed to stop terrorist attacks — against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic.”

“The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?”

– Book Available Here

Acting chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney appears on Fox News Sunday to discuss current political events in Washington DC.  Topics include resistance effort by House democrats; the ongoing border crisis with Mexico; the House effort to get President Trump’s income taxes from the IRS; and the upcoming release of the Mueller report by Attorney General William Barr, and Healthcare initiatives.

President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani appears on FtN to rebut the framework put forth by Jerry Nadler.  Toward the end of the combative and argumentative interview a frustrated Margaret Brennan accidentally let’s her bias surface visibly; she didn’t realize she was on camera (screen shot below).

[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to turn now to President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who is here with me. Would you like to respond to the congressman who says he has the right and the committee has the right for all of this information. Do you agree that the public has the right?

RUDY GIULIANI: I- I would like him to get all the information.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Including the things that are protected–

GIULIANI: Everything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –grand jury material.

GIULIANI: But I can’t control that, and I can’t change the law. And the attorney general has a difficult job, and I didn’t appreciate his suggestion the attorney general would be biased. I know Bill Barr for many many years. I think people in this town know him. He’s a man of the highest integrity. Also everything he’s doing is also being run by Rod Rosenstein. That- that report was put out by Barr and Rosenstein.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The- the four page summary?

GIULIANI: Rosenstein started the investigation, supervised the investigation allowed the special counsel to do things that I thought were kind of off base. He certainly gave them full scope to do their entire investigation. There’d be no reason why Rod Rosenstein would sign his name to something that says they found no evidence of collusion. No evidence of obstruction. They couldn’t reach a conclusion on obstruction.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

GIULIANI: So then Rosenstein and Barr did no obstruction. I- I guarantee you except for little quibbles, I’m not worried about the report at all. There’s no way those two good lawyers would have written that kind of letter if there’s any issue.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president waiving all executive privilege? I mean he said publicly he thinks this report should be made public?

GIULIANI: The- the president’s cooperation with this investigation it was unprecedented. Bill Clinton fought every single subpoena. And- and it was a knock down drag out battle.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But then he did ultimately sit down and do it.

GIULIANI: That’s why he had to–

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president never did, though.

GIULIANI: That’s why the president didn’t have to because they couldn’t win in court. They had every piece of information. They couldn’t suggest a question they didn’t have the answer to because we supplied him with the answers to everything and the president did answer questions in writing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I want to ask you about that, but to be clear here, is the president waiving all executive privilege?

GIULIANI: As far as I know, he has. But he can’t waive all executive privilege. There are also other people that have executive privilege that are involved–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there will be information withheld from this report?

GIULIANI: I don’t know, Margaret. I don’t know. The attorney general has said he’s going to put out the maximum amount of information possible. The only thing that will stop him will be legal barriers. I hope there are a few because I don’t like what Jerry Nadler just did. Innuendo and there must be more- look. Jerry Nadler prejudged this case a year ago. He was- he was talking about impeachment. He was overheard on Amtrak talking about impeachment well before the report came out. So when he talks about the attorney general being biased, my goodness, and on his committee he’s got some of the most rabid people that hate Trump. This is- we’re not going before a court here. We’re going before a political body–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well do you- do you fear that–

GIULIANI: –that is highly partisan and has made up its mind.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve- you and the president have welcomed the four page summary. Do you think that the 400 page report is going to be more damaging?

GIULIANI: No. I don’t think so.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you- when you say you–

GIULIANI: I’ll give you another reason I don’t think that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –you support the disclosure though.

GIULIANI: –when- when the leakers–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Will the president tell the attorney general to make all this public?

GIULIANI: President has left it to the attorney general. President can’t make the decisions about–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you just said he’s not decided on executive privilege yet.

GIULIANI: The president has told the attorney general, has told everybody, the world, “I am comfortable with everything being released.” Now the president can’t change the law. Now the attorney general has to apply that. He is- he wants to do maximum transparency. I’m sure we’ll get just about all of it. I hope we get all of it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think then that the interview that the president didn’t sit for but provided written answers to will you make those answers public if you support full transparency?

GIULIANI: I’m not going to make anything public. The attorney general will make it public if he believes it should be made public.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well can’t the president decide to make his own answers public?

GIULIANI: Once it’s all over, maybe. Let’s see what the attorney general does first. Why don’t we wait until the attorney general files the report and then if we want to complain about it we can complain about it. I have another- I have another–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you confident there will be no evidence of obstruction of justice–

GIULIANI: I’m going to show you why–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –in these 400 pages?

GIULIANI: I’m going to show you why I’m confident there’ll be no evidence of anything really bad because the leakers- and Nadler was wrong about that too- the Mueller- Mueller group has been leaking all along. How did CNN end up at Roger Stone’s raid?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well they have their own explanation as to good reporting there.

GIULIANI: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But for 22 months, you have to acknowledge the special counsel’s office–

GIULIANI: Hell no.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –did not leak.

GIULIANI: Hell no. I got plenty of, “they’re saying this, they’re saying that.” They knew all about our battle over questions–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you like–

GIULIANI: –they knew about the positions we took.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But- but you’re- you’re impugning their credibility and their contact. But you are actually accepting and supporting their conclusions–

GIULIANI: Far more credible. Yes, because–

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a bit contradictory.

GIULIANI: No, it’s not at all Margaret. He was cleared–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re accusing them of bias but you agree with their conclusions.

