Schiff and Democratic Leaders Push For IG Investigation Of Bill Barr Over Comments

440px-William_BarrThere  is an interesting fight brewing on the Hill after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler called for the Justice Department inspector general to investigate Attorney General Bill Barr over his comments on the firing of the intelligence community watchdog, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.  What is curious is that Barr justified the firing on the very basis that I previously raised in a blog column, While I was highly critical of the move, I noted that termination would have been justified if Atkinson continued to assert that he would not follow Justice Department interpretations of federal law.  However, President Donald Trump made clear that he fired Atkinson for the worst possible reason: the merits of the Ukrainian allegations reported to Congress.  So Schiff and Nadler are calling for an investigation into Barr over his arguing what would be legitimate grounds for a termination? It is not clear to me what the IG is supposed to do with such a request.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., have also requested a review of Barr’s comments. (For full disclosure, I testified in favor of Barr’s confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee).

I previously wrote that:

“Atkinson was wrong in his interpretation of the complaint failing within the statutory scheme for reporting to Congress. While the inspector general concluded that this allegation fell within the whistleblower law, the Justice Department has a good faith basis to reject his interpretation. That law is intended to address mismanagement, waste, abuse or a danger to public safety by intelligence officials. The president is the ultimate intelligence authority, and there is little support to argue that a discussion between world leaders should be viewed as a subject of this law. After all, any intelligence official could claim that a president undermined national interests in discussions with another world leader. Trump has been denounced, perhaps correctly, for disclosing classified information to foreign figures, but he has total authority to declassify information for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

I believe that Atkinson should have yielded to the legal judgment of the Justice Department on the interpretation of this law.”

I still would not have fired Atkinson so long as he committed to following Justice Department interpretations in the future. I also criticized other terminations following the impeachment, though they were clearly within Trump’s authority.

Barr essentially made the same argument when asked why Atkinson warranted termination for ignoring the interpretation of the Department: “from the vantage point of the Department of Justice, [Atkinson] had interpreted his statute, which is a fairly narrow statute, that gave him jurisdiction over wrongdoing by intelligence people and tried to turn it into a commission to explore anything in the government and immediately reported to Congress without letting the Executive Branch look at it and determine whether there was any problem.”

For that reason, Barr thought that the termination was “the right thing” to do.

Yet, Schiff and Nadler have called upon Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and acting director of the Office of Professional Responsibility Jeffrey Ragsdale, to investigate Barr for “blatantly mischaracteriz[ing]” the basis for Atkinson’s firing.  They claim that “Mr. Barr’s misleading remarks appear to have been aimed at justifying the President’s retaliatory decision to fire Mr. Atkinson.”  That is the basis for an Inspector General’s investigation?  Why would an Attorney General opining on the legal basis for a termination be a violation of federal law or policy?

Barr is right that Atkinson’s termination would be justified on such a basis. He does not claim that this was the only or primary reason for Trump’s decision.  Yet, Feinstein and Warner believe that the IG should investigate an Attorney General if he is viewed as “misstating” facts behind a president’s motivation in firing an official.  Such a standard would allow the IG’s office to regulate all public comments by a president or cabinet member for their accuracy or veracity like a type of fact checking operation.

The call for this investigation undermines the credibility of the otherwise serious work to be done by the Committee. It shows a type of perpetual motion machine of investigations built by the Democrats.  I fail to see why this is a wise political strategy. It is designed to get a brief media hit but also dilutes the impact of real matters that warrant investigation.


235 thoughts on “Schiff and Democratic Leaders Push For IG Investigation Of Bill Barr Over Comments”

  1. Breaking News:

    New Review By Senate Committee Seems To Buttress Mueller Report

    American intelligence officials’ determination that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald J. Trump’s candidacy was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics, according to a key Republican-led Senate review released on Tuesday. The findings undercut longstanding allegations by Mr. Trump and his allies that the officials were biased against him.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee, which conducted the three-year study, had already given the work of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. an interim stamp of approval, but the 158-page report on Tuesday presented new detail about the government’s attempts in 2016 and 2017 to make sense of Russia’s attacks. Much of the report’s contents about the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment were considered highly sensitive and blacked out by the Trump administration.

