What could this possibly mean?For those of you not yet bored with all this, Justine Coleman on da Hill, Barr rejects key finding in report on Russia probe: report, CNN, Barr saying inspector general report won't be the last word on FBI Russia probe. Why? Allah Pundit may have the answer, NYT Source: Durham Has Evidence That Challenges IG’s Conclusion That FBI Had Sufficient Basis To Launch Russiagate Probe
Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.Frankly, I am so bored with this witch-hunt that until something actually happens — not this “sources say” stuff — I’m content to ignore it. Do Democrats really intend to go through an impeachment proceeding less than a year before the next election? Crazy times . . .
The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.
Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding that the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said. . . .
I was worried that the upcoming IG report might finally settle the public debate over the DOJ’s Russia investigation. Glad to see that this clusterfark looks like it’ll not only continue but possibly intensify, with top lawyers at the Department at each other’s throats over whether to side with inspector general Michael Horowitz or prosecutor John Durham.Ace, WaPo: Horowitz Report Will Say... That FBI Acted Properly In Opening Criminal Investigation Into Trump
And Barr disputes this finding.WaT, Justice Department knocks Washington Post article on IG report, cautions against speculation "While not directly disputing The Post story, a Justice Department spokeswoman urged the public to wait until Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions are revealed on December 9."
Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department's inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report -- that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.Womp womp, I guess.
The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.
Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz's rationale for concluding that the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said.
we Judicial Watch just catch the Obama administration colluding with the Russians for political gain? Judicial Watch: Documents Reveal Obama State Department Official in Contact with Russian Embassy ‘Political Chief’ One Month Before Trump Inauguration and Chuck Ross at Da Caller John Podesta Set Up Fundraising Meetings For Fusion GPS After Trump’s Election Victory.
At the Peacock, Newly released documents shed light on Mueller-Trump meeting, "Trump has claimed Mueller applied to be FBI director and was "turned down." But the documents don't back up the president's version of events." But the President was there, and the documents were not, and were likely created by Deep State leftovers.
From Front Page, Not the Deep State, the Deep Industry "Why Beltway government workers are at the center of the impeachment crisis."
A recent Rasmussen/Heartland poll found that government workers were more likely to vote for socialist candidates and gun control. While only a quarter of Americans were willing to vote for a socialist candidate, a third of government employees were happy to do so.A thread unrolled, Harold Finch” Sifts Through the Desperate Legacy Media Spin Campaign
That’s not a shocker.
62% of federal workers voted for Hillary Clinton. In October of that election year, Trump’s unfavorable rating among federal employees stood at 68%. Only 38% of federal employees who supported Trump did so fully rather than as a better alternative to Hillary Clinton. This did not bode well for his first year.
President Trump’s 100 days approval rating was at 42%. His rating among government employees was 37%. There was a stark divide there with government employees outside the Beltway giving Trump a 40% rating, close to the national number, while among Beltwayers, Trump was favorably rated by 29%.
Even among Republican government workers nationwide, Trump’s high 78% approval rating was lower than the 86% national Gallup number among Republicans, indicating that Republican government workers were less likely to support the President of the United States than Republicans were nationally.
67% of Beltway government workers disapproved of Trump, compared to 56% of government workers nationally. While government workers nationwide split on the Muslim terror nation travel ban, Beltwayers opposed it 57% to 43%. But where the Beltway crowd and non-Beltway government workers split at their sharpest was on Trump’s push to cut two regulations for every new regulation.
While 39% of government workers supported it and 42% opposed it, 53% of Beltway government workers opposed it, while only 32% supported it. Why? A majority of government workers nationwide agreed that there were too many government regulations. But a majority of Beltwayers insisted that there was just the right amount of regulation. And this is at the heart of the political and cultural split.
It’s not just about ideology, but power. Beltway government workers were far more likely to believe (66%) that President Trump did not respect them. Only 53% of government workers nationwide shared that same notion. This was less about Trump respecting their persons than respecting their power.
Tiana Lowe at WaEx, Lisa Page is not your heroThread - “Harold Finch” Sifts Through the Desperate Legacy Media Spin Campaign— "Beat Army!" Stu Cvrk (@STUinSD) December 2, 2019
1. What to make of the first of likely many leaks from the forthcoming DoJ OIG report on FISA abuse that will reported be released on 9 December?
Page may think that her exchange with Strzok, which included the notion that they would "stop" Trump's election, was not "too political." The inspector general thinks differently.Althouse, I'm enjoying this Twitter spat between Greg Gutfeld and Molly Jong-Fast (the journalist/daughter of Erica Jong who got the big scoop interview of Lisa Page).
"We found that the conduct of these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI," the inspector general wrote in 2018 of Page and pals. "Moreover, the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence. We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations."
So naturally, Jong-Fast chooses to overlook the actual reason Page ever became a household name. In Jong-Fast's telling, Page is just another public servant such as Fiona Hill, a Trump appointee of unimpeachable character, or Marie Yovanovitch, a consummate career diplomat who was undermined by a president. Think of Page as anything but what she really is — an unelected bureaucrat seeking, from behind the levers of power, to undermine a private citizen running for president. In other words, in a world filled with men and women of honor who have taken Trump to task, the Left is choosing to extol Page, someone whose actions destroyed public trust in her agency and helped create the modern mythos of the "deep state"
We talked about the interview yesterday, here. I didn't think there was anything in it worth reading. I just was fascinated by Page's calling attention to Trump's imitation of her boyfriend's orgasm. So I'm inclined to believe Gutfeld's "You’re the recipient of media welfare and the drooling posts after your 'scoop' prove it."
And while I'm here and talking about the attention given to the imitation orgasm, let me show you this other tweet from Jong-Fast:
Honestly, I’ve watched that clip a bunch of times and I think at this point it’s done some psychological damage. https://t.co/ZGJVtGngjW— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) December 3, 2019
We'd have all forgotten Trump's fake orgasm if Page and Jong-Fast hadn't dug it up and thrust it in our face yesterday. Take some responsibility.
And I think there are quite a few of us who remember having kids who suddenly needed explanations about Bill Clinton having oral sex in the White House.
But the news is the news. Keep your children away from all the news if knowing about the world as it is seems more damaging than protecting them from reality. There are so many things in the news that could hurt a youngster. Hearing a hard-breathing "I love you, I love you" from Trump is close to nothing unless the parent chooses to go graphic about it and explain what adults know. Why couldn't you just say "Oh, he's being silly and exaggerating how these 2 people were so in love with each other"?