AG Barr Moves the Russia Investigation Forward, while the Supreme Court Faces the Abortion Minefield

BARR SETS DURHAM TO WORK ON THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, AND A ROE VS. WADE OVERTURN WORRIES DEMOCRATS. As Attorney General Bill Barr put US Attorney John Durham to work on the finding the origins of the Russia investigation, the world waits for any shoe to fall on the Democrat "Get Trump" cabal. • • • DURHAM IS A SEASONED INVESTIGATOR. President Trump nominated Durham to his current position as the Connecticut US attorney in 2017. The New York Times says Durham "enjoys a bipartisan reputation and successful track record in investigating high-profile cases including Whitey Bulger and CIA abuse of terrorism suspects," so this is not "the first high-profile case Durham has undertaken." The NYT reported on Monday that : "Durham became a Justice Department lawyer in 1982 and has conducted special investigations for both the Republican and Democratic Parties....Durham went after Connecticut street gangs in 1992 and prosecuted mobsters in the Gambino, Genovese and Patriarca crime families, TIME Magazine reported. Durham was also responsible for exposing former Connecticut Governor John Rowland’s corruption in 2004, which led to the governor spending a year in prison. Former Attorney General Janet Reno commissioned Durham to investigate the FBI’s relationship with informant and Boston mobster Whitey Bulger in 1999. Durham’s team was responsible for indicting Bulger cronies Stephen 'The Rifleman' Flemmi and special agent John Connolly Jr. who are portrayed in 'Black Mass,' according to The Day. Durham also investigated a case at the request of former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in 2008 involving videotapes the CIA destroyed that depicted the torture of terrorism suspects. He further examined the CIA’s handling of detainees at the request of former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. under the Obama administration in 2009." • The Washington Post wrote in 2009 : “Though a registered Republican, Durham generally is regarded as apolitical.” Democratic Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy recommended him to Trump, according to Heavy. "We are confident that Durham will continue this record of success in providing strong leadership to the office....John Durham has earned immense respect as a no-nonsense, fierce, and fair prosecutor,” Blumenthal and Murphy said. TIME wrote in 2009 : "Colleagues say Durham is thorough and cautious in deciding whether a case deserves to be prosecuted. But once he fixes on a target, the veteran lawyer usually catches his prey.” The Day says that : “Other than an overwhelming commitment to the cause of justice, the two great devotions of John’s life are his Catholic faith and his family,” quoting John Durham’s longtime friend and colleague, Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Leonard C. Boyle. Boyle also added that John Durham has “an extreme work ethic” and strong abilities to take the complicated details of a case and “weave it together into a tapestry of detail.” • Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation is the third known investigation into the 2016 election and potential Russian interference, according to the NYT. The question we are all asking is whether any one or more of these investigations will provide sufficient facts to proceed to grand jury sessions or prosecutions for the Deep State cabal against President Trump during the Obama administration. • American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson asked in a Wednesday article, "What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?" Lifson wrote : "Following the disclosure that US Attorney John Durham has been tasked with investigating and prosecuting potential crimes in the origin of the Russia Hoax, we learned some very encouraging facts that suggest that the Russia Hoax will be fully aired and miscreants brought to justice. Like Howie Carr, who had a front-row seat when John Durham went after corruption in the FBI Boston office, I am 'cautiously optimistic' (Howie's term) that Durham and his boss AG Barr want to get to the bottom of the hoax and put those who may have committed crimes in prison." But, Lifson puts a different spin on his skepticism : "But we must concede that there are plenty of reasons to worry that that the biggest political scandal in American history -- the political weaponization of both the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities to spy on political opponents of the sitting president and remove a duly elected President from office -- will be swept under the rug. Even a sober-minded man of integrity like William Barr might be persuaded that the harm to public trust in our system would be too profound and that our allies and foes overseas might see us as so weakened that they would take actions inimical to our interests." Lifson noted that on Tuesday, "Rush Limbaugh provided a fascinating insight into the level of distrust the conservative base has in the ability of our institutions and their leaders to right themselves. After reviewing what Durham could accomplish, he came back after a commercial break and said : "Holy cow. Some of you people are on fire out there today. I checked the email during the break, and I got a bunch of people sending me notes. 'I don't care about this guy's resume. I'm fed up with hearing about people's resume!' They're talking about the guy that Barr has appointed. 'I'm gonna wait see results. I don't care what this guy's done. You know, that's all we get. We get resumes, we get past history, we get performance, we get our hopes raised, we get our expectations raised, and then nothing ever happens. So you can stuff this guy's resume, Mr. Limbaugh, as far as I'm concerned. I'm waiting to see if anybody delivers on this.' I understand the sentiment, folks. I understand the sentiment. I can count as easily as you can the number of times over whatever length of time in the past you want, 30 years, 10 years, 15, five, it doesn't matter. The number of times we've been led to believe that heads are gonna roll, things are gonna happen, the bad guys are gonna get caught. I mean, for two years we've been, 'Breaking news! Breaking news! The bottom's gonna fall out tomorrow,' and it never does. 