Tag Archives: Media matters for America

Sep 7 2020

Belarusian President Claims IMF & World Bank Offered him a Bribe to Impose COVID Restrictions


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted Sep 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:

• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!

Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!

Interesting claims. They certainly cannot afford countries to buck the trend if they are behind this Great Reset.

Sep 7 2020

There Never Was a “Woods File” Underpinning The Carter Page FISA Application – Here’s How We Know…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house on September 6, 2020 by 

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in any FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons, outside fourth amendment protections.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. However, in the case of the “missing” or “reconstructed” Woods file used to gain a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page, the overwhelming evidence shows there never was one. The Special Counsel manufactured the appearance of one ex post facto in 2018.

Here’s how we can tell:

♦ FIRST – Common Sense: Recent reports of the DOJ, FBI or NSD “losing” the Woods file are abjectly silly on their face. Given the specific importance of this specific case there’s no reasonable person who would believe such a critical file of underlying evidence would just go missing and have to be recreated by the Weissmann special counsel.

♦ SECOND – Precedent: In the March 30, 2020, memorandum written by the Office of Inspector General after review of 29 DOJ-NSD FISA applications, the IG noted the absence of Woods Files is not an uncommon occurrence. Factually within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA applications. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ THIRD – How Would They Get Away With That?: To answer that question it is important to remember the DOJ-National Security Division, the entity responsible for the legal assembly of FISA applications, did not have any oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The DOJ-NSD could get away with the lack of legal requirements because there was no entity providing oversight to ensure the completeness of the legal requirements they were supposed to follow. Not coincidentally this is the exact division within the DOJ that weaponized FARA investigations as the justification for political surveillance. [That becomes important later when we get to Carter Page specifics]

 

♦ FOURTH – Trish Anderson Admission: The Deputy General Counsel for the FBI National Security & Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB), Trisha Beth Anderson, admitted during her testimony to congress that she never verified the existence of the Woods File, nor its content. Anderson stated she never even reviewed the FISA application for appropriate assembly because it came to her from an unusual top-down process.

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application. (link)

Why did she do this? Trish Anderson disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

When Trish Anderson signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew Weissmann, formerly of the DOJ-NSD, was running the special counsel operation.  Meanwhile FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI.

This was the third renewal where Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence to hide that Carter Page was working with, and was a source for, the CIA.

Again, Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson rubber-stamped the application because it came with pre-approval from above.  Anderson never saw, nor questioned, any underlying documentation; or the absence thereof.   The lack of supportive documentation, a Woods File, passed her review because the application had pre-approval by her supervisors.

♦ FIFTH – IG Horowitz Provides Cover for Institutional Issues:  Within his December 2019, IG report on the four FISA applications, Inspector General Horowitz covers for the issue of missing supportive evidence by saying the customary procedure for the Woods File verification is not needed when the evidence involves a confidential human source (CHS):

This description is entirely consistent with the DOJ and FBI using the Chris Steele dossier as a replacement for the Woods File procedures.  Under this sketchy justification Steele would be an FBI confidential human source (CHS).  Ergo, the dossier served as the underpinning and the only requirement would be for the application to “accurately reflect what [Steele] told the FBI”.   That’s how they pulled this off.

♦ SIXTH –Everyone knew it was BS – AGAIN FARA (Remember, FARA via DOJ-NSD had no oversight) this is part of the corrupt process: Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.

Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?

Carter Page joined the Trump campaign March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.

Not only is is incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.

Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.

♦ CONCLUSION: Taking all the above into proper context, when the office of inspector general announced on March 28, 2018, that he was going to review all four of the Carter Page FISA applications; no doubt the office of the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann; who was previously the DOJ-NSD FARA targeting coordinator; moved swiftly to create the appearance of a Woods File where none previously existed. That led to the Woods Procedure justification as stated by the IG.

There never was a Woods File.  The FBI and DOJ relied upon the Chris Steele Dossier as the evidence to support the FISA application.  Chris Steele was identified as a Confidential Human Source, and his dossier was qualified as a replacement for the Woods File.

That’s exactly what happened.  I guarantee it.

