• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

YOUR WORLD WITH FASCISTIC PHIL CAVUTO

Arrogant, big mouth, cocky, Foxy, antiPresident Trump, Phil Cavuto,  seems to be one of the Fox News  fascistics who froth at their joy mouth to eliminate our American 45th President from the nation’s White House as soon as possible.

Is President Trump  too American for the business folks at Fox News?   Perhaps he can’t be controlled for he LOVES HIS COUNTRY JUST AS I And  MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANS DO!!!   He is not bought or otherwise controlled by BUSINESS, BIG OR INTERNATIONAL.  Is that what makes so many mouths of Fox “News” reporters and reviewers like Cavuto to cheat, distort, so often complain and/or squeal against the President at news hours?  Is it instruction from station leftists or personal?

Or is the American population under age 50 so uneducated, so obtuse to American existence at home and abroad, so drugged, Godless,  and lost in life bearing  no brains clear enough to handle learning right from wrong,  those vitally  important matters of civilized human existence?

Did or did not President Donald J. Trump, while talking on the phone with the President of the Ukraine President, Volodymyr Zelensky,  utter any word or words wondering about  a serious rumor  that a flaky American Vice President’s son, a young man of many serious background issues, carped millions of dollars out of  Ukraine pockets to score a bit of  fuel business for the weak nation nearly crushed by papa Russia?

So what?    Major corruption was in the air.   How did millions of dollars wind up in the pocket of  Vice President’s troubled son?

Dem fascists wouldn’t hear of something so possibly TRUE.  These fascists and fascistics, almost fascists) are programmed to assault before, during, or/and, after such news…THEY OWN OUR PRESS!

Ancient American MILLIONAIRE, Biddy Pelosi, with countless fascist and fascistic Dem friends and allies, immediately turned to their press and television command worlds.  These fascistics  OWN parts of  the Wall Street Journal, and, outside of radio, nearly every  newspaper and television news communication apparatus in our American world.

If TRUTH had any value in today’s American lines of knowledge, business, and communication,  Democrat candidate for the Leftist American Presidency, Ditsy Vice President Joseph Biden should be confronted by law for possible corruption charges,  NOT TO LIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

But TRUTH HAS NO MEANING AMONG  TODAY’S ADAM SCHIFF  ANIMALS DOMINATING OUR ONCE HONORABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  THEY ARE EITHER MUTE, FOREVER LIARS, OR  FASCISTS OR FASCISTICS PLOTTING “GOOD BYE AMERICA!!!

UNTIL PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE WERE  ALREADY IN OUR CONGRESSIONAL TAR PITS…..ARE YOU TOO UNLEARNED TO KNOW IT?…..OR DO YOU LIVE IN A TODAY’S AMERICAN DEM  BODY WHERE TRUTH,  AND GOODNESS  NO LONGER EXIST?”

These Pelosi fascists of our day who own news television and America’s newsprint from the Atlantic to the Pacific dictate the news that  President Trump has committed a serious crime, one for impeachment and removal from office.   That is the way the fascist Left in power makes truth and knowledge disappear!  Enough noise must overwhelm their own leftist corruptions so their evil can never be reported,  exposed.

I fell in love with Donald becoming our American President,  I think it was August 6, 2015 at Fox center, when the Republican National Committee was plotting to get rid of Mr. Trump as its GOP Candidate for the Presidency……Fox’s Megyn Kelly plotting to get rid of him asap as a presidential GOP candidate listed a few difficulties he had had with some women in the news….asking him if this was the way he viewed all women, never asking any difficult responses from  any of Fox-approved Republicans.

Donald answered, “No, only Rosie O’Donnell.”   My love for Trump began.  My love for functional, staid Republicans diminished.   I have loved and admired Donald ever since!

I am 85.   Somewhere in my 50s  when Donald Trump was happily married to his first wife, well before his Hollywood business jaunt and its episodes I was captured by  a two hour television program about his life.   His was a totally different world from my very modest life teaching  high school Social Studies and Russian in Minneapolis or later on, garden landscaping after being fired by telling Truths about school system to the public.

