The Democrats Are in Full Panic and It's Only Just Starting

A NEW WEEK, SAME OLD DEMOCRAT INSANITY. • • • JERRY NADLER HAS A HORRIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BlabberBuzz reported on Saturday that : "Another material conflict of interest perpetrated by the Democrat Party. Democrat House Leader Jerry Nadler has a son working for a firm suing President Trump. How is this legal? The Mueller team was conflicted to the hilt with numerous members having donated to, worked for or represented the Hillary team or the Democrat Party. Now the Democrats have another major conflict of interest. It’s reported that the Head of the House Oversight Committee, Democrat Jerry Nadler, has a son who works for a law firm suing President Trump." According to Big League Politics : "Democrat congressman Jerry Nadler, leading the investigative charge against President Donald Trump, has a son whose firm is trying to get access to Trump documents for their clients in numerous lawsuits against President Trump. 'Congressman Jerry Nadler has a big conflict,' our source tells Big League Politics in Washington, DC. His son (Michael Nadler) got a job with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in 2018. That’s convenient because Jerry Nadler and the Democrats just won control of the House in 2018. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher hire Jerry’s son and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher are the main Nemesis against Trump and the Trump Administration on numerous lawsuits. Now the Nadler family will gain access to thousands of Trump documents via Jerry’s subpoenas!, our insider stated. Michael Nadler has a LinkedIn account that confirms he works for Gibson Dunn and Crutcher. He also brags about receiving an award for helping sanctuary families...working for far-left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General who resigned after being accused of abuse by at least four women. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher represented CNN’s Jim Acosta in his ban by the Trump White House....In the days up to the 2016 election, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher offered to represent Trump sex accusers for free." BlabberBuzz says : "Jerry Nadler has a material conflict of interest and he should recuse himself from anything related to President Trump! This is real and egregious." • • • BUT NADLER CONTINUES TO HARASS ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. Gateway Pundit was quoted by BlabberBuzz : "House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on Friday gave Attorney General Bill Barr an ultimatum -- comply with the 'counter offer' or the committee will move forward with contempt of Congress. 'The committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation with the department [DOJ],' Nadler wrote in a letter to Bill Barr on Friday. 'But if the department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with a validly issued subpoena, the committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further legal recourse.' Nadler gave the Justice Department a 9 AM Monday deadline to comply with the committee’s new offer, which includes allowing more members of Congress to look at a less-redacted version of Mueller’s report. Nadler also wants Barr to seek a court order to grant lawmakers the right to view the underlying grand jury material -- Barr blocked the grand jury material from the public and Congress to protect innocent people who have not been indicted." • Gateway Pundit reminds us that : "Under special counsel rules, Attorney General Bill Barr didn’t even need to release Mueller’s report to the public or to Congress. The unredacted version of the report is in a SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] for certain lawmakers to view, however, only two lawmakers have actually viewed the less-redacted version of the report." • House Judiciary Committee members...voted Wednesday morning to have staffers and experts question Attorney General Bill Barr in their Committee hearing on Thursday. Gateway Pundit says : "This kind of format is unheard of. In over 206 years of the House Judiciary Committee, staffers have never questioned a witness, let alone the US Attorney General, in an oversight hearing. Nadler and the Democrats did this on purpose to create chaos and make it appear that Attorney General Barr has something to hide." • Gateway Pundit and BlabberBuzz add : "As for good faith....Nadler starts off with a disingenuous claim that the Department of Justice has 'never explained' why only the Gang of Eight and the top members of the intelligence committees can see the unredacted reports. That has been clearly explained; some of the redactions involve ongoing investigations as well as sources and methods. Nadler might not like the explanations, but the explanations are in the report and its noted redactions....On grand-jury testimony, Nadler’s clearly dreaming. Not only does he want it unredacted for Congress, he wants Barr to go to court with Nadler to ask a judge to allow it. Nadler claims that the judicial proceeding exception applies, except that a House committee isn’t a judicial proceeding....It’s highly unlikely that Nadler will get such an exception for his fishing expedition, especially after a special counsel did all of this investigating while being cheerleaded by Nadler and his allies and wrote a comprehensive report of his findings." • BlabberBuzz gets it right : "Basically, this is IMPEACHMENT BY PROXY : "If Barr doesn’t knuckle under, Nadler’s threatening Barr with becoming Trump’s proxy. An impeachment effort aimed at Barr will probably go over even less well with voters, who by now are utterly exhausted from all of the inside-Beltway