'Breaking news! Breaking news! Heads are gonna roll tomorrow,' and they never do. 'Breaking news! Breaking news! Full operation exposed, details tomorrow morning,' whatever. Never happens. I understand that." • Thomas Lifson said he has hope for a result this time : "Keeping in mind the need to understand how fiercely the permanent bureaucracy and globalist faction in both parties want to frustrate President Trump's agenda, and how damaging a thorough housecleaning would be for them, let's review the reasons to hope that there will be a serious follow-through by Barr, Durham, and John Huber (the US Attorney for Utah who was tasked by AG Sessions with investigating the Clinton Foundation and surveillance abuses), especially after the IG Horowitz report is released, as is expected within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Eric Felten noticed something already on the public record last October : that Durham already was investigating leaks to the media from the FBI. This means that at least seven months before his role was revealed, and months before William Barr took office, Durham was on the case. The revelation came not from a leak, but from testimony by James A. Baker, the FBI's general counsel under James Comey. The testimony is excerpted by Felten in RealClearInvestigations. The great Jim Jordan of Ohio was quizzing Baker : 'So did you talk to Mr. Corn about anything that the FBI was working on,' Jordan asked, 'specifically the now infamous Steele Dossier?' Suddenly, Baker's lawyer, Dan Levin, jumped in : 'One second,' he said before he and his client had a conversation off the record. When the microphones were back on, Levin declared he would 'not let [Baker] answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he's been the subject of a leak investigation which is still -- a criminal leak investigation that's still active at the Justice Department.' And so Levin concluded, 'I'm sorry. I'm cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.' North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows wanted to make clear what Baker's lawyer was claiming : 'You're saying he's under criminal investigation? That's why you're not letting him answer?' 'Yes.' Levin and the lawmakers sparred a bit over whether Baker was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, and the congressmen finally got around to asking who was leading this criminal probe : 'There is an ongoing investigation by whom?' Jordan said. 'The Justice Department,' Levin responded. 'I mean, is the inspector general looking at this or is this—' 'No,' said Levin, 'it's Mr. John Durham, a prosecutor.' " • Lifson suggests that : "The fact that this was kept secret so long, even in the face of this admission slipping out and remaining unnoticed, suggests that the Durham investigation -- and maybe Huber's, too -- is doing exactly what effective prosecutors do : keeping grand jury proceedings secret, applying pressure to witnesses to sing, maybe offering deals for lighter prosecution and sentence recommendations if they implicate higher-ups, and going for convictions by trial juries, not in the court of public opinion." • Further, Lifson reminds us, as we discussed in a recent blog, that Baker "admitted last week "the inspector general makes him 'nervous,' " and told CNN the government watchdog will probably find some errors : "The inspector general is looking at everything we did. If the IG usually finds mistakes that we made, so I expect him to find mistakes this time." Lifson states that the significance of this is that : "...when Barr was recruited to become AG for the second time, he knew that Durham already was at work on busting open at a minimum the collusion between FBI senior officials and media figures to perpetrate the Russia hoax on the public and lead to the appointment of a special counsel via the resulting public pressure. I have long believed that the only reason a man like Barr, who was earning millions of dollars a year as a DC lawyer at the very top of his profession, could be lured back into the snake pit of DC politics under Trump would be his devotion to the integrity of our legal / judicial system. If he were a cynic just interested in preserving the establishment that let him succeed so mightily, why not just stay where we was? He had to know that taking on the task of rescuing the system from its abusers would lead to the sort of vilification he now is enduring." • Then, Thomas Lifson reveals a new piece of information : "...we learned yesterday : that Durham has enlisted the CIA's head Gina Haspell to aid in his probe. Is this a danger sign or an indication that someone highly knowledgable is on the case? My friend Mike Nadler observes in an email : 'As a career bureaucrat, Haspell seems to love her agency and may not tolerate its misuse for partisan political purposes.'