In the television review Donald Trump  spoke highly of his dad and mom and his opportunities…..had attended two private schools, the second one, according to his dad,  for more discipline in learnings!

Did you know Donald Trump was a gifted athlete in a number of sports.   If I remember the television biography  correctly, when he graduated college, he was offered a contract by the New York Yankees….what else?   HE TURNED THE OFFER DOWN TO WORK FOR HIS DAD IN THE BUILDING BUSINESS.

I was aware Mr. Trump lost his close older brother to alcoholism….according to the biography…..apparently a  main reason our President abstains.

My own dad was Republican.  He was an athlete and a pharmacist.  I married a Democrat in 1957 and remained one until Ronald Reagan.   I did like President John F. Kennedy very much, but no one else in his peculiar family.

Hillary was, is purely evil.   And so are the censoring big business and racist  fascists and fascistics who have taken over today’s once honorable American Democratic Party.

Will 45th American President,  Donald J. Trump,  overcome the Rise of our American fascists and fascistics now dominating American education, communication, and political worlds?

Obviously we cannot know the future.  But, with the rise of our new leaders,  Donald J. Trump and our Dennis Prager spreading knowledge, freedoms, and exposing Truth, WE AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM HAVE A GOOD CHANCE!  ghr

P.S.   HAVE A WONDERFUL  SUNDAY!

TOP 28 MOMENTS FROM BOMBSHELL GARR!

The idea of resisting a democratically elected president and…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.’

Attorney General William Barr’s nearly hour-long interview with CBS News’ Jan Crawford last week was full of fascinating details about the special counsel probe, the debunked Russia collusion theory that roiled Washington for years, and Barr’s investigation into how the FBI and Department of Justice used the “bogus” theory to investigate the Trump campaign.

The interview was downplayed by the media, which is implicated in perpetuating the Russia hoax Barr is investigating, and which came in for criticism from Barr for its failure to care about violations of civil liberties. Here are the top 28 take-aways from the interview.

1. Mueller ‘Could Have Reached a Conclusion’

Crawford, whose questions revealed a command of the facts not demonstrated by many of her mainstream media peers, asked Barr about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to outline 11 instances where President Trump’s frustration at falsely being accused of treason could amount to “possible obstruction” followed by a refusal to decide whether they did.

Barr explained that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that prevents presidents from being indicted was no barrier to making a conclusion about obstruction. “Right, he could have reached a conclusion,” Barr said, noting that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Trump had not obstructed justice.

“[W]hen 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,” Barr said. “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.”

2. DOJ Not an ‘Adjunct to Congress’

Mueller received praise from the media for, they said, subtly asking Congress to impeach the president for, apparently, his frustration with falsely being accused of being a traitor. Barr was less enamored of this idea.

“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,” he said.

3. Mueller’s Guilty Until Proven Innocent Standard ‘Not The Standard We Use’ At DOJ

Mueller’s refusal to determine whether President Trump had obstructed justice by making hiring and firing decisions or complaining about false accusations he had conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election was one problem. The other was that Mueller flipped the standard prosecutorial approach on its head, Barr said.

“[H]e also said that he could not say that the president 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,” Barr said.

4. Mueller’s Obstruction Theories ‘Did Not Reflect The Views’ of DOJ

Barr said the legal analysis in the special counsel’s obstruction report “did not reflect the views of the department” and were the “views of a particular lawyer or lawyers.” He went on to explain that firing James Comey, for example, is a “facially valid exercise of core presidential authority.”

Even if you don’t accept that presidents have the right to fire incompetent employees, to show obstruction the firing would have to have the probable effect of sabotaging a proceeding and be done with corrupt intent.

“[T]he 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,” Barr explained.

5. Barr Doesn’t Care about ‘Hyper-Partisan’ Complaints

Asked about the criticism he’s received from the media and other partisans, Barr said, “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 in tension 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.”

6. Barr ‘Surprised’ by Mueller Not Providing Report Ready to Release

Barr explained that he wrote a four-page summary of Mueller’s 400-page report because Mueller failed to provide a report that was ready to release to the American public. In conversations in the weeks leading up to Mueller’s report delivery, Barr repeatedly requested that the grand jury information be highlighted so it could be quickly redacted by Justice Department officials.