Sep 7 2020

Sunday Talks – Trey Gowdy Doesn’t Foresee DOJ Probe Delivering any Legal Accountability for FBI Misconduct…


Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on September 6, 2020 by 

Trey Gowdy appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest known information from the background of the John Durham probes into DOJ, FBI and CIA corrupt intent and activity in the “spygate”, Trump surveillance, saga.

Within the interview Gowdy notes he does not expect to see any legal consequences as an outcome of the John Durham investigation beyond the current pleading by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.  While Gowdy can be an insufferable voice at times, on this issue and given the nature of the current political calendar, he would appear to be correct.

Gowdy asks the question about where everything started.  In the earlier interview with Peter Strzok (CBS), the FBI justification (current narrative) was pointed back to George Papadopoulos and his thin gruel conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

.

At this point the corrupt DC elements appear to have successfully ran out the clock for 2020; and that is very frustrating from the position of two-tiers of justice.

However, that said there is a possibility more focus on the special counsel operation could lead to some rather eye-opening information. The public needs to know how corrupt the special counsel investigation was; what their exact intents and purposes were; and there is ample evidence mounting.

 

Sep 7 2020

CBS Interviews Peter Strzok To Set Defensive Narrative…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house on September 6, 2020 by 

It should be remembered that CBS interfered in the 2012 election by purposefully hiding an interview with President Obama where the former president denied terrorists were involved in the attack in Benghazi, a statement he denied in the 2012 debates.  As a result the politics of CBS are very clear in the narratives they choose to advance.

That said, in a heavily edited interview with former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, CBS once again attempts to shape a defensive narrative to cloud the truth of the DOJ and FBI intents within the 2016 election.  You’ll note this interview is actually very light on broadcasting the actual interview statements by Peter Strzok because: (a) Strzok has legal risk from any statement; and (b) the intent of this interview is shaping a defensive narrative.  WATCH:

.

This interview is frustrating on many levels.  First, because it shows how the absence of accountability by current DOJ officials has led to Strzok’s brazen ability to lie publicly.  Strzok has no fear in his appearance and is shamefully blame-casting and pushing a justification that is completely devoid from truth.

Secondly, this interview is a direct result of AG Barr failing to aggressively hold these former FBI officials accountable for intentional wrongdoing and purposeful corruption. There is no excuse.

 

Sep 1 2020

DC Circuit Appeals Panel Rebukes House Effort to Enforce Subpoena Compelling Don McGhan Testimony…


Posted originally on The Conservative tree House on August 31, 2020 by 

In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The central issue is separation of power.

The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds, and on February 28, 2020, a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position.  The House of representatives could have appealed the decision; however, instead, the main lawfare activist, House counsel Doug Letter, took a different approach and sought to argue the case based around their right to enforce a subpoena.

Today a politically divided DC appeals court panel ruled the House can’t go to the judicial branch to enforce legislative subpoenas because there is no statute giving the legislative chamber the authority to force the executive branch to enforce an action against its own constitutional interests.

DC Via Politico – […] “The decision is likely to spark a renewed debate over the House’s power of “inherent contempt” — its long-dormant ability to fine or jail witnesses who refuse to comply with its oversight requests.

Though courts have acknowledged this power exists, it has been in disuse since World War II. The House has emphasized that resorting to such heavy-handed tactics would only worsen government dysfunction. Court proceedings are far more desirable — to the House and to society — House counsel Doug Letter has argued during the House’s legal battles.

The new ruling appears to leave in place one other option for enforcing House subpoenas: the threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. However that option does not seem viable in cases involving fights over demands for testimony or records from the executive branch, since the Justice Department has long taken the position that it will not prosecute in cases where an official or ex-official was complying with a presidential assertion of executive privilege. (more)

The permanent political coup, led by the primary Lawfare activists who have infected the DOJ and all bodies politic, continues…  Everything is tenuous.

All of this judicial turmoil is a downstream result from electing Barack Obama to fundamentally transform America in 2008.  Where we are today can be traced to the continuum that many warned about more than a decade ago.

 

Jun 25 2020

The Polls Being Manipulated?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jun 24, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

We may be witnessing the manipulation of polls once again that show Biden way ahead of Trump as we did in 2016 in the USA and with BREXIT. This time it seems that the manipulation is taking place on Steriods.