....However, it must be considered that she could be implicated, in which case she could be obfuscating and trying to torpedo the investigation (which seems unlikely if Barr and Durham are as serious as I suspect they are) or alternatively that she is spilling what she knows. Sundance asks : Who was the CIA Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action over Europe, while John Brennan and Peter Strzok were running their European 2016 counterintelligence operations?....And Sundance says that it was Haspell. She probably knows a lot." • • • TREY GOWDY GIVES REPUBLICANS A PIECE OF ADVICE. The Daily Caller wrote on Tuesday that former South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy offered up a tip Monday night for congressional investigators probing the Obama administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation : “So whoever’s investigating this, tell them to look for emails between Brennan and Comey in December 2016,” Gowdy said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. In the interview, Gowdy did not say whether he has knowledge of what is in any Brennan-Gowdy emails. But Gowdy also suggested that the FBI deemed Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous anti-Trump Dossier, as a less-than-credible source." The Daily Caller said : "Steele, a former British spy, served as a confidential human source for the FBI. He provided the FBI with parts of his Dossier, which the FBI then used to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page." And, Gowdy noted : “I think you’ll be surprised at whether or not they viewed Steele as being credible,” said Gowdy, who served on the House Intelligence Committee and is now a Fox News contributor. The Daily Caller stated that : "The Justice Department’s inspector general is reportedly investigating whether Steele was a reliable source. Gowdy also told Hannity that the FBI withheld exculpatory information in the FISA applications. 'I can tell you it is even worse than what you described. It is what you described, in addition to the withholding of exculpatory information. They made no effort to corroborate the Dossier until after it had been used in the application and a renewal. No effort. It’s not that they failed, it’s that they made no effort to do it.” • • • BABIES BORN ALIVE LEFT TO DIE?? BlabberBuzz revealed in an article quoting Life News that : "The 'fact checkers' at Associated Press were the latest to fulminate against President Trump mocking Virginia Governor Ralph Northam about executing babies born alive after an abortion attempt. The tweet was mockable : 'The reality behind President Trump’s false accusation that abortion doctors execute babies." BUT, President Trump was right, according to Life News : "AP reporter David Crary -- someone we have often cited for a liberal cultural bias -- began with a typical editorializing flourish : 'President Donald Trump, in what’s become a staple of his rallies, accuses doctors of executing babies who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt. His comments, meant to taint Democrats, have been embraced by many anti-abortion activists, and assailed as maliciously false by many medical professionals. Crary quotes two medical professionals, both from the left : Cara Heuser, who recently testified against a Utah bill limiting abortions to before 18 weeks of gestation, and Diane Horvath, 'a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health and medical director of Whole Woman’s Health, which operates abortion clinics in several states.' This is how Crary set up the 'fact checking.' TRUMP : 'Democrats are aggressively pushing late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mother’s womb, right up until the moment of birth. The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby.” — rally in Panama City Beach, Florida. THE FACTS : Federal data suggests that very few US babies are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 deaths between 2003 and 2014 involving infants born alive during attempted abortions.' Trump’s first sentence isn’t about born-alive abortions, and is factual as applied to the New York law signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, and factual as applied to the Democratic Party’s position in favor of “expanding access” to abortion on demand. The second sentence is borrowing from what Governor Northam said in an awkward radio interview about how a baby 'unsuccessfully' aborted would be treated.Obviously, people who decided to have an abortion can’t be expected to change their minds about wanting the baby dead. In Virginia, Delegate Kathy Tran admitted in testimony that her 'pro-choice' bill would allow abortion in the third trimester right up until birth. AP protests there are only 143 born-alive abortions 'recorded' by the federal government. This is mildly amusing since liberals like Crary complain that 'hate crimes' are under-reported to the federal government. Surely, there are many more!" • Life News notes that PolitiFact : "...tagged a version of this Trump rhetoric as 'False' on April 29. They called it 'grossly oversimplified,' just as Crary complained Trump is 'oversimplifying a deeply complex issue.' Snopes called Trump 'Mostly False' on February 9, charging the president with 'stripping away the nuance and context' of the Democrat governor’s clumsy radio interview. The Washington Post 'Fact Checker' wrapped it into a long State of the Union rebuttal / 'fact check' on February 6. All these 'fact checkers' are working overtime to provide the 'context' and talking points of abortionists and their advocates to rebut the President." • We know that the 143 babies who died after being aborted were human infants who deserved love and care, not death. • • • VERMONT PASSES UNLIMITED ABORTION BILL. The Vermont law makes abortion a ‘Fundamental Right.’ BlabberBuzz quoted Christian Headlines : "A Vermont bill declaring abortion a 'fundamental right' that cannot be infringed is headed to the desk of the state’s Republican governor. The bill, H. 57, cleared its final hurdle Friday, thrusting the state into a national debate over the unborn. The Vermont Right to Life Committee is calling the bill the 'most radical anti-life legislation in the nation.' Democrats control both chambers. It passed the Senate, 24-6, and the House, 106-37. Republican Governor Phil Scott is pro-choice, although it’s not known if he will sign it. 'The State of Vermont recognizes the fundamental right of every individual who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,' the bill’s text says. Additionally, the bill says the state’s public entities shall not 'interfere with an individual’s fundamental rights' to 'choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion.' The bill defines public entity as the 'Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branch of State Government.' The bill even protects women who perform their own abortions. 