Instead, the report included no highlighting of which portions were from grand jury information, which must be redacted by law. That meant it would be weeks before the report would be made public, at a time when former intelligence officials were making false claims about the Mueller report.

Barr said he wrote the four-page summary:

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. Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and — Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very — 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.

7. Mueller Letter Complaining About Lack of Impeachment Narrative Was ‘A Little Snitty and Staff-Driven’

Someone within the special counsel’s office leaked to The New York Times a letter complaining that Barr’s four-page summary set the media narrative differently than they would have preferred. Barr said he was surprised Mueller “didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30-year relationship” and that he felt “the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven.” He reiterated his preference to have the full report released so that everyone could determine “what Bob’s reasoning was.”

8. No ‘Discrepancy’ on OLC Opinion

In a press conference, and in his report, Mueller claimed to believe that an Office of Legal Counsel opinion about presidents not being able to be indicted meant that he couldn’t even analyze whether Trump’s frustration at years of false allegations that he was a traitor constituted obstruction.

Previously, Barr said Mueller had assured him that the OLC opinion had not been the reason he hadn’t determined Trump obstructed justice. The two put out a joint statement saying that there was no discrepancy between what they were saying. Barr explained that Mueller did not even analyze whether there was a crime.

9. Response to Russia Threats Troubling

If intelligence officials were “alarmed” by the Russia threats as early as April 2016, as they claimed, “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.”

10. FBI’s Wray ‘Very Supportive’ of Investigation Into Russia Probe

Barr said he and FBI Director Christopher Wray have “discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that … 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.”

11. Spying Is Spying

Crawford noted that Barr has received criticism for referring to the widespread surveillance of the Trump campaign as “spying.” Barr responded, “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.”

12. Words Don’t Need to Be Retired Because Trump Uses Them

“[S]ome 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,” Crawford said. Barr responded, “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.”

13. Law Enforcement and Intelligence Should Not Meddle In Elections

“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,” Barr said.

“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,” Barr said. Asked which interference is more troubling, Barr said they both are.

14. Government Officials Should Not Become a ‘Praetorian Guard’

When discussing actions taken against the Trump campaign, Barr referenced the Roman Army’s elite unit that interfered in politics, even overthrowing emperors.

“[R]epublics 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.”

15. Use of Spy Tools Against Political Campaigns a ‘Serious Red Line’

Asked if he was concerned that a Praetorian Guard mentality had set in in 2016, Barr said, “Well, I just think it has to be carefully looked 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.”

16. AG Must Protect Against Abuse of Government Power

“[O]ne 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,” Barr said. “That’s the responsibility of the attorney general.”

17. Looking Into Process for Counterintelligence Activities Against Trump Campaign

In a sea of media complacency about the use of counterintelligence activities against the Trump campaign, Barr seeks answers.

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 … 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 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?

18. Details on Other Investigations

Barr explained that the inspector general is only 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.” Page endured a year of heavy surveillance from the federal government, which told a secret court that he was an agent of Russia. The year of surveillance found no crimes committed by Page, who is now suing to restore his reputation.

Barr explained that he didn’t have the inspector general expand his probe to cover the other areas because of his 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.”

Of John Huber, the U.S. attorney who was reportedly looking at FISA abuse, Barr said he “stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review,” only waiting for criminal referrals. However, Barr said he’s also working on issues that “relate to Hillary Clinton” and are concluding.

19. Media Supposed to Be ‘Watchdogs’ of ‘Our Civil Liberties’

Barr said that when he joined the Central Intelligence Agency 50 years ago during the Vietnam and Civil Rights era, there was a ton of concern about investigation of domestic political activities.

[W]hen 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.

20. Answers on Trump Campaign Surveillance Not ‘Satisfactory’

Barr declined to weigh in on specifics, but said, “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.”

Pressed to explain further, Barr said, “That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving.”

21. Failures Not in Rank and File But ‘Upper Echelon’

Barr had previously said that the abnormal procedures taken against the Trump campaign didn’t take place among the rank and file of the bureau, but among the upper echelon. Asked to explain, he said, “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 headquarters.”