    “The I.C.A. reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the panel’s chairman. “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”

    The endorsement by Mr. Burr’s committee comes at a key moment for the intelligence agencies. The Trump administration has stepped up its scrutiny of both the agencies’ examination of Russian interference in 2016 and the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation around the same time. Mr. Trump’s conservative allies have long painted the bureau’s inquiry as hopelessly tainted by politics even as independent reviews debunked the notion of an anti-Trump plot.

    “Edited from: “Republican Led Review Backs Intelligence Findings On Russian Interference”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Seth, for my part I never denied Russians fiddled, not that it was all that significant. Yes, there is spying and manipulation of public opinion

      I did deny that Trump’s campaign was “colluding” with them which was also a finding of the Mueller report

      It can also be true at the same time, that some people inside the FBI attempted to misuse the investigation to illegally surveil the Trump campaign, and some people inside FBI and definitely outside, also misused it to smear Trump.

      It’s a long time coming for the NYT to make this basic insight, which even left wingers like the Intercept have made, but, i can see they’re still spinning, and here you are shining their boots as their lackey reprinting it for us, as possibly one of the least important things of this day, which yet did not fail to find their place on your to do list

      1. Kurtz, that’s false.

        “Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.

        “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

        “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

        1. not false, i was just using the same word that the mass media forced on us when captioning the whole shebang. conclusion: insufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, which combined with the constitutional presumption of innocence, means, guess what,

          NO criminal conspiracy

          1. Kurtz– There WAS a criminal conspiracy. It was by Obama and his holdovers in practically every institution of government. Turns out Trump and his team were the only ones in Washington who didn’t conspire with the Russians.

            The Russians didn’t get much for their effort. Trump still won.

            1. Young you may not have seen me elaborate my hypothesis before.

              Major nations such as the US — and Russia– have intelligence agencies that engage in “influence operations” which meddle in campaigns

              The Russian meddling is what we were talking about in this instance.

              The operations were comparatively small and modest at the outset.

              they consisted of a forked attack on both candidates. Not an either or attack; not “helping trump” — but helping both. This is a tactic in chess, the forked attack. I guess not a lot of people play chess anymore so when I say that it’s not helpful. But, on the pro Trump side, a small spend of ads on Facebook targeting Hillary. On the Hillary side, the lying phony pee pee dossier disinformation.

              Now the FBI took the bait of the pee pee dossier and ran with it. That was an unexpectedly good result for the Russians because it set the stage for the next three years of the Meuller investigation and impeacment etc. Time in which Trump was distracted and bedevilled and paying attention to something besides MAGA.

              A more indirect benefit, of greater longer term impact., was the loss of morale among the population about elections.

              The pro Hillary faction was made to feel cheated, It was the Russians! It was too hard to believe that the Deplorable Americans actually turned out the vote.

              The Pro Trump faction was made to feel cheated, from their win. It was too hard to believe that the FBI and the press would be stabbing the duly elected president in the back for three years coming.

              So we feel a loss of confidence in elections

              Which is and has been going way back to the USSR, a specific goal of Russian intelligence operations.

              Big win for them.

              But it never would have worked out so well, without the FBI latching on to the phony dossier. I bet the Russians were overjoyed when that all came to light.

              Really lucky for them especially since who’s supposed to be chasing the real Russian spies around? The FBI of course.

              not Americans just exercising their right to campaign and free speech.

              the Russians got super lucky., I keep hoping people in Washington are smart enough to get this and not get suckered in by disinformation so badly next time. It was bait on the hook to sink the big fish which was major discrediting of the electoral system itself.

              1. Kurtz– Thanks for the analysis. It was helpful.

                I do wonder, if meddling in elections is bad why do Democrats give Obama a pass for blatant meddling in Israeli elections and in Brexit?

                1. Young, try to not be so sloppy with the un-researched right wing drivel.

                  Obama did not meddle in Israeli elections.

                  The State Dept gave a grant for about $350k in 9/13 to a group named One Voice to advocate for a 2 state solution – that has been long standing US policy as well as Netanyahu’s. About $233k was used in Israel and the other $120k in Palestine. The money was spent by 9/14. Netanyahu announced a new election in 12/15. In 1/15 – after those funds were gone and no new ones were granted by the US – the group joined with another to oppose Netanyahu and ex-Obama campaign staff member joined them. He was not paid by either Obama or the US Govt.


                  Obama voiced his opinion on the wisdom of rejecting Brexit. That is not meddling.