sniping going on, especially since the Senate will reject any such effort. This 'compromise' is barely movement at all, but it’s interesting that Nadler felt the need to come up with some sort of counteroffer. Perhaps he’s getting a look at the corner into which he’s painted himself." • Why are the Democrats so determined to stop Bill Barr and to get their hands on all the Mueller notes and grand jury testimony? Because if they don't find something, any tidbit, to use to impeach President Trump before the 2020 election, they know that they are looking down the barrel of the growing evidence of a Trump and Republican landslide. • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE. President Trump told Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge in an exclusive Thursday evening interview that the White House has lost patience with congressional Democrats, and forcefully dismissed their efforts to subpoena former White House counsel Don McGahn and other administration officials to testify. "They've testified for many hours, all of them. I would say, it's done. Nobody has ever done what I've done. I've given total transparency. It's never happened before like this. They shouldn't be looking anymore. It's done." • The New York Times reported earlier Thursday that the FBI secretly deployed an informant to London in 2016 to gather information from then-Trump foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos, who told Fox News later that the informant posed as a researcher and tried to "seduce" him. President Trump told Herridge former FBI Director James Comey "probably was one of the people leading the effort on spying" on his campaign. Trump said we “will find out pretty soon” the extent of Comey's involvement. "Comey leaked and he lied," Trump said. "He lied in front to Congress....He did a terrible job. Everybody wanted him fired..." • The President also told Herridge that he expected that key FBI documents that may shed light on the origins of the bureau's probe into his campaign could be declassified and released within a matter of weeks, or months at the latest. "Yes, I’m going to be allowing declassification pretty soon....I didn’t want to do it originally because I wanted to wait, because I know what they -- you know I’ve seen the way they play. They play very dirty....far more than you would have even thought." Trump previously told Fox News that his attorneys advised him not to declassify and release the full documents -- including surveillance warrant applications to monitor former Trump aide Carter Page and related materials -- while the Mueller probe was ongoing, for fear the administration would be accused of obstructing justice by doing so. • Addressing his potential Democrat opponents in 2020, President Trump said he would be "very happy if it were Biden, Sleepy Joe. I think he did a bad job....I just don't think he'd be a very good candidate.....Biden expressed his lack of concern over China as a global competitor to the US at a rally on Wednesday...."China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man!" Biden exclaimed. "The fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the East -- I mean in the West. They can't figure out how they're going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not competition for us." Trump said Biden was among many politicians "naive" over China. "For somebody to be so naive, and say China's not a problem -- if Biden actually said that, that's a very dumb statement." • BUT, the President knows full well, as do we, that Biden's son profited from unique access to China business deals while his father was vice president. Why would Joe Biden want that cozy relationship to stop??? Former Secretary of Education Dr. Bill Bennett says the former vice president should be pressed on why he is taking a 'soft stance' on China after his son Hunter received $1 billion from the Bank of China. Biden has also faced scrutiny over his past comments and actions in Ukraine, including bragging on video that he pressured the country to fire its top prosecutor, who happened to be leading a corruption investigation of a natural gas company that employed his son Hunter Biden. "I'm hearing it's a major scandal," President Trump said, after urging Biden to explain the situation. "They even have him on tape, talking about the prosecutor -- and I've seen that tape. They have to solve that problem." • • • THE DEMOCRATS ARE WORRIED. American Thinker's Anna L. Stark says, "They should be." Stark went back to the congressional questioning of AG Barr : "Failed media munitions aside, the rise of liberal rhetoric is at near deafening decibels, and for good reason. Attorney General Bill Barr's congressional hearing testimony (on two separate occasions) has no doubt caused Democrats angst and discomfort. In addition, DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz recently confirmed that his office is continuing its investigation, pertaining to the abuse of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) by officials at the DOJ and FBI. And if that isn't enough, NC congressman Mark Meadows referred former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr to the DOJ for a criminal investigation regarding her testimony to Congress last October." Stark went back to this Barr exchange : "In a stunning admission during the congressional hearing pertaining to the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, AG Barr came right out and said , 'Yes, I think spying did occur' in response to Democrat Senator Shaheen's question about Barr's intention to review prior intelligence agency activities that targeted the Trump campaign. It was not a random, off-the-cuff question proffered by Senator Shaheen. In fact, Democrats were