22. 2016 Meddling ‘Antithetical to the Democratic System’

Barr was generous about the wrongdoing perpetrated by government actors, saying no one may have intended to undermine the republic by surveilling political opponents.

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.

Barr did not specifically cite fired FBI director Comey, whose 2018 defense of his tenure is titled “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.” Comey was strongly criticized in an inspector general report for failing to follow departmental procedures in his handling of the Hillary Clinton case regarding mishandling classified information.

Barr said of those who justify their actions, “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.”

23. ‘Gross Bias’ of FBI Agents ‘Appalling,’ Would Be Roundly Condemned If about Obama

Barr said of the virulently anti-Trump texts that have been previously released:

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…. Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and 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?

24. Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Bogus’

Crawford said Comey may say the investigation into Trump had to be closely held because it was so extraordinary. Barr said, “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.”

25. Media In No Place to ‘Wring Hands’ about Barr’s Declassification Authority

Barr said that he asked President Trump for the authority to declassify documents dealing with the Russia investigation, as well as the direction that other agencies support his efforts to investigate the probe. He said the other agencies are being supportive.

Of media concerns about the transparency, Barr said,

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.

He said 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.”

26. Barr Expected Criticism for Upholding Rule of Law

Crawford noted Barr’s sterling reputation before he began his second round as attorney general. He previously served in the George H.W. Bush administration. He said he expected criticism from partisans.

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.

27. ‘Everyone Dies’

Asked if he worried about his reputation, Barr said, “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?” He added that he didn’t regret taking the job.

28. Resistance Is ‘Shredding Our Institutions’

Barr said he’d rather be back to his old life, but that he loves the Justice Department and 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.”

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/03/top-28-moments-from-bombshell-barr-interview/

Trouble with Samantha Power in 2016

DID IT START WITH ISRAEL?

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

On Friday, PJ Media headlined: “Report: Declassified Docs Will Show That Samantha Power’s 2016 Unmasking Efforts Were Related to Israel.”

Government documents that will soon be made public will reveal stunning information about former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power’s voluminous unmasking efforts in 2016, according to multiple sources.

On Thursday, President Trump gave Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify documents from multiple agencies related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.
***
As PJ Media reported in September of 2017, Power was unmasking people at a “freakishly rapid rate.”

The former U.S. ambassador moved at such a rapid pace that she ended up “averaging more than one request for every working day in 2016,” multiple sources told Fox News at the time. And she continued to seek identifying information about Americans caught up in incidental surveillance right up to President Trump’s inauguration.

This is really extraordinary. Power was not an intelligence official, she was the U.N. Ambassador. Why was she unmasking anyone, let alone making hundreds of such requests? And why would she keep up this feverish pace right up to the moment she departed the White House?

According to OANN’s Jack Posobiec, Power was targeting calls made about Israeli settlements.

“When she found Gen Flynn making calls she opposed, she passed information to Sally Yates who opened Logan Act investigation,” Posobiec reported on Twitter.

@JackPosobiec

BREAKING: Samantha Power targeted any call made about Israeli settlements for unmasking. When she found Gen Flynn making calls she opposed, she passed information to Sally Yates who opened Logan Act investigation. DNI Coats has now reviewed all unmaskings – @OANN

@JackPosobiec

BREAKING: White House plans to declassify documents showing that Samantha Power was on a “one-woman crusade” for the Palestinians and against Israel in 2016. Repeated unmakings were used to ensure her effort did not fail – @OANN

The context was U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which stated that Israel’s settlements on the West Bank are a “flagrant violation” of international law with “no legal validity.” The incoming Trump administration was urging the Obama administration to veto the resolution. In addition, at appears that members of Trump’s team were lobbying allies to defer the vote, or to vote against the resolution. It sounds as though the Obama administration was lobbying allies in the other direction, trying to undermine the policy of the new administration, although this isn’t entirely clear.

In the event, the resolution passed 14-0 on December 23, 2016, with the U.S. abstaining.

