Well, we're back, so this should be relatively normal.
AllahPundit on Why Is John Dean Testifying Before The House About The Mueller Report Today?, Yesterday anyway.
Let me just re-up my theory from Friday of why Nancy Pelosi continues to talk ever tougher about Trump while continually inching away from impeachment
. . .
Here’s GOP Rep. Doug Collins laying into him and the Democrats for this stunt, followed by Dem Rep. Steve Cohen all but admitting that it’s a show.
Allah, later, Matt Gaetz To John Dean: Let’s Face It, You’re Here As A Prop Because Democrats Can’t Impeach Trump
Complete exchange between @Repmattgaetz and @JohnWDean: "Instead of opening the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump…we're here re-opening the impeachment inquiry potentially into Richard Nixon. Sort of playing out our own version of That '70s Show…you're here as a prop." pic.twitter.com/nt14ALnaow— CSPAN (@cspan) June 10, 2019
Ace, Louis Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz Beat Hell Out of John Dean and a link to all 4:37 of it. I haven't been through it.
You want to see Louis Gohmert reading to him a New York Times article identifying John Dean as the man who gave the order to burglarize the Watergate Hotel and who hired the burglars.Switching gears, Chuck Ross at Da Caller reports the DOJ Review Of Trump Surveillance Is ‘Broad In Scope and Multifaceted’
"That's a lie," Dean says.
"Take it up with the New York Times," Gohmert snaps back.
Soon after -- maybe right after, though there's usually a Democrat between Republicans -- Jim Jordan accuses Dean of having advised Lanny Davis and Michael Cohen to withhold Cohen's testimony from Republicans, while sharing it with Democrats.
Then, soon after that, Matt Gaetz drills down on an interesting question -- How much is Dean being paid to do His One Job of accusing Republicans of being Nixon?
And how many Republican presidents has he so accused? He notes that John Dean has made a lucrative "cottage industry" of accusing almost every Republican president of being "worse than Nixon."
Attorney General William Barr’s review of surveillance against the Trump campaign is “broad in scope and multifaceted,” a Justice Department official told Congress on Monday.Ace, Chuck Ross: Barr/DOJ Investigation Into Spying Is "Broad in Scope and Multifaceted;" Will Also Look at Non-State Actors Such as NGOs and... Individuals
. . .
“It is now well established that, in 2016, the U.S. government and others undertook certain intelligence-gathering and investigative steps directed at persons associated with the Trump Campaign,” Boyd wrote Nadler, adding that “there remain open questions relating to the origins of this counter-intelligence investigation and the U.S. and foreign intelligence activities that took place prior to and during that investigation.”
“The Review is broad in scope and multifaceted, and is intended to illuminate open questions regarding the activities of U.S. and foreign intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals,” Boyd wrote.
NGOs? Oooh, I just got a little thrill in my pee-hole!and
Now, I don't think that NGOs means what I hope it means (the Clinton Foundation) but a lad can dream.
Steele was in Clinton's orbit long before the dossier.Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Mark Meadows: FBI Knew ‘Within 60 Days’ That Russia Probe Was ‘Built On A Foundation Of Sand’
Before now, we had the cover story that Fusion GPS hired Steele, with Hillary Clinton unaware of what Fusion was doing in her name. This seems less likely now:
WASHINTON—Former British spy Christopher Steele, author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier bearing his name, was introduced by a key State Department aide to top executives of a firm founded by President Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, according to documents made public on June 10 by Judicial Watch.Did Hillary ask Fusion to hire him to re-write the Blumenthal/Shearer "Dossier" to give it a veneer of credibility?
In multiple email threads included in the documents, Jonathan Winer, then the U.S. Department of State's special coordinator for Libya, acts repeatedly on behalf of Steele, arranging meetings for him with other current and former top U.S. officials, as well as influential consultants and strategists like those at the McLarty firm.
“Within 60 days of them opening the investigation, prior to [Robert] Mueller coming on, the FBI and the [Department of Justice] knew that Christopher Steele was not credible, the dossier was not true, George Papadopoulos was innocent,” Meadows said on Fox News’s “Hannity.”John Sexton at Hot Air, DOJ Reveals Details About AG Barr’s Review Of The Collusion Investigation
“When you look at that foundation, it’s all built on a foundation of sand. That’s going to start to show up soon,” the Republican said.
Finally, the letter also attempts to reassure Chairman Nadler that while AG Barr has been granted the authority to declassify documents, the DOJ considers it of “great importance ” to protect classified information.Capt. Ed at Hot Air, Nadler: Contempt Charges For Barr On Hold After DoJ Agreement. But don't we all hold Nadler in contempt?
As Ed noted last month, Rep. Shiff has already expressed his concern, calling Trump’s granting of this power to AG Barr “un-American.” At the Washington Examiner, Byron York pointed out two weeks ago that we heard similar complaints from Democrats when Trump declassified information that was part of the Nunes memo.
In 2018, Rep. Adam Schiff, of the Intelligence Committee, said the Nunes memo “crosses a dangerous line.” Recently, he said the Barr initiative marks “a new and dangerous phase.”Democrats have a pre-determined objection to revealing the details of this investigation and are in search of a rationale that would justify it. As Assistant AG Boyd’s letter makes clear, they won’t find it in suggestions that AG Barr is about to carelessly reveal sources and methods. They’ll have to come up with another excuse.
In 2018, former Attorney General Eric Holder called the Nunes memo “unheard of” and “dangerous” and “irresponsible.” Recently, he called the Barr initiative “the height of irresponsibility” and “a dangerous precedent.”
Many others echoed Brennan’s and Schiff’s and Holder’s sentiments. The problem is, they were wrong then, and they are likely wrong again now.
Post a Comment