                  1. but this brings up a legitimate conversation which is different and I dont want to recommend it except as a question:

                    what are the qualitative differences, between legitimate political leadership openly articulating a policy preference vis a vis other nations, versus covert if not sinister influence operations?

                    just leaving that here as a question.

              2. Kurtz– The Washington Post, Washington Times and Jerusalem Post all had coverge on Obama’s attempts to interfere in Israeli elections. Clinton did it too. The Jerusalem Post credited the interference with helping get Netanyahu reelected because of the resentment Obama raised. Same thing happened with his opposition to Brexit. Resentment of his meddling helped get it passed.

                I suppose it is no surprise that Democrats are hypocrites.

          2. Thanks for correcting that Kurtz. No, the media did not force that Trump has repeated that lie ad infinitum as do his defenders. It’s not true.

            1. Trump’s failure to communicate does not mean that the FBI didn’t get sucked into an illegal surveillance operation, the mass media didn’t take the bait, and the Democrats didnt decide to mount a failure of an impeachment the sum total of which was seriously damaging the nation by over-hyping the interference.

              The whole thing is rather like a basketball game where some spectator throws water on the court, a key player slips and twists his ankle, then the news press’ favored team loses, then after the game the player won’t stop complaining about it, he blames the other team, he blames the officials, he blames the crowd, he blames everyone for losing bsides his own team, and then everyone is so sick of it that people don’t turn out for the next games and the team ends up losing money on the season, not just because somebody tossed water on the court, which was naughty, but because the big-mouthed players would not shut their traps up about it and made a mountain out of a molehill.

              1. Kurtz, if Obama had pulled the Ukrainian extortion stunt , you’d be rightfully outraged and calling for Senate witnesses, you know, just like in every other impeachment in our almost 250 year history.

                “No collusion” is agitprop by design. Don’t kid yourself.

                1. No, i don’t think so. why?

                  I admit that the Ukrainian people are cousins of the Russian people, but not the same people as the Russian people. At present they are also each separate sovereign nations

                  at the same time I recognize that Ukraine is contiguous to the western border of Russia, and it has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries.

                  So the US should not upset the apple cart too much in Ukraine. I do not favor accession of Ukraine to Nato and I didn’t favor the expansion of NATO even as much as it has.

                  I favor military de-confliction with Russia no matter who is president. I liked it that Obama was cautious towards Russia. I never once criticized him for passing on the accession of Crimea to Russia, that was the right choice at the time and we have no realistic problems because of it now.

                  I even went out in public and protested the bombing of Serbia by NATO. But that was a long time ago, when Bill Clinton was president. I have never thought of Russia as a bogeyman not even when it was ruled by the “commies” i object to that general trend which has limped along half-wittedly in America for a long time

      2. Kurtz, maybe ‘you’ didnt deny interference. But Trump sure did. For that reason alone he deserved The Mueller Probe.

        There was a point early in Trump’s presidency when he alone was denying interference while virtually his entire cabinet acknowledged. We should have known then this president was leading us to disaster.

        1. i do recall that trump made some statements that seemed to deny flatly that the russians were doing anything naughty at all. these were off the cuff remarks that i assumed he made unthinkingly and out of frustration

          I don’t think their initial trifling operations affected the outcome–considering that they offered some small help for trump and some small help for hillary– again, a forked strategy at the outset with potential opportunities arising in either direction;

          but i do think their operations were wildly successfulafter the fact, at de-legitimizing elections in America as such, but that was mostly because you guys took the bait and wouldnt stop telling people for three years that Trump was invalid, in so many words.

          an outcome which enflamed both sides of the American electorate.

          a superb outcome for Russian intelligence, on the whole, and totally unexpected that the American mass media would stab an elected leader so hard and so long in the back. but they love the result Im sure

          1. Kurtz, Trump dismissed interference as ‘Fake News’ on numerous occasions. There’s no precedent to compare. We never had a president deny a threat acknowledged by everyone else. To minimize Trump’s denial as a few “off the cuff remarks” is excusing the inexcusable.

            1. Oh I can decide for myself what I will excuse thank you

              like maybe I don’t excuse you for never once here admitting it was a bad thing for FBI agents to mock up false affidavits for the FISA court warrants so they could spy on an election campaign
              …. here let me do some long winded cut and paste like you do:


              “On Friday the FBI lost the first big battle in its war to conceal its actions during the 2016 presidential campaign when the White House declassified and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”) released its four-page memorandum detailing a pattern of abuse of power by the FBI and senior Department of Justice officials.