The connection between the trap that ensnared General Flynn and the U.N. resolution has been drawn before, as in the Jerusalem Post.

In the lead up to the anti-settlement resolution which angered Jerusalem, Trump’s team had urged the US to veto the resolution. On December 22nd Trump tweeted “the resolution being considered in the UN Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed.” Egypt postponed the vote on December 22nd. However it passed on December 23rd with 14 in favor and the US abstaining. According to an article at Foreign Policy in February 2017 Michael Flynn played a key role attempting to scupper the UN vote. “Flynn…and other members of the president’s transition team launched a vigorous diplomatic bid to head off a UN Security Council vote condemning Israel’s settlements.” They reached out to the UK, Egypt, Russia, Uruguay and Malaysia according to the report.

The Post reports further that when Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador on the telephone, in the conversation that ultimately resulted in his indictment, one of the two subjects discussed, and about which Flynn allegedly lied, was the U. N. resolution.

There is much more at the PJ Media link, including this from Foreign Policy in February 2017:

Nikki Haley, the president’s pick to serve as U.N. envoy, sought frantically to reach Samantha Power, then still serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, calling her office and cell phone number, a U.S. official told Foreign Policy. Power’s advisors suspected Haley would try persuade Power to veto the resolution, and she did not take the call.

These reports raise several obvious questions. First, why were Obama administration officials so concerned with the U.N. vote as to unmask communications of U.S. citizens on 300 occasions? The Obama administration didn’t come out in favor of the resolution, and it abstained when the resolution came up for a vote. So why would it be so concerned about the possibility that incoming Trump officials might convince allies to defer the vote, or block it altogether?

I can’t think of any reason other than the obsessive hatred of Israel that is so common on the Left. But it is bizarre, in my view, for lame duck Obama minions to carry out a vendetta against Israel, one that apparently was given high priority, through their last days in power. Maybe I am missing something here, but I can’t think what it could be.

Second, the PJ Media report suggests that Power’s unmasking of U.S. citizens involved in conversations about Israel continued until “right up to President Trump’s inauguration.” The inauguration was almost a month after the vote on U.N. Resolution 2334. So if Power’s unmasking continued, did it still relate to conversations about Israel and the U.N. resolution, or was something else going on at that point?

Third, was the Obama administration’s reported frenzy about the U.N.’s anti-Israel vote part of the genesis of the FBI’s effort to disable the incoming Trump administration? The chief ground of the FBI’s effort was the Democratic Party “dossier” paid for by the Clinton campaign, but the Israel-related surveillance apparently comes into play with regard to General Flynn. And the PJ Media story quotes George Papadopoulos, who was “shocked that Bob Mueller told the truth about why I was illicitly targeted and it really had nothing to do with Russia. It had to do with my ties to Israel.”

I don’t begin to understand how these pieces fit together. We can only hope that as Attorney General Barr pursues his investigation, the true story will come out.

Attorney General BARR and How Did the Foul FBI Get to the Point of Russian Collusion?

How the FBI Broke the Rules Using Christopher Steele

by Adam Mill at American Greatness:

Attorney General Bill Barr recently asked a question that all Americans should be asking: “How did we get to the point where . . . the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian Agent?” Barr added that the evidence now shows the accusations were “without a basis” and that “two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false.”

To answer that question, we have to go back and look at two dysfunctional relationships the FBI had with confidential informants. In both cases, the FBI was duped into working for the informant rather than the other way around.

The FBI should have learned its lesson from the spectacular scandal surrounding Whitey Bulger, the kingpin of the notorious Winter Hill gang in Boston whose work as an FBI informant allowed him to expand his criminal empire. As we are now seeing with Christopher Steele, of “Steele dossier” infamy, the FBI learned nothing from the Bulger case and failed to follow the guidelines put in place to prevent what happened with Bulger from happening again.

Bulger’s Double-Cross
In the fall of 1975, FBI agent John Connolly met with Bulger in the agent’s car on an abandoned Boston street corner. What would follow was the FBI’s greatest scandal involving a confidential informant subverting the vast powers of the government in order to target his enemies. This stain on the history of the Department of Justice should have led to effective reforms but instead it only foreshadowed more of the same.