'No State or local law enforcement shall prosecute any individual for inducing, performing, or attempting to induce or perform the individual’s own abortion,' it says. Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington, Vermont, said he hopes women choose life, despite what the law allows. 'I am disappointed that Vermont legislators have decided to move forward with H. 57, even amid many strong, authentic, and educated testimonies in opposition to the bill,' Coyne told Catholic News Agency. 'Regardless of what the law allows, I hope that women will feel safe and supported in their pregnancies and motherhood and choose life for their children no matter the circumstances....the Catholic faith teaches that all human life is sacred -- meaning ‘of God’-- from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death and we are called to embrace and protect that sacred gift that is the very breath of each of our lives.' He reiterated the Church’s teaching that procured abortion is a 'moral evil' that is contrary to natural law. The bishop told CNA that he hopes the law will one day be reversed, and that he is “praying that the rights of unborn children will be recognized as the same human rights to which all are entitled.” • In a separate article on Monday, Catholic News Agency's Christine Rousselle wrote about another Vermont bill working its way through the legislature : "On May 7, Vermont’s legislature advanced Proposal 5, which would write a right to abortion into the state’s constitution. Before this can happen, it must be passed once again by the 2021-2022 legislature, and be approved by voters in the November 2022 election. If the measure passes, Vermont would become the first state to list abortion as a constitutional right....Meagan Gallagher, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (which includes Vermont), said that the state was 'the shining example for all other states. Vermont lawmakers made history today by declaring that reproductive rights are human rights. We applaud Vermont’s legislature for making its position clear on reproductive freedom, that protecting the health, dignity, and civil rights of Vermonters is urgently important.' Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that this was 'history in the making. With Trump in the White House and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, it is more important than ever for states to enact proactive policies to create a critical backstop and protect access to safe, legal abortion care,' said Wen.'We at Planned Parenthood commend reproductive health care champions for their leadership and their work to protect the lives and well-being of women and families in Vermont.' " • • • THE SUPREME COURT HAS A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE. If the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, abortion legislation and legalization would revert to the individual states, so that decisions are made more locally. UNLESS, unless the Supreme Court takes up an abortion-related case and decides that a foetus is a human being for constitutional purposes. TheHill wrote on Thursday that : "New strict abortion laws in states like Alabama and Georgia are setting the stage for a legal fight that could make its way to the Supreme Court, sparking fears that the court’s conservative majority could reverse Roe v. Wade. Legal experts have previously cast doubt on the possibility of the Supreme Court revisiting the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade anytime soon. But Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to raise the possibility this week in an opinion opposing conservative justices’ reversal of an unrelated 1979 ruling. 'Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,' Breyer wrote, in what many viewed to be a warning against a potential Roe v. Wade reversal. The Court overturning the 1979 ruling, coupled with Breyer’s remarks, has intensified fears among abortion rights supporters who say a conservative-leaning Supreme Court could also overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973." TheHill quoted Carrie Flaxman, Planned Parenthood's director of public policy litigation and law : "“This week the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to jettison precedent. With Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, there is a grave threat to abortion rights. That’s what these bills are targeted at. The sponsors of these bills are doing this, and states are doing this, because they hope that the court will overturn Roe.” • The lines are already being drawn. TheHill says advocacy groups "are gearing up for lawsuits over the new state laws that offer up even more avenues for an abortion case to land before the Justices." And, Planned Parenthood, says TheHill, "vowed to sue if Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed into law a measure passed Tuesday by state lawmakers banning abortion, with exemptions if the life of the mother is at serious risk, but none for cases of rape or incest. Ivey signed the bill on Wednesday evening." The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging a law signed by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy, according the TheHill, which says "legal challenges are also pending in Mississippi and Kentucky, where Republican governors have recently signed fetal heartbeat abortion laws. And a lawsuit is also likely in Georgia, where Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed a similar measure last week." • The pro-abortion lobby fears that the recent "heartbeat" abortion laws are designed to force the Supreme Court to revisit the part of the Roe v. Wade decision that says states can’t place certain restrictions on abortion. TheHill also quoted Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation, who noted that "Alabama’s abortion law is unlikely to hold up under the legal standard set by Roe. But he said the point of the new law is to force the Supreme Court to revisit abortion. 