Eagle-eyed Russiagaters landed on potential new evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia on Thursday: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wasn’t blinking enough during his boss’s press conference on the Mueller report.
Twitter lit up during Attorney General William Barr’s press conference in advance of the release of a partly-redacted version of the report, with many speculating that Rosenstein’s facial movements — or lack thereof — were providing clues about the contents of the full report.
Some found Rosenstein’s face and insufficient number of blinks “disturbing.”
“Blink twice if you are ok Rod Rosenstein,” wrote former State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, whose calls were echoed by a former Hillary Clinton aide urging him to “please blink twice if Barr is mischaracterizing the report.”
Rosenstein “does not look like man at peace,” NBC reporter Ken Dilanian chimed in, perhaps hoping to do his bit to keep the conspiracy alive.
The Mueller report’s finally dropped and instead of being relieved to discover, once and for all, that the president didn’t collude with a foreign power to steal an election, Democrats and media pundits are absolutely devastated.
This is America in the era of Russiagate.
The partly-redacted, nearly 400-page report, delivered to Congress on Thursday afternoon, offered no new evidence or indication that Donald Trump or his 2016 campaign were in cahoots with Moscow to prevent Hillary Clinton from ascending to what Democrats believed was her rightful presidential throne.
Of course, their high expectations for the report had already come crashing down when Mueller wrapped up his investigation mid-March and Attorney General Bob Barr sent a four-page letter summarizing its anti-climactic findings to Congress. No evidence of collusion, it said.
The opposition party and the media’s most ardent Russiagate pushers had been moving the goalposts on “collusion” for months. In the earliest days of the two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was given savior status; he would be the one, they said, who would deliver them from the evil of the Trump presidency. “Wait for the Mueller report!”they had screamed, as the weeks and months dragged on with “bombshell” after “bombshell” evaporating into thin air.
“Wait for the Mueller report!” quickly morphed into “Barr must be lying — wait for the full Mueller report!”
But Barr hammered the final nail into the Russiagate coffin on Thursday as he emphatically reiterated during a pre-release press conference that evidence to support theories of collusion did not exist and that all Americans should be “grateful” to hear that news. They were not grateful, though. In fact, they were acutely distressed by the news that Trump had been telling the truth about “no collusion” all along.
On the question of whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Mueller’s report offered Russiagaters slightly more hope, in that it did not make a final determination and suggested that congress has the authority to take action in that regard.
But Barr enraged reporters by arguing it was necessary to take “context” into consideration when assessing potential obstruction. He said Trump faced an “unprecedented situation,”“relentless” media speculation and held a “sincere belief”that the investigation was “undermining his presidency.”
He also noted that Trump “took no act” that deprived Mueller of documents necessary to conduct the investigation and said he believed there had been no “corrupt intent” to hamper it. Not only that, but Barr also told shell-shocked reporters that Trump had not exerted executive privilege over parts of the report (as he legally could have done), “in the interests of transparency.”
Russiagaters masked their disappointment by trying, in endless formations, to spin the situation into a vindication of their theories; ‘Barr is lying for Trump!’ ‘Maybe Mueller was in on it?’ ‘He didn’t investigate the right things!’ ‘It wasn’t about collusion, it was about obstruction!’ – and the most pathetic of all attempts: ‘It doesn’t matter anyway, we know in our hearts collusion is real!’
The fact that the report was partly redacted (“standard for prosecutors handling sensitive information,” as the New York Times put it), triggered yet another meltdown from Democrats and Russiagate media stalwarts in advance of its publication. Casual observers of this seemingly never-ending saga might have been led to believe the report would be redacted beyond all comprehension. Indeed, it appears as though that’s what Russiagate truthers would have preferred. The more redactions, the bigger the scope for new conspiracy theories to emerge. Sadly for them, Barr also said an almost completely unredacted version would soon be made available to a bipartisan group in congress.
In a sign of just how desperate they had become, Democrats also spiralled into a total frenzy on Wednesday upon hearing that the aforementioned press conference would be held before the report was handed over to Congress. They genuinely seemed to believe that Barr might stand in front of the entire news media and lie about the contents of a document he was about to post publicly online a couple of hours later.