According to our models, the support for Republicans looking at the House & Senate combined lies at 40% and resistance at 52% with 2017 coming in at 54.7%. The Democrats have resistance at 58% and support at 47% with 2017 coming in at 44.8%.

The Bullish Reversal stands at 58% for the Democrats and 53% for the Republicans. If the Democrats come in under 44.8% for the combined House & Senate, they will cascade downward into 2027 and split into two parties – left v middle.

Jun 12 2020

The Supreme Court is the Source of this Civil Unrest


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Jun 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Is the rioting and social injustice taking place not the failure of Barak Obama? Or is was his failure part of the cause of this? I am not trying to deflect from the police consistently getting away with murder, they should all be locked up for their crimes.
Maybe putting it all on Barak isn’t correct either but it seems odd to me that these types of murders caught on camera, go unpunished. How does this get solved?

P

 

ANSWER: The system is just so corrupt it is hard to see where to begin. We do not have a government of “We the People,” and such a system cannot exist without term limits. As soon as you have career politicians, they will NEVER side with the people. We are the great unwashed to be exploited and ruled. The two things I see are (1) term limits; 2 years and out, and (2) no person working for the government should EVER have any position of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court established Qualified Immunity in 1982 which is precisely the opposite of how they treat the people. If you violate a law you did not know in “good faith” that is not a defense. The courts hold it is your OBLIGATION to know every law they pass for hundreds of years that remain on the books. You cannot present a defense of acting in “good faith,” but those in government can do so against the people. This is morally wrong and totally unethical.

The Supreme Court claims that to do their job, government employees need to be shielded from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. Yet those in government can rape us, kills us, and torture us with absolute immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) the Supreme Court held:

Government officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suits for damages — including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, and the President, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ante p. 457 U. S. 731 — are entitled to the defense of absolute immunity. However, executive officials in general are usually entitled to only qualified or good faith immunity. The recognition of a qualified immunity defense for high executives reflects an attempt to balance competing values: not only the importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens, but also the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232. Federal officials seeking absolute immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope. Pp. 457 U. S. 806-808.

There should be NO basis whatsoever for any such immunity, for the government is NOT the sovereign of the nation. The people are. The Supreme Court stated in LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also referred to as Julliard v Greenman), “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.”

The Supreme Cout held that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state or from the United States Cook v Moffat, 46 US 295 (1847). “It may be regarded as settled that the Constitution of the United States is the only source of power authorizing action by any branch of the Federal government.” Dorr v US, 195 US 138, 140 (1904).

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that grants any immunity to government officials against the people. NONE!!!! To create such immunity by the Supreme Court is contrary to the Constitution and since it lacks such a source of power, it is void. All protests should be directed at the Supreme Court. They have protected government contrary to the Constitution.

May 9 2020

Snowden Latest Interview


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted May 9, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
May 7 2020

Senator Burr & Family Sell Market 1 day after High – Feb 13th


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted May 6, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

What is emerging is precisely what I reported. I know for a fact that there were very high up people who sold even everything that they had at the end of January including stocks and bonds and it was on the basis of a coming virus. I believe if investigated, this will be the biggest inside trading scandal in all of history.

 

Sen. Richard Burr Burr sold off a significant percentage of his stocks shortly before the market crashed on February 13th selling  between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings in 33 separate transactions.

Burr is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the health committee. He clearly had access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security and public health concerns.

However, it turns out that Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, who has a post on the National Mediation Board, also sold between $97,000 and $280,000 worth of shares in six companies the same day.

What is quite interesting is that just before his sell-off, Burr had assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus. He wrote that on a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator. He wrote: “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”

Nevertheless, according to a recording obtained by NPR, Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the the coronavirus. He told them that it could curtail business travel, cause schools to be closed and result in the military mobilizing to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals.

Burr’s stock sales have been under investigation by the FBI.  Burr defended his actions, saying he relied solely on public information, including CNBC reports, to inform his trades and did not rely on information he obtained as a senator.