purposefully conducting reconnaissance. Prior to his declaration about spying, Senator Shaheen queried Barr about the scope of his investigation. In plain language, Barr replied that he's investigating whether or not there was adequate basis for surveillance, whether or not rules were violated or laws broken, and which government agencies were involved. And while Barr went on to say he's not necessarily investigating the FBI, he stated that perhaps there was a failure of leadership by upper-echelon FBI officials. AG Bill Barr concluded, 'I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I think that's one of the principal rules of the attorney general.' AND, Stark outlines the investigations now underway : "...on May 1, the attorney general announced there is not just one -- in fact, there are multiple investigations underway by the DOJ....DOJ inspector Michael Horowitz has been tight-lipped about his investigation into FISA warrant abuse, other than to confirm that the investigation, which began 13 months ago, is ongoing. More than a year ago, then-AG Jeff Sessions and congressional Republicans alleged that the FISA court was misled about the need to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign, and furthermore, there was continued surveillance of the Trump administration after Trump took office. Horowitz publicly stated that it's his job to examine the FBI's and DOJ's compliance with legal requirements, applicable to policies and procedures. Additionally, the OIG announced that it would investigate the relationship and communications with an FBI confidential source, Christopher Steele -- a British ex-spy on the payroll of Fusion GPS. Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to conduct opposition research on Trump. Congressional Republicans claim that Steele's research was used to initiate US intelligence agency surveillance, and the FBI purposely withheld the opposition research benefactor information from the FISA court. In turn, the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller was based on the utterly fraudulent premise of Russian collusion by Trump campaign officials. Bombshell! Another employee of Fusion GPS? None other than Nellie Ohr; wife of Bruce Ohr; DOJ official, and Steele's back-channel contact with the FBI. In his referral to AG Bill Barr, Congressman Mark Meadows alleges that Nellie Ohr made false statements to Congress last October regarding her contacts at the DOJ. Meadows alleges that she contradicted herself multiple times during testimony about not having any contacts at the DOJ. In fact, Ohr's emails reveal the names of her DOJ contacts. Not only was she communicating with DOJ contacts; she agreed to meet with them for the purpose of sharing research she conducted on the Trump campaign. Meadows hinted that Republicans will make additional criminal referrals to the A.G. Bombshell! The cascade of real bombshells is increasing exponentially, but don't expect the liberal media to report on it. Instead, they simply parrot the Democrat talking-points hysteria. And while Democrats continue to howl, rant, and rave for the cameras, they really ought to pay more attention to the field of land mines they're walking across. It may not end the way they think." • • • SENATOR GRAHAM ASKS MUELLER IF HE WANTS TO TESTIFY. BizPac Review put it this way on Saturday : "On Friday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham sent a letter to Robert Mueller offering him the opportunity to testify regarding the phone call he had with Attorney General Bill Barr that was brought up last week during Barr’s testimony before the Senate. It was the traditional, respectful way government business is supposed to take place, as opposed to the political grandstanding stunts the Democrats have been limiting themselves to...as in eating fried chicken on the House floor. Clearly, Graham has had enough of the political gamesmanship with regard to the Mueller report and obstruction claims and wants to put this all in the rearview mirror....Getting Mueller before the Senate for questioning is a dream come true for the Dems....Some conservatives are afraid that the Mueller invite is a serious misstep by Graham. Another fascinating take on the Graham letter is that some lefty wingnuts online are theorizing the letter is actually a threat to Mueller to keep his mouth shut." BUT, American Thinker's editor Thomas Lifson called the Graham letter to Mueller a "put up or shut up" letter : "Mueller knows that Barr had him on a speakerphone, with witnesses present and taking notes. (Incidentally, what does that tell you about the actual regard in which Barr holds Mueller -- a man he has known for decades?) Reportedly, during the conversation, Barr asked Mueller if there were any inaccuracies and was told by Mueller, no." • AND, way back on April 27, American Thinker's Jay Latimer asked : "Why did Mueller decide to bring his investigation to a close now? Some observers thought it could go on for years -- why end it before Trump's term ends? Why end it at all?....crucially, keeping the Mueller Investigation open gave the Swamp denizens in the FBI and CIA a legal rationale to deny access to documents that would uncover their spying on the Trump campaign. As long as Mueller was working, all those pesky requests from congressional investigators like Devin Nunes could be stonewalled. The Mueller investigation was the best defense that Swampgate had....there was some other reason. My guess is the Horowitz Report....there are whispers that the Horowitz Report will be a very damning document, finally revealing the details of Swampgate -- how the Obama administration weaponized the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and undermine the Trump presidency with