              The FBI has said the Memo is inaccurate because it doesn’t state all of the relevant facts. Fine. If there is more to see, it should be declassified and disclosed. The Democrats are utterly panicked by the Memo because it clearly undercuts the justification for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign.

              Let’s start at the beginning. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) was enacted to enable U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept written, oral, and every sort of electronic communications by agents of foreign powers (and now terrorist networks) which comprise efforts to commit espionage, sabotage, or terrorism against the U.S. government or its citizens.

              The Act functions, in large part, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”), which approves or disapproves search warrants on the basis of sworn affidavits presented to it, almost always by the FBI, that present probable cause that a person is engaging in intelligence activities against the United States. In the case of a U.S. citizen, the warrant has to show probable cause to believe that the person is the agent of a foreign government or terrorist group and is engaging in criminal conduct.

              The Memo describes four FISC warrant applications against Carter Page, a U.S. citizen and foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Page opened the office of the Merrill, Lynch brokerage in Moscow in about 2004 and lived there for several years. He engaged in deals with Russian energy companies and made the acquaintance of Victor Podobnyy, an attaché in the Russian consulate in New York City.

              The Memo reveals that on four occasions the FBI obtained FISC warrants to surveille Page, but it doesn’t say on what basis the FBI alleged that he was a Russian agent or what criminal activity he was accused of. Knowing Russians or meeting with Russians is not a crime. Even if Page sought information from the Russians damaging to the Clinton candidacy, that action is not criminal conduct.

              What the Memo does reveal is that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified to HPSCI in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant against Page would have been sought from the FISC without the information contained in the “dossier” written by Christopher Steele, supposedly a former British spy, on behalf of the Fusion GPS company. Fusion was paid $160,000 by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins, Coie law firm for the purpose of obtaining derogatory information on then-candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

              Steele was, for a time, an FBI source and fired in October 2016 for violating its procedures against seeking publicity. At that point, the Memo reveals, an independent unit of the FBI concluded that Steele’s reporting was “only minimally corroborated.”

              There were reportedly at least three reporters paid by Fusion to publish stories on the basis of the dossier’s information.

              The Memo says, in blunt terms, that at no time was the FISC told that Fusion was paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, a key fact that would have clearly impugned its validity because it was politically motivated.

              The Memo reveals that Bill Priestap, the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, said that in September 2016, when the investigation commenced, the FBI’s effort to corroborate the information in the dossier was “in its infancy.”

              It also reveals that in September 2016 Christopher Steele told Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” Ohr, according to the Memo, was in contact with Steele both before and after his termination as a source. Ohr’s role in the FISC warrant applications, if any, is not described but his title at DoJ means that whatever information he obtained from Steele can be imputed to the FBI’s knowledge.

              What all that boils down to is that one or more FBI agents swore, under penalty of perjury, to information from Steele’s dossier that was unverified. It remains so until this day.

              Thus, the Memo demonstrates a pattern of abuse of power by the FBI and Justice Department during the 2016 election and extending through Donald Trump’s transition period to the presidency. Again, the FISC was never told of the political motivations of Steele and GPS, information key to the credibility of the FBI’s affidavits and directly relevant to the FISC warrant applications. In literal terms, the FBI’s sworn affidavits were a fraud on the court.

              A Saturday story in the Washington Post claims — on the basis of anonymous sources which must be either in the FBI or the Democrat members of the HPSCI — that the FBI did tell the FISC about the political nature of the warrant applications.

              But one of the authors of the Memo, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, has said that the information in the memo was all taken from materials supplied to the HPSCI by the FBI.

              Because FISC warrants against American citizens have to be renewed every three months, a series of four warrants were issued by the FISC authorizing the surveillance of Page, interception of his communications, and wiretaps of his phones.

              Before such warrant applications can be submitted to the court, they have to be endorsed by either the FBI director or his deputy. After that, they have to be approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

              Then-FBI director James Comey signed three of the Carter FISA warrant applications. One was signed by then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Then-deputy AG Sally Yates, then-acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more of them.

              The fact that those procedures were followed only makes the abuse of power more evident.

