@revelette1,
Since you don't care for what I have to say, it's not surprising that you think I write too much and I'm not surprised that you refused to respond to all of my points under the guise that they are "not important."
One point I made about your absurd assertions bears repeating because you have reproduced it in your response and because it is typical of the thinking and tactics of progressives (In your case, just
thinking because you are clearly not in a position to use tactics against the president.)
You have asserted Trump is
"using the US attorney general as his own personal lawyer at the expense of our intelligence communities"
The part about Barr acting as the President's personal attorney is new to your argument but is a recent leftwing Democrat talking point often repeated in the MSM, and so I'm not surprised to find it as one of your own.
The most current Special Counsel statute does not require the AG to release the SC's report to the public. It was (re)written in this fashion because legislators (particularly, but not exclusively, Democratic legislators) didn't like the taste of transparency that governed the release of Ken Starr's report on his investigation of Bill Clinton. This means that the AG had a fair amount of legal latitude in how he handled Mueller's report. That he released a report with considerably less redaction than was predicted by all quarters; that he invited Mueller and his team to participate in determining what information should be redacted, that Executive Privilege was not once used in the redaction process and that he provided Congressional leaders with a copy of the report containing only those redactions required by law is hardly the way Trump's
personal attorney would have handled the matter.
A lawyer acting in the sole interest of his client would do his damnedest to prevent the release of information that his client would find embarrassing and possibly damaging. Mueller's 10 Obstruction Issues (for lack of a better term) certainly constitute this sort of information, and yet we have all been able to read them from the very outset. There were no redactions, and no subpoenas were necessary for us to see it.
You might argue that Barr had no choice but to release the information, but you would be wrong. He had a choice and given how certain you and the Democrats are that these 10 Obstruction Issues present sufficient evidence to indict and impeach Trump, if he were acting as a personal attorney it would have been a choice he might have made. A personal attorney attempting to get his or her client out of a very serious jam doesn't really care much about political blowback. It doesn't really matter how your political opponents judge the legal tactics of your attorney if you are sitting behind bars.
Moreover, if he were acting as Trump's personal lawyer, it would not have been a choice he would have made without consulting his client. He could have gone to his client and said something to the effect of
"Look, this part of the report is going to cause you problems. There are legal ways that I can keep this information from being released. If I use them it will light a political firestorm and court challenges, but the information will not be in the public square unless leaked. You have to live with the political blowback of such a move though so what do you want me to do"
His advice on whether or not to release the info would hinge on the balance between the potential legal peril presented by the release of the information and the potential political peril caused by refusing to release it. Regardless, Barr insists that no such conversation took place between him and the President, nor any conversation at all concerning the report. That would be extremely odd behavior for a personal lawyer and depending on the circumstance could be grounds for disbarment. You, of course, dismiss this inconvenient consideration out of hand because you are certain Barr is a liar and that he lied when he testified under oath that no conversation with the President took place. It's a convenient fallback in a debate. Any and all arguments that are based on anything Barr has said can be disregarded because he is a
liar.
But of course, what you really mean is that he is acting
more like Trump's personal attorney than a fully independent AG. Right? In other words, when it fits your narrative the argument is valid, and when it gets sticky with facts...well, you didn't mean acting
exactly like his personal attorney. For you, Barr, as AG, could not possibly have formed any legal opinions that are contrary to Jeffrey Toobin's (and thus yours) unless he was acting as a shill (personal attorney) for Trump. Right?
The corrupting effect of Trump is truly amazing. We know that every word out of his mouth is a lie because CNN and MSNBC tells us so, but apparently, his lying is so contagious that anyone who goes to work for him, no matter how pristine their reputation and past service, develops not only a willingness to tell whopping lies of prodigious size but insidious lies that they know will undermine our democracy and help an autocratic lout ruin the country. Pretty amazing! It's like he has a superpower or something!
There are scattered reports that IG Michael Horowitz's investigative conclusions are going to be very damaging to a number of people who have been leading the
Dump Trump Campaign. We'll have to wait and see, but if they are and they can be used in any way to bolster Trump's position, we will no doubt be informed by you and CNN that Trump used his superpower on the heretofore forthright IG Horowitz. If, though, there are any real bombshells to be found in the
investigation of the investigation, it is more likely that US Attorney John Durham will find and present them.