Why did it matter that he held a press conference summarizing its findings before the release? It didn’t matter, of course, but it was something to cling to. Remember, the Democrats and the media spent two years convincing Americans that Trump and members of his family were going to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House in handcuffs – so, at this point, they’ll latch on to anything.
On the eve of the long-awaited Mueller report about an already discredited conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory's top proponent dubs the Mueller report the "Barr Report" & tries to make an issue out of Barr holding a news conference a few hours before the report is released: pic.twitter.com/JyAOeLSbhZ
Focus will now shift to Mueller’s expected testimony before Congress, which is due to happen no later than May 23 – and some are still holding out hope that the investigator will pull through at the last minute and say or do something to rehabilitate the entire narrative.
Journalist Aaron Mate, who has painstakingly covered the Russiagate drama, noted on Twitter that Mueller at times used “suggestive wording” in his report while simultaneously acknowledging that no evidence of collusion actually exists. This is likely what Democrats will be watching for during his testimony; any shred of doubt or uncertainty from Mueller on even the tiniest of details.
At the end of the day, however, the fact will remain that Mueller overturned every Russiagate rock and did not charge or arrest even one American for conspiring or colluding with Moscow, despite issuing more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500-plus search warrants and interviewing about 500 witnesses in excruciating detail.
But Russiagate was really always about Democrats and their inability to accept two basic truths: Hillary Clinton lost the election because she ran a terrible campaign – and because of the abject failure of the US political system to deliver basic changes that Americans want and need. Trump offered them hope, however false, of something new – and he won. There is no bigger mystery.
But the cries of “collusion!” will continue for months, if not years, and the media will meticulously pick apart the pages of the Mueller report for weeks, hoping to land on something that can credibly carry the conspiracy forward – and as they do so, they will be handing Trump a great gift going into the 2020 election.
Years from now, when Trump is hosting some post-presidency reality TV show or living out the rest of his days at Mar-a-Lago (rather than in a prison cell), Rachel Maddowwill probably still be ruminating over the finer details of the investigation and inviting the most discredited analysts onto her nutty show to help figure out how it all went wrong. Luke Harding is likely gearing up to write a sequel to his “COLLUSION” best-seller as we speak. Maybe he can call the next one“COVERUP” and profit off Russiagate for another two years.
The elaborate and demented conspiracies of Russiagate could fill a library, but the strangest thing of all about this saga might just be how much they fiercely wanted it to be true.
The latest example comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who tweeted Wednesday afternoon that he was “deeply troubled” that the White House was able to get a briefing on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report before it was released.
“I’m deeply troubled by reports that the WH is being briefed on the Mueller report AHEAD of its release. Now, DOJ is informing us we will not receive the report until around 11/12 tomorrow afternoon — AFTER Barr’s press conference. This is wrong,” Nadler tweeted.
So, the White House was briefed before everyone else. Maybe some people see this as a problem, but Nadler’s dismay is simply not believable because of how he responded to the release of an investigation report when the president was a Democrat. Specifically, when that Democrat was President Bill Clinton.
Way back in 1998, America was waiting for Ken Starr’s report on Clinton’s sex scandals to be released. On September 11, 1998, Nadler took to the House floor to decry the fact that Clinton was not able to see the report before it was publicly released “se he can prepare a response.”
“What is at issue here this morning is not his conduct but the fairness of the resolution before us, which is manifestly and grossly unfair,” Nadler said at the time. “It is manifestly unfair because it denies the President the privilege we have given to every other person accused, as the gentleman from Michigan stated, the ability to see the accusation before it is released publicly so he can prepare a response.”
So, Trump getting briefed on the report before its release is “deeply trouble[ing]” but allowing Clinton to see a report before it was released was the height of fairness? Got it.
The hypocrisy was pointed out on Twitter by Jay Caruso, the deputy editor of the Washington Examiner’s magazine.
“Oh, now you’re troubled? In 1998 you said it was ‘manifestly and grossly unfair’ that President Clinton didn’t get to see the Starr report before it was ‘released publicly so he can prepare a response,’” Caruso tweeted.