              The Memo says that the investigation began with respect to George Papadopoulos, a low-ranking campaign advisor, in July 2016. That investigation evidently was begun on the basis of information received from Steele. (Papadopoulos has pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russia contacts.)

              But the dossier and Steele’s other information, as the FBI knew well, was nothing more than hearsay.

              To add to the problem, the September 23, 2016 warrant application cited a Yahoo News article about Carter’s trip to Moscow in July 2016. In evidentiary terms that’s also hearsay and of absolutely no evidentiary value, though it was evidently cited — in completely circular reasoning — as verification of the dossier information.

              The Memo doesn’t reveal the words used in the FISA warrant applications. If the FBI intended to be honest with the FISA court — which it clearly didn’t — it would have revealed that the dossier was nothing more than a compilation of unverified and politically driven allegations.

              The conclusion we have to draw is that the sworn affidavits supporting FISA warrant applications were false, and probably intentionally so. That would, at least, be a false official statement which is a crime under 18 US Code Section 1001. Each person who endorsed the applications with knowledge of the Clinton campaign and DNC having paid for the dossier’s dirt on Trump and the fact that the FBI hadn’t verified the information in the dossier would also be guilty of that crime.

              Again, what this boils down to is that the FBI used information to get the FISA warrants that it either knew was false or had reason to suspect was false. In essence, the FBI falsified evidence in the warrant applications.

              A couple of analogies come to mind. What if a neighbor you’re feuding with about a fence line wrote a letter to the local police chief accusing you of peddling drugs, and the police chief used that accusation to get a search warrant of your house?

              Or what if you’re a politician and your opponent in the next election accuses you of embezzlement, a hostile reporter writes a story about the accusation, and the FBI got a search warrant to wiretap your telephones, intercept your emails, and search for your bank accounts on the basis of the accusation and the news story?

              Those examples are no different from what the FBI did in the Page FISA warrant applications. Using uninvestigated, unverified information as a basis to violate your Fourth Amendment rights would be, as it was in the case of Page, an abuse of law enforcement powers.

              The FISC almost never denies FBI requests for warrants. As it should it routinely grants surveillance warrants on suspects who have connections to terrorist groups and hostile foreign governments. But the court’s experience here will — and should — make its judges wary of granting warrants on the basis of what the FBI puts before the court. That could endanger American lives and national security.

              The abuse of power by law enforcement and intelligence agencies is one of the greatest dangers to democracy in America. It’s also nothing new. The FBI’s first director, J. Edgar Hoover, built private files on prominent American citizens, reportedly to use them for political blackmail.

              Presidents can abuse power by using those forces against political opponents. Richard Nixon came very close using the IRS for that purpose but was apparently talked out of it by his advisers. The Watergate break-in and cover-up were Nixon’s downfall.

              What the Memo recounts was worse, a far greater abuse of power that was aimed to threaten our system of government.”


              1. Kurtz, I stopped wading through that 2 year old “report” from “The Spectator” – not a reliable news source but a right wing magazine – when it made 2 false or misleading statements, Mueller ‘s investigation was not set up to look into “collusion” and that has been stated clearly by Mueller himself and is obvious if one reads the Mueller report. It looked into criminal conspiracy which it stated it could not establish, but neither did it clear the Trump campaign of since it was not able to fully investigate due to at least detailed instances of obstruction of justice.

                It is true the FSIC was not told that the Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign . It was told that it was paid for by “Candidate One” and in the event that the FISA judges were too dense to discern who that was, they are allowed to ask questions of those presenting applications.

                In any case, perhaps you remember that the Deep State conspirators managed to protect Trump’s campaign from public knowledge of it being investigated while they blew open a reopening of an investigation into Hillary 2 weeks before the vote, a fact which clearly cost her the EC, even though she still won the vote of American citizens.

                How’d that happen?

                1. start with your own last incorrect belief

                  “a fact which clearly cost her the EC,”

                  no Seth actually the thing did not “clearly cost her the EC”

                  it is YOUR BELIEF and conclusion which may be flawed

                  it could have been a thousand other factors. like say, Hillary being a generally unlikable character. or, hillary being associated with mischief in the middle east. or hillary being hated by the far left of the Dem party. or a combination of a thousand such factors.

                  No you “clearly ” believe it was one thing, just one thing that mattered.

                  That’s your own simple minded reductionist ill logic talking, not smart.