Barr must have thought long and hard about who to assign as head of the DOJ investigation into the origins of the Mueller Investigation. He needed someone with a track record of success in getting to facts and evidence that powerful people wanted to keep hidden, and he needed someone with a solid reputation for integrity and non-partisan objectivity. By all accounts, he found the person in John Durham, and he got the extra bonus of a US Attorney who has experience in successfully investigating our intelligence agencies. If there is any group of powerful people who you would expect to be good at keeping things hidden, it's them.
Of course, none of this will matter to you, Pelosi, Schummer, Blumenthal, Hirano, Booker, Sanders, Toobin, Lemon, Cuomo, Matthews, Maddow, Clapper, Comey, Brennan and 25 million other leftwing sufferers of TDS, if Durham announces at the end of his investigation that Trump was essentially correct: It was all a political Witch Hunt that originated in the Obama White House and involved senior leaders of our government including the FBI, CIA, NSA, the State Dept, and members of Congress and the MSM. The minute the first indictment is filed The NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, Twitter and A2K will be ringing with shrill cries of how the junta has just begun! Durham will not only reveal himself to be a liar of Trumpian stature but a traitor like his boss Bill Barr.
I'm not predicting this result, but it's certainly possible and yet we will see much the same reaction as that described above if Durham's conclusions are only 25% as significant as my hypothetical. Any result that allows Trump to claim vindication, proves malfeasance if not criminality in the conduct of the entire Russian Investigation, and besmirches the image of the Obama Administration will be described as the darkest moment in US history. Durham will certainly have to weather numerous attacks against his veracity, integrity and even his patriotism. These attacks were teed up on the day it was announced he would lead the investigation with his state's Senator, Richard Blumenthal, telling members of the press that he feared Durham's stellar reputation would be ruined by this investigation. That's an incredible threat posing as a prediction and used against a US Attorney who has an unblemished record of professional service (Oh, and if there are any blemishes hiding in a closet in the Durham house, you can bet before this is all over, we'll know about them). That Blumenthal, the
Vietnam Valor Theif, has the audacity to lecture anyone on veracity or integrity is a perfect indication of what a cynical, dishonorable cesspool Washington DC is.
Mark this post. 12 to 18 months from now you and other progressives in this forum will be wailing about how Trump has delivered a death blow to our democracy and has used the massive power of the DOJ to destroy his enemies whose only crime was to try and save our nation from him.
But, of course, I've veered into the land of hyperbole that I so often accuse progressive of inhabiting. Right?
Perhaps, but I don't think so, because the second part of your comment is a reiteration of the absurdly hyperbolic and completely unfounded argument you made in your prior post: Barr and Trump are putting the lives of US intelligence officers, as well as most guarded secrets concerning sources and methods in jeopardy. Of course, you didn't find my point about your nonsensical assertion to be
important enough to respond to, and I don't expect that to change now, however, I'm still going to call you out on it because you doubled down.
Investigating the actions of the FBI, CIA and all other US intelligence operations as respects the Russia Investigation does not present a material risk to our national security, the personal security of any government employees or the ability of these agencies to perform their functions effectively.
Full stop, end of sentence.
The people who will be conducting this investigation will have the same backgrounds and experience as those assigned to Mueller's team (except it's unlikely that they will all be Clinton supporters) Some (such as FBI agents) who were used by Mueller may be used by Durham. If they could be trusted with classified information during the Mueller investigation, and they didn't gut the government or any of its agencies, I don't think we have to worry about Durham and his team (or, for that matter, their boss, Bill Barr who is one of the least leaky of officials in government). You and those who agree with you may believe that the investigation is at best frivolous and unnecessary, but, at least, roughly half the nation does not. We don't get to vote on it, in any case, just as we didn't get to vote on the Mueller Investigation.
Not only did you and your friends dismiss out of hand the protests of some concerning the Mueller Investigation (First and foremost, Trump's) you asserted that any resistance to it indicated a fear, in Trump supporters, of what it would uncover, and an admission, in Trump's case, that there was something to hide. The proven conduct of senior FBI officals in the conduct of the investigation, alone, warrants this investigation and additional, troubling information has been seeping out since it's announcement (for example, the State Department official who told the FBI, in detailed terms, that Steele the foreign agent, paid opposition researcher, Trump-hater extraordinaire, and author of the infamous Dossier was an entirely untrustworthy source,
before his dossier was used as support for the FISA warrant used to surveil Carter Page). We should be prepared for additional information to be volunteered as government officials, current and retired, continue to consider what they knew and did during the period of time under investigation, and decide they need to get ahead of the coming FBI interrogations, by volunteering what they know and which they may have previously felt they could safely withhold as the storm blew over.