The corruption of the Boston FBI field office and criminal prosecution out of the Boston U.S. attorney’s office began with a simple offer. The Italian mob had begun to feed information to the FBI about Bulger’s Boston-area Winter Hill gang. Connolly, who idolized Bulger from his childhood, offered to reverse the process—taking information from Bulger to target the Italian mob. Bulger accepted the deal but eventually would turn Connolly into his own informant and tool.

Over the years, Bulger bribed Connolly with nearly $250,000 in gifts. Instead of taking information from Bulger to help the government, Connolly raided the files of other informants to credit Bulger with tips he did not provide. This allowed Connolly to maintain the appearance that Bulger provided substantial value in exchange for the FBI’s protection.

When outside investigators caught on and prepared to take action, Connolly warned Bulger his arrest was imminent. After Bulger was captured in 2011 after 16 years on the lam. When he finally went to trial in 2013, the focus wasn’t so much on the 11 murders with which Bulger was charged and mostly on whether the FBI used Bulger as an informant or vice versa.

The Boston Herald noted that the government’s illicit protection of Bulger led to the prosecution and conviction of four innocent men. Bulger and Connolly framed the men as a product of the corruption that infected the Boston FBI and U.S. attorney’s office.

Reputation Over Justice

In 2001, the FBI revised its confidential informant guidelines, largely in response to the Boston debacle. Under current guidelines, when the FBI uses a confidential informant, it should make a “suitability” judgment in order to prevent the would-be informant from exploiting the relationship to use the federal government’s powers against his enemies. As noted by the FBI’s inspector general, the bureau’s suitability judgment is “pivotal.”

Connolly went to prison for using federal government resources to abet Bulger’s crimes. But justice wasn’t served. Then-U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller prevented the release of evidence that would eventually lead to the exoneration and release of the wrongly convicted targets of the Connolly-Bulger conspiracy. Howie Carr of the Boston Herald has been warning Americans for some time that Mueller perpetuated the framing of four innocent men. Two of them died in prison. The other two were released from prison after 35 years for crimes they did not commit.

Carr credits Mueller with prolonging the cover-up of the Connolly-Bulger framing of these men, causing one judge to describe as “chilling” the FBI’s defense of its reputation over the interests of justice.

“This is a case about . . . informant abuse, about the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence bearing on the innocence of the four plaintiffs . . . about . . . not disclosing critical information that would have exonerated the plaintiffs, and not doing so, for 40 years,” wrote Federal District Judge Nancy Gertner.

Remembering Nothing, Learning Nothing
When Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS to frame Donald Trump, she wasn’t just hiring a random group of researchers. The power of Fusion GPS comes from its relationships, particularly with reporters and public officials. Fusion GPS had an existing relationship with the two Russians who attended the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. It had a longstanding relationship with the wife of Justice Department attorney Bruce Ohr and was able to leverage that relationship to get Ohr to help promote the collusion hoax to the FBI.

Often overlooked in the hoax is that Fusion GPS used Christopher Steele much the same way it used Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie, paying somebody with an existing relationship with law enforcement to help promote the bogus narrative.

According to the Sun, the FBI paid Christopher Steele more than $1.27 million over two years to help with a corruption case against the world soccer governing body (FIFA). Based on this, and perhaps other history, between the FBI and Steele, the FBI told the FISA court that the former MI6 operative had a history of providing reliable information and that the FBI considered him to be credible.

The FBI’s relationship with Steele reminds us of John Connolly’s relationship with Whitey Bulger in a number of ways. First, the post-Bulger guidelines warn the FBI to make an assessment of the informant’s “motivation in providing information or assistance, including any consideration sought from the government for this assistance.” Remember, Fusion GPS paid Steele at the same time the FBI paid him. He had a job to do for the Clinton campaign and unique access and trust with the FBI to do that job.

According to John Solomon’s reporting, Steele was also known to be politically biased against Trump and, “desperate that Trump not be elected.” Solomon has also reported that the FBI withheld (or at least significantly downplayed) those derogatory facts from the FISA court in much the same way Connolly used to paper over the record to make Bulger appear more credible than he really was.