This is the same congressman who said in early March that he planned to investigate Trump for “obstruction” if and when Mueller found no collusion, which he didn’t.
“Tomorrow, we will be issuing document requests to over 60 different people and individuals from the White House to the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Jr., Allen Weisselberg, to begin the investigations to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power,” Nadler said on ABC at the time.
Mueller recommended no further indictments, and Attorney General William Barrsaid there was insufficient evidence to make the case for obstruction. As a side note, the claim is that Trump “obstructed” an investigation into a crime that never happened.
CNN is responding to the release of the redacted Mueller report with a panel consisting of eight people who all completely agree with each other.
Because there’s nothing like diversity of opinion!
“CNN has 8 people talking about this & they all vehemently agree with one another on every last thing,” tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald. “This has been a major part of the problem from the start. All humans are more likely to err or worse if they are insulated from challenge or dissent. It’s inherently corrupting.”
“I’ve honestly never seen the type of media meltdown that I’m seeing on CNN. They are so emotionally invested in the storyline that they’ve been pushing for 2+ years and they know what Mueller did to it and how this will forever reflect on them,” he added.
CNN’s credibility is in meltdown following US attorney general William Barr’s confirmation that no one connected to the Trump campaign, and no American whatsoever, colluded with Russia to interfere in the presidential election.
Remember, this is the same media which routinely lobbies Big Tech to deplatform people for “fake news” yet just spent the last 2+ years peddling the biggest piece of fake news in modern political history.
Now watch the best bit from Barr’s press conference when he completely owned a journalist.
US Attorney General William Barr has “no objection” to Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifying before Congress regarding his investigations into now-disproven “collusion” between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian officials.
Barr was addressing reporters gathered for a press conference ahead of the release of what is expected to be a “lightly redacted” version over Mueller’s final report.
During his remarks, Barr reaffirmed to reporters that the two-year long investigation concluded that there was “no evidence” that any American — whether part of Trump’s campaign or otherwise — colluded with Russian officials in an attempt to sway the outcome of the election. Barr quoted the report itself and was emphatic about the fact that there was “no collusion” during the campaign.
Democrats, however, have been speculating that Barr has spun the report in Trump’s favor and want to hear directly from Mueller. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler tweeted on Thursday that Congress must hear from Mueller “in person” to “better understand” the findings of the report.
Minutes after Barr wrapped up his press conference, Nadler published a letter asking Mueller to testify no later than May 23.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi attacked Barr and the “staggering partisan effort” by the Trump administration to “spin” the public’s view of the Mueller report. It is unclear whether Pelosi believes Barr is lying about the report’s contents or mischaracterizing Mueller’s findings, but with the report to be released in a matter of hours, the public will be able to assess the situation for themselves.
At a Thursday morning press conference during Attorney General William P. Barr once again confirmed that President Donald J. Trump did not collude with Russians to win the 2016 election, the Attorney General made sure reporters knew who was in charge.
“I’m not sure what your basis is for saying I’m being generous to the President,” Barr told a member of the press gaggle.
That caught her off guard, and she began mumbling about “precedent.”
“Is there another precedent for it [the way the President has been treated]” Barr asked.
Of course, the reporter answered “no.”
“Okay – so unprecedented is an accurate description,” Barr said.
He then moved to another reporter.
WATCH:
Barr: "I'm not sure what your basis is for saying I'm being generous to the President."
A reporter then brings up his use of the word "unprecedented."
Comey declares that electronic surveillance is not the same as spying, gives no proof.
By Tom Pappert
During an appearance on CNN, the disgraced former FBI director claimed that “electronic surveillance” is not the same as “spying” in response to Attorney General Bill Barr’s Congressional testimony earlier this week.
James Comeyappeared on CNN yesterday to split hairs regarding the spying accusation raised by Barr during his second day of Congressional testimony. Barr made clear that he believes “spying did occur,” and that he has started an investigation into the matter, though questions remain as to whether it was done legally or as part of an extralegal fishing expedition to find dirt on or sabotage President Donald J. Trump’s campaign.