                  See, Russians love this. The forked attack keeps on giving.

                  Republicans hate Democrats because feel cheated of the win.

                  And Democrats do too.

                  You got sucked into it man. that’s your side of the bitterness. you just can’t believe that the Republicans could muster the vote for a win. or that your chosen side would not.

                  you still don’t get my point, but I didn’t expect you to do so.

                  I guarantee the very same approach will be taken again. I havent looked at RT in a month but probably obvious. The Russians have leveraged our “freedom” into opportunity.

                  The only way out is to accept elections and not try and overturn them after the fact because it will hurt American system as such, worse than anything.

                  Maybe this is why Nixon didn’t challenge all the fake votes Chicago delivered in favor of JFK? He knew it was a candle not worth the game.

                  An insight that is far from anyone’s mind today

            2. Paint Chips, Trump called Russian interference a hoax not because Russians haven’t interferred in our elections rather Trump had nothing to do with the interference. On the other hand Steele did and was linked to the DNC along with Hillary Clinton. Sometimes a comment can be ambiguous but that doesn’t give you the right to make your libelous accusations when many other comments clear up the ambiguity.

        2. Seth–Trump denied that the Russians interfered on his behalf. He likely knew that they were helping Hillary along with the criminals in the DOJ and FBI.

      3. There was some collusion. Even Bill Barr had to clarify his own position to say there was no “witting collusion”.

        I know you don’t think it’s a big deal, but Trump did retweet divisive propaganda more than once directly from GRU agents and even sent a private message to a GRU agent to thank him for organizing a rally in Florida. What a tool! LOL.

        Unless you think those parts of the Mueller Report were completely fabricated…

        1. You mean they colluded but didn’t know it? Is that the new fallback position?

          1. Good point. That does appear to be the fallback position.

            They never accused Trump of maintaining a private server for secret emails in a spare toilet, or of deleting emails that were subject to an investigation, or of spying on political opponents, or of paying for a false dossier to attack opponents, or of leaving a mountain of dead acquaintances behind him. That’s down to Hillary. And Epstein didn’t kill himself. He just hung out with the wrong folks.

            I notice that Biden hasn’t said he would love to have Hillsry as a running mate. Guess he doesn’t want to kill himself.

  2. Bill Barr was not hired to serve the American people, he was hired to cover up for Trump. Barr cannot cover for Trump if a IG is overseeing things that IG’s are hired to do. Trump and Barr have only one thing they can do, get rid of any oversight. Besides, how dare anyone question the Dear Leader.

    1. Oh FishWings. You are so gullible and lost. Trump is the greatest president We The People have ever had. One day you will see the light.

      1. Anon–Fishwings is blinded by Trump hatred. He will never see anything much less light.

      2. Anon said, “Trump is the greatest president We The People have ever had.”

        Time will tell. Spouting it on JT’s blog, doesn’t make it so.

        Maybe you’re the one who is “gullible and lost.” Maybe you need to “see the light.”

    2. Eric Holder referred to ‘my people’ when he was in office and he was not referring to American citizens as a whole.

      Holder was Racist to the Core.

      1. No kidding. That’s why he and Michelle (giant chip on her shoulder) Obama got along so well. Chip, chip, away…

        1. Very good point. Michelle’s college paper reeked of racism against whites.

  3. SCHIFF, Nadler and DEMS are very upset that their insider was terminated. Atkinson. BARR was right and Barr ill continue to clean house of dirty cops. The Deep State/Adam Schiff loyalist are be shown the door.

    The real problem for Schiff is Barr and Durham’s investigation.

    Also, if The Republican gain control of the House, Schiff goose is cooked and he knws it, for The Republicans will investigate Schiff and also throw him off the committee by refusing to seat him for a leeks.

    Hope Barr throws more anti Trump people out

  4. Typical garbage from today’s Democrat leaders. While they try to destroy the economy and take out Trump they live in luxury and Americans fear for their families and homes.

    1. Allan,

      The Democrats won’t worry about the economy until Pelosi runs out of ice cream.

      They won’t worry about the destruction of the Constitution ever. Their actions say that is their goal.

      1. Says guys who steal SC seats, have no problem with end runs around Congressional power of the purse, only dislike Executive Orders from Obama, and think winning a dysfunctional EC is democracy.

        That Constitution?