a made-up Russia narrative. If so, the Horowitz Report would destroy Mueller's credibility and that of the Russia investigation once and for all. And knowing it was about to drop would give Mueller every incentive to finish up his own report and get it out fast before the proverbial s--- hit the fan. Realizing his time is now limited, Mueller raced to publish his report now, while still unsullied by other charges." • • • KAMALA HARRIS IS VERY WORRIED. BizPac Review reported on Saturday that Kamala Harris, "desperate to stop Bill Barr from investigating, sends a letter to special IG on Friday." BizPAc Review says : "Democrat presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris appears to believe that President Donald Trump pressured Attorney General Bill Barr to launch an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe....she feels that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who at the moment is busy investigating whether the Obama administration had abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to spy on Trump, should also investigate the White House. In a letter to Horowitz sent Friday, Harris complained that, when Barr had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the week, he’d refused to directly 'state whether he had been directed to open investigations at the request or suggestion of the President or other White House officials. Such inappropriate requests by the President have been well documented....There must be no doubt that the Department of Justice and its leadership stand apart from partisan politics, and resist improper attempts to use the power of federal law enforcement to settle personal scores.' ” BizPac Review says that it is "unclear what would be improper about the President asking his top law enforcement officer to investigate whether the prior administration had illegally surveilled his election campaign, especially in light of all the evidence showing that the Obama administration did indeed spy on him. Just a day earlier the New York Times had run a bombshell piece revealing that during the 2016 presidential election, then-President Barack Hussein Obama’s FBI had employed multiple spies to surveil then-GOP presidential nominee Trump’s foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos....Thursday’s bombshell marked one of the first instances of the left-wing media acknowledging the truth....Barr tried to point out that 'spying did occur,' but his assertion was dismissed and mocked by the left....Given the Times’ bombshell report Thursday, one would think that congressional Democrats might finally begin to understand the Trump administration’s concerns about Obama’s spying. But apparently no, congressional Democrats instead intend to double down on their rhetoric. The big question is why. Many suspect it’s because of abject fear and panic....many have speculated that the proven spying that did occur under the Obama administration could have only happened with the approval of top administration officials, including President Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and former AG Loretta Lynch....A CNN poll published this week found that “69% [of Americans] think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.” That’s a majority of all Americans of all political stripes, which raises the question -- why does Harris think Barr’s investigation is partisan in nature when even her own constituents support it?" • • • THE DEMOCRAT SHOW IS NEARING ITS END Leave it to Clarice Feldman of American Thinker to put it all together. On Sunday, Feldman wrote : "Tragedy Tomorrow, Comedy Tonight. That’s the title of a great song in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and that, it occurs to me, is an appropriate song for the media and the Democrats. For two years they vigorously promoted -- for their amusement and political benefit -- a fake Russian collusion story and now must watch it unravel and boomerang on them, their allies and the miscreants who created it. They had their fun, and the denouement has begun." Feldman takes the ProgDem story apart, bit by bit. • "This Week’s Hearings. There were two hearings on the Mueller report this week, one before the Senate Judiciary Committee and another before the House Judiciary Committee....I cannot resist this exchange between the fabulist Senator Richard Blumenthal, who faked his war record, and the attorney general : 'Did you or anyone, either you, or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller?' Blumenthal asked Barr. 'Yes. There were notes taken of the call,' Barr said in response to Blumenthal asking who took the memos. 'May we have those notes?' Blumenthal asked. 'No,' Barr promptly replied. 'Why not?' Blumenthal shot back. 'Why should you have them?' Barr replied. Not since Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have I seen such terse, justifiable dismissal of blather and not since Edwin Meese have a seen a Republican attorney general who wasn’t a timid wretch." • "Factual Errors in the Mueller Report. I think there are a number of factual errors in the Mueller report....Here are just two. I still cannot understand how, when no government agency examined the DNC servers, he could possibly conclude the leaks from it were the result of Russian hacking as opposed to a download by someone with internal access to it. More significant is the very basis for the investigation itself. Purportedly the investigation was triggered by George Papadopoulos’ conversations, not just the now thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier. At the Senate hearing, the attorney general disclosed that Alexander Downer, a former Australian diplomat, was the source of the information, which, we are told, was the trigger for the investigation....this is the first time the government has publicly acknowledged Downer’s role. As for the information from Downer, it seems to me the conversation was thrown in to buttress the predicate for the entire witch-hunt, the Dossier clearly being an inadequate basis. Barr seems to agree : Barr suggested in his testimony that he has concerns with the FBI’s rationale for opening the investigation based on the Aussie tip. 