Second, the post-Bulger guidelines also warn the FBI that the information obtained from the confidential informant “must be truthful.” And we now know Steele’s desperation, or perhaps his love of money, led him to pass on information that he would later admit could be untrue or even “deliberately false.”

Third, the guidelines require that the confidential informant must “abide by the instructions of the [FBI].” As Fox News noted, Steele was “suspended and then terminated” as an FBI source for what the bureau defined “as the most serious of violations”—an “unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.” The FBI would later cite a news report sourced to Steele as a way of corroborating Steele—an echo chamber effect that further corrupted the investigation.

Thus, Steele not only helped trigger FBI-sponsored surveillance against his client’s political enemy, he also interfered in the ongoing presidential election by smearing candidate Trump with a public disclosure of the investigation.

Recall that the February 2018 Nunes memo detailed how Steele in September 2016 leaked information to Yahoo News, even going so far as to suggest he was authorized to speak on behalf of “U.S. officials.” Thus, Steele broke a fourth FBI rule, which bars confidential informants from taking “any independent action on behalf of the United States Government.”

So the Steele tail wagged the FBI dog much the same way Whitey Bulger used the FBI frame his enemies. As Bulger’s money found its way into Connolly’s pocket, so, too, did Clinton money find its way into the Ohrs’ pockets as the husband promoted Steele’s work to the FBI.

Some may argue that the Russia collusion hoax is nowhere near as serious as the tragedy of four men being framed for murder by an FBI agent trying to protect a “confidential informant.” But the Trump-Russia hoax is arguably far worse because of the lasting damage it has done to our constitutional republic. As serious as the allegations against Trump were, framing a person for treason may be worse than treason itself. The hoaxsters have done incalculable damage to the rule of law and Americans’ faith in the justice system.

Perhaps Donald Trump’s greatest unwitting accomplishment has been to shine public attention on the two-tiered justice system that, at its very center, seems to have become an instrument of political power over and against the people it is meant to serve.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/17/how-the-fbi-broke-the-rules-using-christopher-steele/

AG BILL BARR IS DEFINITELY NOT A CLONE OF OBAMALAND’S AGs

 Democratic smears of Bill Barr would be more accurately applied to Obama’s AGs

 

William Barr has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate four times, has served two U.S. presidents, and has proven himself to be a consummate professional who deeply respects the great responsibilities and boundaries of the office of the attorney general. Considering the turbulent tenures of President Obama’s two attorneys general, Democrats’ partisan attacks on Barr’s honesty and transparency should fall on deaf ears.

To refresh your memory, Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, became embroiled in a scandal when guns illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

When the House of Representatives requested documents related to the scandal, Holder refused and was held in contempt of Congress with 17 Democrats crossing the aisle to formally condemn him – the first time Congress had taken such action against a cabinet official. Obama invoked executive privilege to protect Holder and hide those documents from the American public: a decision that is still being battled in the courts.

REP. COLLINS BLASTS BARR CONTEMPT VOTE AS ‘DESPERATE’ MOVE TO DISCREDIT ATTORNEY GENERAL

His successor didn’t fare much better. In June of 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on her private plane on the tarmac in Arizona for an hour while his wife was being actively investigated by the Department of Justice for mishandling classified information through a private email server – an investigation Lynch later decided to close without pursuing charges.

Lynch claimed at the time that she would accept the FBI’s recommendation to pursue charges in the Clinton investigation, but according to testimony from FBI lawyer Lisa Page released earlier this year, it was, in fact, the Department of Justice that determined not to bring charges.

Democrats’ absurd claims about Barr are, in actuality,  the sad truth about President Obama’s AGs.

A private meeting with the spouse of a major presidential candidate in an election year – which would have gone unnoticed was it not for a local television station – should be cause enough to doubt the impartiality of the nation’s top law enforcement officer. A secret meeting with the politically powerful husband of an investigative subject days before declining to pursue charges against her is a solid “F” grade on the tests of trust and transparency.