What is really interesting is the source of his information. Insider trading you get to retire in prison for 20-years where you can have your meals cooked for you and you do not have to deal with robo-calls, and you at last get to live tax free.

Every university, agency, and official including at the UN and the WHO, anyone connected with the Climate Change movement, including Green Peace, should now be compelled to reveal all the transactions in February.

There is ABSOLUTELY now way that Burr relied on information from CNBC the day after the high was made. They did not call for a total market crash. I believe based upon his actions, he was told in February what they were planning to do. Someone inside the NIH already new the plan. Let’s see where that info leads. It’s really not that hard – just follow the money!

Categories: Conspiracy, Corruption, Disease
Apr 30 2020

Sidney Powell Discusses the Latest FBI Documents in The Flynn Case…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on April 30, 2020 by 

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney appears for a brief interview with Sean Hannity to discuss the recently unsealed documents showing FBI strategic planning to target Lt. Gen Flynn prior to their interview on January 24, 2017.  WATCH:

.

A few notes of caution.  Don’t fall into the outrage trap; the DOJ will certainly justify the FBI notes as a valid discussion on investigative strategy, nothing more.

Second, Bill Barr did not appoint Missouri Attorney Jensen in an effort to support General Flynn.  AG Barr was ordered by the FISA court to review every case and all evidence that touched upon the fraudulent Carter Page FISA application.  Be careful about projecting a motive onto Bill Barr around these revelations.  Without that FISC ordered sequestration review order; the DOJ/FBI may not have moved on this.

Lastly, despite the known corruption within the existing FBI leadership {outlined here}, and we can now add the FBI hiding these documents for 3 years, AG Bill Barr continues to pour effusive praise upon the FBI.  That reality doesn’t reconcile with a good intent.

When the FISA Court responded to the DOJ Inspector General report in December and January 2020 they requested an action plan from the DOJ and FBI to respond to the issues raised about misrepresentations to the court.

The DOJ/FBI replied to the FISA Court admitting the last two FISA renewals (April, June ’17) used against Carter Page were insufficiency predicated while withholding opinion on the original application (Oct ’16) and first renewal (Jan ’17).

To address the consequences of fraudulently obtained FISA warrants the DOJ and FBI informed the court they would begin a process to “sequester” all collected evidence from all four FISA warrants. [FISA COURT LINK]

Sequestering the evidence is essentially a search for what investigative material the FISA warrants were used to obtain; ie. the search for the fruit of the poisoned tree; and then a review of all DOJ/FBI cases that may have utilized that investigative material.

In late January the DOJ contacted the FISA court and asked for an extension to the deadline.  The FISA court granted an extension until February 5th [LINK]  The final response from the DOJ has not been declassified or released by the FISC for public review.

However, with media reporting of AG Barr using “outside prosecutors” to review current, former and ongoing cases, it simply makes sense this ‘outsider’ effort is part of the DOJ/FBI sequestration review.

If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.

Additionally, all of the various FBI field offices who may have used the FISA authorizations as the underpinning evidence to gain separate Title-1 and/or Title-3 warrants, wiretaps or National Security Letters, in their various investigative cases would also need to be reviewed.   This is an aspect the media is not discussing while they write opinions about AG Bill Barr bringing in outside DOJ attorneys.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions.  However, understanding the FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein.  It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest.

Additionally, the Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection.   Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested renewals of the FISA warrant.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed.  Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework.  Ignored in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place.  Likely more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ Attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.   Imagine that?

New York Times – Mr. Barr has also installed a handful of outside prosecutors to broadly review the handling of other politically sensitive national-security cases in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, the people said. The team includes at least one prosecutor from the office of the United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, as well as prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen. (more)

Likewise, considering AG Barr has been ordered by the court to review all the targets, cases and evidence, we should not be projecting an altruistic “clean up” effort… Arguably, one could say Barr is being forced to reopen, and revisit, all of this material.  Certainly Bill Barr would not willingly expose the corrupt intents of his friends Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein…. So we should watch carefully.

It would certainly be ironic if the FISA court ends-up in 2020 as the least corrupt institution within a DC network fraught with institutional corruption.

When it comes to DC politics, we cannot be too cynical.

Remember James Wolfe?…