'I would have to see exactly what the report was from Downer, the Australian Downer, and exactly what he quoted Papadopoulos as saying,' Barr told Durbin. 'But from what you just read, I’m not sure what the correlation was between the Russians having dirt and jumping to the conclusion that that suggested foreknowledge of the hacking.' " • "Legal Poppycock in Part 2 of the Mueller Report. Not only do the factual recitations in the Mueller report appear sloppy and unable to pass scrutiny, the legal arguments in the Second Section, presumably the reason why the investigation continued long past the point where the collusion contentions were proven unsustainable, are thin gruel as well. We now know that Barr himself brought this to the attention of Rod Rosenstein [in a 19-page memorandum] before he was named attorney general. It’s a certainty to me that Barr’s thorough legal argument and then his assumption of office led to the conclusion of the Mueller probe six weeks after he assumed office.... Professor Alan Dershowitz agrees with Barr’s determination : 'In the absence of a contrary precedent, the general obstruction of justice statute should not be deemed applicable to the commission of an act by a President authorized by the Constitution, even if it was self-serving. This conclusion applies not only to the firing of Comey, but to all actions taken by President Trump pursuant to constitutional authority under Article II....The real controversy is whether President Trump’s actions, authorized by the Constitution, could constitute the crime of obstruction of justice. Barr is right in concluding it couldn’t. Mueller is wrong in concluding it could.' In plain language, it would be a travesty if, like Spanish inquisitors, prosecutors could charge officials with wrongdoing when they were clearly acting within their legally authorized roles simply because the prosecutors disagreed with the decisions and had confected some cockamamie theory on how it could have impeded their investigation of a nonexistent crime." • "The Hillary Clinton Investigation. It was James Comey, not Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who announced Hillary would not be charged for mishandling classified information on her private server. Eric Felten suggests that she was set up by Bill Clinton to force her to turn the decision on whether to prosecute to her staff, headed by Comey. He bases his argument on a transcript of her closed-door testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on December 19....In her congressional testimony this was anything but a chance meeting, but a deliberate intrusion by Bill Clinton who she could not get to leave and who prattled on for 8-10 minutes....Much later -- just two days before Lynch’s closed door testimony on Capitol Hill -- Comey...claimed to have been so troubled by the Lynch/Clinton get-together that he considered calling for a special counsel to investigate. But, he decided a special counsel wasn’t necessary. Which left him in the position to usurp from Lynch, with his July 5, 2016, press conference, the decision of whether or not to prosecute Hillary. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Lynch was not lying to Congress. If so, it seems to have dawned on her rather late that Clinton had compromised her, had put her in a jam. What if that’s exactly what he set out to do? It would explain the ex-President’s otherwise inexplicable behavior....He was anything but clueless; he was demonstrating to the attorney general that he could cause her real trouble, and could do so with cheerful impunity. He didn’t have to make heavy-handed threats or otherwise put himself at risk of an obstruction of justice charge. No, all he had to do was darken the airplane doorway and prattle on with seeming obliviousness about grandkids, travel plans, coal mining, golf, and Brexit. In the wake of that bravura performance, Lynch had to convene working groups to determine whether she needed to recuse herself from the Hillary probe. She would ultimately decide against recusal, but said she would accept the decision of career staff and the FBI on whether to prosecute. What a mess. And what a splendidly innocent way of causing mayhem and conveying menace. Give Bill Clinton his due -- the man is no amateur." • "Upcoming Events. House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes Has some fact questions about Joseph Mifsud, often described as a Maltese professor. He was the man who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had email 'dirt' on Hillary that could harm her campaign. The Mueller report indicates he was working for the Russians and was a counter-intelligence threat. Devin Nunes says the Mueller report 'omits any mention of a wide range of contacts Mifsud had with Western political institutions and individuals.' It was this offer from Mifsud that Papadopoulos purportedly mentioned to Downer and Downer somehow conveyed to the FBI and per Comey was a significant inspiration for the collusion investigation. Nunes also is seeking information about the FBI’s contacts with Mifsud....The congressman said, 'it’s still a mystery how the FBI knew to ask Papadopoulos specifically about Hillary Clinton’s emails...' Nunes’ lette...to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Central Intelligence Agency director Gina Haspel, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and FBI Director Chris Wray. It asks them to hand over all information they have on Mifsud by May 10. In his letter, Nunes presents photographic evidence of Mifsud in close proximity to influential Western political and government officials....Mifsud vanished from public view....Il Foglio reports that Link Campus, an Italian college, had been sheltering him. On January 13, 2018, 'Mifsud said that ‘the head of the Italian secret services contacted the president of Link Campus, Vincenzo Scotti, and recommended that the Professor shall disappear for some time in a safe location.’ Il Foglio reports that Link has 'more to do with secret services than academia.'....More evidence of spying both by US and foreign intelligence operatives is coming. Jonathan Moffa, deputy assistant director of the FBI, section chief of counter-intelligence analysis, testified in another closed-door congressional hearing that the FBI from the earliest days of the collusion investigation enlisted not only Confidential Human Sources 'but also the aid of outside intelligence agencies, US foreign or both.' Christopher Steele was an official informant expecting to be paid by the FBI for his Dossier information....Moffa had been at a meeting where 'closing' Steele as a Confidential Human Source was discussed, but Moffa declined to answer questions about what Steele did to lose his CHS status....It [also] has been widely reported that a retired Cambridge professor, Stefan Halper, was a CHS....And now the New York Times has put in print what was long suspected, that the woman Halper presented to George Papadopoulos as his 'assistant' was actually something else altogether. 'Azra Turk' was an FBI asset [Papadopoulos has said she was a CIA asset] sent across the Atlantic with a mission to get incriminating information out of Papadopoulos. It’s not clear whether she counted as a CHS herself, or whether she was an 'investigator' with some other official status at the bureau. It’s not clear which US agency Halper works for. The last information I was able to obtain indicated he was on the Department of Defense payroll as late as September 2016. There was a whole lot of spying going on." • "Why Many in Washington Have a Lot to Worry About. At the Senate hearing, Barr made it clear that he intended to have a wide-ranging investigation of the origins of the collusion probe and justifications for 'secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members' going back months before the fall 2016 justifications. He specified the opposition-concocted 'Steele Dossier,' which he believes may have been Russian disinformation. He also is investigating leaks of classified information about the Mueller investigation. Kimberley Strassel accurately describes the mood here in Washington circles.... : 'Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution. The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.'....Many unsavory practices and unlawful acts are going to be revealed. I believe this utterly. Attorney General Barr is about to join the handful of patriot heroes in this long-running sleazy saga." • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED NO UNDERLYING CRIME. Canada Free Press's Rolf Yungclas spelled it out on Friday : "Democrats in Washington, DC, who have been lying for two years that they have evidence of something labeled collusion, now are saying in unison, Barr lied!....We do know that the Trump administration gave unprecedented access to the Mueller investigation for two years, and we do know Attorney General Barr, who was not required to give anyone access to the Mueller report, released the full report, with only a few redactions, about a month after he received it....They didn’t get what they wanted from the Mueller report, which clearly concluded that there was no coordination between Trump, his campaign, or any American with Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election. From the report : 'In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.' (p.172)" • Yet, states Yungclas : "Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton, and others still push the 'collusion' lie, continuing to not accept the result of the 2016 presidential election. Others, acting like they haven’t lied about collusion for two years now substitute the false accusation of Obstruction!' for the word collusion....First, the President and all Americans were cleared of any involvement with Russian interference by the 2-year Mueller investigation. Secondly, private conversations that led to no action are not obstruction of justice. Thirdly, an investigation based on a false accusation begun by a political opponent in an election is not a pursuit of justice, so no justice being obstructed. The promulgators of that injustice are who need to be investigated, Ms. Pelosi!" • Commenting on Hillary Clinton’s input into the matter, Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday on Fox Business Network’s Mornings with Maria Bartiromo : "Hillary just exceeds all expectations. What chutzpah they have. Here’s a woman who really does know about obstruction of justice....She figured out how to actually do it." President Trump didn’t delete 33,000 emails, he didn’t have someone bust up his phone with a hammer. And he didn’t BleachBit -- which is what organized criminals and terrorists do to launder money -- he didn’t BleachBit a server. She did what are called obstructive acts, precisely what couldn’t be found with regard to the President. Remember, the President did not commit an underlying crime. • • • DEAR READERS, Al Jolson first wrote these words in a song he sang in 1919, and they have never been more true : "You ain't heard nothing yet."