Barr, by contrast, has handled the release of the Mueller report with unprecedented transparency: releasing the full report with minimal redactions as quickly as possible and even allowing select members of Congress to view all of the report that is legally viewable at their convenience. As of this week, no Democrat has taken him up on that offer.

It wasn’t enough. Following Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats’ slander reached fever pitch: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasted no time or investigation in declaring the attorney general of the United States a criminal, the junior senator from California falsely claimed Barr “lied to Congress,” and another Democratic colleague said he was “a paid hack for the president.”

Democrats’ public vilification of Barr is a glimpse into how Holder’s “Fast and Furious” scandal or Loretta Lynch’s tarmac summit with Bill Clinton might have played out without the air support of a breathless liberal media unwilling to portray Obama officials as anything but selfless public servants and Trump officials as anything but supervillains.

Democrats’ absurd claims about Barr – that he’s calling balls and strikes based on partisan allegiance, that he’s refusing to cooperate with reasonable congressional requests, that he may have declined prosecution to protect his political ally – are, in actuality, the sad truth about President Obama’s AGs.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Americans should remember this blatant double standard as we watch Democrats’ last-ditch effort to destroy Attorney General Barr, a distinguished public servant, and call these smears what they are: bluster from politicians desperate to stretch out the Mueller investigation as long as possible in an attempt to damage President Trump and baseless political grandstanding from presidential candidates.

In both cases, it should be treated as exactly as what it is: hypocrisy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. MIKE BRAUN

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/senator-mike-braun-bill-barr-obama-holder-lynch

The Unhappy Snake in the Grass, Slippery Boa Mueller Moans

MUELLER MOANS, MEDIA MISLEADS

by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

Yesterday, I noted that mainstream media coverage of William Barr’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee omitted an important piece of information — Barr tried to address the concern of Robert Mueller that some combination of Barr’s four-page memo and media reporting about it was “confusing” the American public. Barr responded with a statement designed to clarify the situation. The media did not report this fact even though it figured prominently in Barr’s testimony.

In addition, the media either did not report or barely mentioned three other important facts to which Barr testified. Marc Thiessen highlights two of them in this op-ed for the Washington Post.

First, before issuing his four-page summary of Mueller’s two major conclusions, Barr gave the special counsel a chance to see the document and to offer comments and proposed edits. Mueller declined.

One rarely sees mention of this in mainstream media reporting, for an obvious reason — it makes Barr look good and Mueller look bad. It casts Mueller’s after-the-fact whining, or that of his “snitty” staff, in an unfavorable light.

Second, Barr, far from being uncooperative with Congress or trying to hide the ball, overrode normal Justice Department procedures and released the full Mueller report to the public with only minor redactions. Moreover, Congress has access to a version of the report that contains even less redacted material.

Barr stressed this point in his opening statement, but I don’t recall seeing it mentioned in mainstream media reporting. Again, the reason is obvious — it makes Barr look good and undercuts the furious attempts of Democrats to demonize him.

Finally, the media is covering for Mueller at Barr’s expense in another way. Barr testified that the Department of Justice, anticipating that redactions to the Mueller report would be necessary as a matter of law, encouraged Mueller’s team to identify portions of its report that would need to be redacted.

By doing so before submitting the report to the DOJ, Mueller would significantly reduce the time required before his report could be released to the public and to Congress. Barr testified that, shortly after becoming Attorney General, he personally made this point to Mueller.

But when Mueller submitted his report, it did not identify redactions. This meant that Barr’s team had to start the redaction project from scratch. As a result, the report could not be released as soon as Barr had hoped.

Had Mueller cooperated with redactions at the front end, Congress and the public would have heard directly from him much sooner. Indeed, he might not even have had to ask Barr, in that now famous letter, to issue multi-page summaries of his findings. The entire report might have been ready, or nearly ready, for release by then.

Thus, Mueller dropped the ball twice: first by not flagging redactions and second by not reviewing Barr’s four-page memo before it was released. If there is public confusion about the report (other than that now being generated by desperate Democrats) due to Barr’s memo and the delay in releasing the actual report, Mueller is partly to blame.

Fortunately for him, the mainstream media acts as his shield.