Comey seemingly admitted that “electronic surveillance”did occur, but objected to use of the term “spying” during the interview.
“With respect to Barr’s comments, I really don’t know what he’s talking about when he talks about spying on the campaign,” said Comey. “It’s concerning, because the FBI and the department of justice conduct court ordered electronic surveillance.”
While Big League Politics will leave these definitions to the legal experts, in Cornell Law School’s definition of “electronic surveillance,” they offer several examples consider what most Americans would consider spying.
According to the school, “wiretapping, bugging, videotaping; geolocation tracking such as via RFID, GPS, or cell-site data; data mining, social media mapping, and the monitoring of data and traffic on the Internet” are all examples of “electronic surveillance.”
Ironically, President Trump was derided for declaring that President Obama had his “wires tapped” on Twitter in 2017. Comey seems to admit this type of “electronic surveillance” occurred, though stops short of clarifying what types were used.
At this point, regardless of the nomenclature, it only remains to be seen whether the FISA warrant used to gather “electronic surveillance” or to “spy” on President Trump’s campaign was legal, or simply an effort to gain intelligence on failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s competition.
First of many indictments to come in wake of now-completed FBI probe into Russia-Trump collusion
Infowars.com – APRIL 11, 2019
An attorney for the White House under President Barack Obama has been indicted by the Trump Justice Department for allegedly lying about his lobbying work for a former Ukrainian president.
On Thursday DOJ charged former White House Counsel Greg Craig with two counts of making false statements regarding his connections to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In a twist of irony, Craig’s alleged dealings were brought to light by FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, making him the first Democrat to be indicted as a result of the now-completed probe.
“The Washington-based lawyer was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for allegedly falsifying and concealing “material facts” and making false statements to the DOJ National Security Division’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit, which is responsible for enforcing foreign lobbying laws,”reports Fox News.
“Craig allegedly made false statements to investigators looking into whether he appropriately registered foreign agent under FARA, which requires lobbyists to declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders, governments or their political parties.”
In the indictment [see below], Craig is quoted as asking a partner in a February 12 email: “I don’t want to register as a foreign agent under FARA. I think we don’t have to with this assignment, yes?”
Craig allegedly lobbied for Yanukovych in 2012 while he served as a partner at the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom law firm, helping the ousted president write a report defending his government’s decision to prosecute the country’s former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.
“Craig’s former law firm… reached a settlement with the Justice Department in January to resolve an investigation into the firm’s role in working on the Tymoshenko report and the subsequent public relations rollout,”reports Buzzfeed News. “The firm didn’t face criminal charges, but agreed to retroactively register as an agent for a foreign government and pay the US Treasury $4.6 million, representing the money the firm earned for its work.”
The settlement, Buzzfeed notes, cleared the firm as an entity, notably excluding individual partners who could later be charged.
The indictment charges Craig purposely avoided registering as a foreign agent for various purposes and benefits.
“The purpose of the scheme was for Craig to avoid registration as an agent of Ukraine,” the indictment reads. “Registration would require disclosure of the fact that Private Ukrainian had paid Craig and the Law Firm more than $4 million … [and] undermine the Report and Craig’s perceived independence; and impair the ability of Craig and others at the Law Firm to later return to government positions.”
According to Fox News,
Craig faces a total of up to 10 years in prison — up to five years and a possible $250,000 fine for allegedly willfully falsifying and concealing material facts from the FARA Unit, and another five years and $10,000 fine for making false and misleading statements to the FARA Unit.
“Mr. Craig is not guilty of any charge and the government’s stubborn insistence on prosecuting Mr. Craig is a misguided abuse of prosecutorial discretion,” Craig’s lawyers argued in a statement.
Each charge against Craig carries a maximum punishment of up to five years in prison.
Craig served as White House lawyer under President Barack Obama from 2009-2010 and previously served as assistant to the Bill Clinton White House, where he defended Clinton against impeachment.
Watch as Dems and MSM talking heads freak out over AG Barr saying he will launch an investigation in Obama's Deep State spying activities against @realDonaldTrump#Spygate#Witchhunt#Spying
Tom's Blog 