GIULIANI: That’s because there is no evidence. If- if they could have found anything, if Andrew Weissman who was crying at Hillary Clinton’s losing party, couldn’t find anything. If Ms Rhee who was counsel to the Clinton Foundation couldn’t find anything, believe me, there was nothing there. And they tried to make things up. They put so much pressure on people, keeping them in solid confinement.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Republicans shouldn’t be pushing back on full disclosure of the report.

GIULIANI: No Republican’s pushing back on full disclosure of the report. I haven’t heard any Republican that isn’t in favor of full disclosure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well in terms of- Jerry Nadler’s making an argument–

GIULIANI: Jerry Nadler is making a–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –on different grounds–

GIULIANI: –is making a phony–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –of constitutional oversight.

GIULIANI: He’s making a phony argument. Jerry Nadler can’t change the law. The law is the law. The attorney has to apply the law. Jerry Nadler is a biased, completely predetermined– does- does he want us to believe that he’s going to give us a fair hearing?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Should- do you think–

GIULIANI: He announce- He announced–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –do you think- he just said that he wants–

GIULIANI: –some of his members have announced a year ago that he should be impeached.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He just said he wants to have perhaps some of the investigators come before his committee and answer questions. Do you support that?

GIULIANI: Why for a political show?

MARGARET BRENNAN: No but it–

GIULIANI: Why?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not? They have oversight.

GIULIANI: We-we- Mueller–

MARGARET BRENNAN: If some people in the Justice Department did think the president committed obstruction of justice, shouldn’t they be heard out? And if there’s nothing to it–

GIULIANI: Well–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –why not allow it?

GIULIANI: Can we listen to the report first? The four leakers or the leakers who leaked to The New York Times that there are problems in the report. Did you notice a leak no specific? I can’t imagine that the reporter didn’t ask. Give- give me an example–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well–

GIULIANI: Give me an example of something in the report that suggests that the President obstructed justice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Some have argued that–

GIULIANI: No examples–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –it’s almost forcing Barr’s hand though to follow through and not keep that public–

GIULIANI: Oh- oh–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –but private.

GIULIANI: These people who hate him- that we’re willing to commit close to a criminal act to say there are bad things in the report, if they have some dynamite they’re not going to give it to the guy?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president–

GIULIANI: I can’t–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president considering a pardon for Michael Flynn?

GIULIANI: President is not considering pardons at this time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And he wouldn’t for Michael Flynn?

GIULIANI: You mean ever ever ever in the whole history of his presidency?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you not discussed it?

GIULIANI: How do I know?

MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven’t discussed it?

GIULIANI: Yes we discussed it at the very beginning and decided the whole question of pardons would be put off.

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Michael Cohen, you just heard Chairman Nadler there talk about the offer that was made by Cohen’s attorneys to come in and provide some of this information.

GIULIANI: Yeah that’s pretty hilarious.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They have text messages. Apparently recordings according to the attorney. What is on this?

GIULIANI: If- if Jerry Nadler wants to convince me he’s interested in the truth then he should be recommending a prosecution of Cohen for his last appearance before the Congress when he lied about–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well he is going to jail.

GIULIANI: No no no–

MARGARET BRENNAN: He’s going to prison for that–

GIULIANI: Wait- wait–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you confident though that–

GIULIANI: Just be–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Cohen doesn’t have damaging information–

GIULIANI: Margaret. Margaret–

MARGARET BRENNAN: on these millions of- of bytes he claims he has?

GIULIANI: –he’s going to jail but after he got convicted of that and after he promised to cooperate and tell the truth he went before Congress and he made a fool out of the committee. He was asked, “did you have ever- did you ever ask for a job? He said, “No I never asked for a job.” Yes he asked for a job. He asked me to get him a job. He asked 100 other people to get him a job and there is a tape, contemporaneous tape, with Chris Cuomo in which he says I want to be chief of staff and Cumo says, “good luck Mike. I hope you get it.” Direct absolute perjury trying to make himself look like he’s not a disgruntled office seeker–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t think he has–

GIULIANI: –material information.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –anything damaging to the president in all these recordings he claims to have.

GIULIANI: No I have, I have no I have no confidence that these people care about the truth, Chairman Cummings told him–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But as to what Cohen has–

GIULIANI: Please. Chairman Cummings told Cohen when he started this testimony very dramatically, “If you lie-” I don’t know if you said I’ll hang you to a cross or I’ll throw the book at you or- I haven’t seen him throw anything at him. He lied about a job he lied about a pardon he lied about foreign representation he lied about three others things–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m still not getting an answer on that question of whether you think there’s damaging information that Cohen has. We have to leave the interview here.

GIULIANI: Cohen has already spilled his guts so you don’t think he has anything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t think he has anything?

GIULIANI: He has–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Alright.

GIULIANI: –nothing at all incriminating on– Here’s the disappointing thing for Jerry Nadler–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Mayor, we have to leave it at that–

GIULIANI: And all the- all the Democrats, the president did nothing wrong.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Mayor–

GIULIANI: They’re chasing him, harassing him. This is a total political endeavor now. If we put out that whole report or almost all of it and it clears the president, they should not be continuing this investigation. It’s a political witch hunt.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Alright. Mr. Mayor thank you very much.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

Margaret Brennan giving Giuliani the ‘just shut the hell up’ posture and eyeroll…