'I think the sponsors have made it clear that they are passing this law with a full expectation in Alabama that the lower courts will strike it down because they want this to get to the Supreme Court, because they’re hoping that it’ll be the opportunity for the Supreme Court to potentially overturn its prior precedents about this,' von Spakovsky said." But the Supreme Court may hesitate to take up a topic as controversial as abortion during an election year when, says TheHill, "it could give the appearance of putting the issue on the ballot. The Supreme Court’s current term is wrapping up, and the next one will begin in the fall, with major rulings usually reserved for June." • TheHill says : "Some conservatives are banking on the addition of Kavanaugh as their chance to overturn Roe. His confirmation, as well as that of fellow Trump pick Justice Neil Gorsuch, helped establish a conservative majority on the bench. But Kavanaugh’s vote on abortion rights -- as well as that of Chief Justice John Roberts -- isn’t necessarily locked in. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said during Kavanaugh’s nomination process that Kavanaugh told her that he wouldn’t overturn Roe, as he believed it was firmly entrenched in precedent and existing case law. Both Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with the court’s liberal justices last year in declining to take up cases requesting that Planned Parenthood be defunded. Court watchers have said Roberts’s vested interest in maintaining the integrity of the Supreme Court may contribute to him wanting to avoid a high-profile abortion case that could open up the Justices to political attacks. But Roberts and Kavanaugh joined in the opinion reversing the 1979 ruling in a case involving a years-long dispute over whether one state can be sued in another state’s courts. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion for the court’s conservative majority that the court’s prior ruling was an 'erroneous precedent' and 'contrary to our constitutional design.' Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, signed by the three other liberal justices, arguing that the decision signals the Court’s conservative members could be willing to overturn other precedents." • Some experts, however, did not view Breyer’s dissent as being related to Roe, says TheHill : " 'I just have to say that strikes me as very far-fetched,' Robert Nagel, a law professor at the University of Colorado. He said the unrelated 1979 ruling about state sovereignty 'does not implicate any of the larger sort of atmospheric or political and institutional considerations that the abortion controversy does,' and therefore doesn’t have the same kind of impact that the reversal of an abortion rights precedent would." • • • DEAR READERS, BUT, when (not if) President Trump wins reelection in 2020, he will have the opportunity to nominate more Supreme Court Justices and further solidify the court’s conservative majority. That would provide a firmer bases for the Court taking on an abortion case. TheHill offers public opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman's position : "...recent abortion bans and restrictions in states across the country will drive turnout among pro-life and pro-choice voters in 2020. 'If you look at the numbers of the strong pro-lifers and strong pro-choice people, most Americans are in the middle,' Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Hill.TV's Jamal Simmons on 'What America's Thinking.' 'They see a lot of grey on this issue. They don't like being pulled in one direction or another, but yes, for those two groups, I think it can definitely drive turnout,' she continued." • HOWEVER, more than half of registered voters believe that laws banning abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy are not too restrictive, according to a new Hill-HarrisX survey. The May 10-11 poll found that 21% of registered voters said that such abortion bans are "too lenient" while 34% said they believe they are "just right," and 45% of respondents said they believe the laws are "too restrictive." So, while pro-abortion groups have mounted legal challenges to new "heartbeat" laws passed by a number of states, but the Hill-Harris poll shows that these laws do not currently appear to have sparked majority opposition. TheHill says that the poll, notably, "found comparatively little difference between women and men on the question" -- 43% of male respondents said the "heartbeat" laws were too restrictive while 47% of women said the same. The margin of difference between the two sexes is not statistically significant. But, the poll results show greater differences between age groups, with older respondents being much more likely to believe the new laws are too restrictive. A 52% majority of respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41% said the new laws were too restrictive. Among voters between 35-49, 45% said the laws were too restrictive. But, the youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority -- 27% -- said this. • A May 2018 Gallup survey found that 60% of adults believe that abortion should be legal during the first three months of pregnancy, while only 28% believed it should be allowed in the second trimester, and only 13% believed that abortion should be permitted during the final trimester. Nonetheless, a majority of Americans wanted women to have access to abortion if their lives are threatened by giving birth. • So, a majority of Americans is somewhere in the middle -- abortion should be legal under some circumstances, but abortion after the first trimester is not viewed favorably. And, conservative Republican state citizens have elected legislators favoring "heartbeat" abortion laws. This is the minefield the Supreme Court will be walking onto if it takes up the abortion question.