We should also be on the look-out for infighting among the rats who wish to flee a sinking ship such as former AG Loretta Lynch's contradiction of the Congressional, under-oath, testimony of James Comey concerning her alleged instruction to him to call the FBI's actions relative to HRC and her e-mail a "matter," rather than an "investigation."
Samantha Powers (she of the 300 unmaskings), Susan Rice (she of the post-dated CYA email) and Ben Rhodes (he of the Echo Chamber), among others, will all have some
'splaining to do and I wouldn't be surprised if one or more drop a minor/major bombshell in some obscure interview on NPR. With all the indictments for process crimes coming out of the Mueller Investigation, it will be very fresh in the minds of potential Durham witnesses that trying to dance past one of these investigations by lying is not a smart idea.
To repeat one of my points, the declassification of documents related to the Russia Investigation
has not yet happened and so it is ridiculous to allege it is hurting our intelligence and law enforcement operations or their agents. It is equally ridiculous to assert that it will result in serious damage when released. AG Barr, not Trump will determine what is and isn't declassified, and you would think this would comfort Trump-Haters who know that Trump can't be trusted with our nation's secrets. However, to understand your concern and the concern of all of your friends in the FBI, CIA and MSM, we have to return to the leftwing's premise that anyone and everyone who is associated with Donald Trump and is not actively (in secret or in the open) working against him, has been thoroughly contaminated. One small bite from President Trump and you're a fellow Zombie in search of a brain for breakfast. As previously explained, this, of course, means that Bill Barr has been infected and is a lying villain who will put national security and the lives of American agents in jeopardy to assist Trump in exacting his petty revenge.
Lindsey Graham says he's not worried and why should he be? First of all, he knows Barr can be trusted and secondly he knows what the classified information is and what impact it will have (on intelligence capabilities) if it is released. But then he's a Trump Zombie too!
We have seen this Kabuki Dance play out innumerable times over the last 50 years or so. Every time the FBI, CIA or any of the other intel agencies is asked for information they cite national security concerns or moan about methods and sources and then stonewall the group or person requesting the information. If they are eventually forced to release documents, they are so heavily redacted as to be of no information at all. While I am sure that often, and perhaps even most often, the concerns and need for secrecy are legitimate, we have seen numerous occasions where the information does ultimately come to light and it is revealed that the original concerns of national security were not appropriate, but, instead, the agency was attempting to prevent their own embarrassment. The fact that they are only hiding evidence that might embarrass them rather evidence of wrongdoing does not make the attempt acceptable.
Because secrecy is such an important part of the way these agencies operate they have a tremendous amount of power. The scope of that power and it's potential for abuse makes it essential that the secrecy employed is limited strictly to legitimate purposes. It's a hard call to make and I appreciate reasonable people will disagree, but I support a policy that errs on the side of transparency. Obviously critical national secrets must be protected and can be by the processes in place for disclosure and human lives should always be of paramount importance but protecting someone's career from the consequences of their negligence or malfeasance, preserving budget allocations, and avoiding a public
black-eye for any given agency are never acceptable reasons to hide pertinent facts about official wrongdoing from Americans.
Clapper lied to Congress about the extent of NSA's domestic surveillance. Brennan lied about spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee that conducted oversight of his department. James Comey, if Loretta Lynch is believed, lied to Congress as well. All three are the most obvious targets of Durham's investigation and if they all weren't bleating about that investigation's threat to national security I would be astounded. I am, though, still astounded by how quickly the American Left swept decades of mistrust and condemnation from their memories and rushed to embrace the FBI and our Intel Agencies the minute they realized that they and their corrupt former leaders would be of assistance to them in their battle against Trump. I am equally astounded that anyone could be so disingenuous or flat out stupid to trust anything Clapper, Brennan or Comey says about anything, let alone anything about the Russia Investigation.
Oh, look! Another long response. Oh well.