        1. Says the incompetent who should go back to school and learn what the Constitution says.

          1. Allan– Yes, the Midget blew it on his discussion of the Constitution. To his credit he doesn’t serm to share Seth’s homophobia or anxiety about his orientation. Completely muddled otherwise.

            1. ” he doesn’t serm to share Seth’s homophobia or anxiety ”

              Young do you think Paint Chips will understand the history behind hysteria and hysterectomy I mentioned earlier?

              1. Allan– Both Paul and I are very familiar with the logging and mining communities of Montana and Idaho.

                I would love to see Seth go there and explain ‘manliness’ to those guys.

                Paul and I would probably arrange to drive him there just so we could watch.

                Maybe they would be laughing so hard they wouldn’t even hurt him. Maybe.

      2. Young, here’s a chance to showcase your lawyer skills. Explain why reopening the economy, before widespread testing is available, wouldn’t result in a second wave of infections.

        1. oh testing won’t stop it either, except just help with tracing etc.

          the question when it comes to reopening the economy becomes one of “how many lives lost to disease” versus “how many lives lost to indirect economic consequences” ….. not just things like unemployment, but even more perplexing consequences like food insecurity due to disease related trouble in production and distribution.

          both of these are complex predictions based on uncertain models. so the tradeoff exercise has no easy answers. this is a “kobayashi maru” test happening in the real world in real time

          1. “Help with tracing” is how you gauge the safety of opening specific locations. There is no excuse for us to not have a coordinated and powerful testing effort in place after this long.

            1. Maybe no excuse but there is an explanation. Not sure what the explanation is yet.

              but we should be looking for it in an even handed way and not with prejudice heading into the assessment. or then it’s just a blame game and not an assessment which can improve public health models going forwards

              Assessments that start with a bias are more likely to be inaccurate in their conclusions.

              explanations also may be more complex than can be digested into clever soundbites and juicy editorials

              but that’s 95% of the information people see, just a whole lot of editorial and news which is not much better than editorial in the first place


              and most of this effort is aimed not at helping fix any problem in particular besides just getting the publishers and ownership of the mass media more pull and profits and whatever it is that’s at the foot of their agenda. the pretense of any genuine concern for the public interest in the privately owned mass media is a sick joke and the worst fantasy surrounding our overly cherished “first amendment”


              the irony of authoritarian systems is that sometimes they produce impressively frank and fast corrective policies and impose them downwards quickly with ease

              here the Chinese government news service proudly informed the world that they had tightened up their lab safety protocols

              back in february


              to help fight against what? oh the danger of accidental pathogen release, among other things. gee what a coincidence. and the CCP assures us their remedial measure had NOTHING to do with the covid, of course.

              but in spite of this self serving caveat, I have to admire the PRC for so quickly and openly addressing what some people in the West can’t seem to imagine might have been part of the COVID problem in the first place


              In America, we can’t seem to scrounge up enough glorified qtips to get the testing done. in the PRC, they would be disappearing and probably shooting incompetent officials in the back of the head if that was the situation there.

              here it will just be continued incompetence and a circle jerk of the blame game which emits one phony story after another. and ten thousand spinners in cyberspace wasting time like us talking about it.

            1. obviously some of the more short sighted politicals do want it to fail because of their blind hatred of trump.

              However I think not only of the arrogant hag Pelosi, or some of the nutters who always see a political angle in every disaster and embrace it with glee.

              I am reminded of the faces of all my Democrat friends and family across my many years. Fellow Americans we know and love, people of good will and compassion. People with heart and wisdom and the ability to work together with “Republicans” or “right wingers” or “conservatives” or “angry white males” etc etc whatever tribalistic names the mass media wants to place upon us. For my part, I’m lucky, I’m certain I’ve had as much help in my life from Democrats as I have from Republicans, and it was a lot coming to me from every corner. Most people aren’t lucky like me, to have such a vast support network of decent and generous people. Whatever small successes I’ve had, are probably a result of somebody’s harder work than my own, and somebody else’s better judgment than my own!

              So I don’t believe every Democrat wants it to fail as badly as it probably will, because some of them are smart enough to know that how bad it is failing and seems to be faiing is a “bipartisan” national disaster that will sweep a lot of our lives into the garbage like a tsunami depending on how bad it gets

              at this point there is no telling how utterly bad it is going to get

              1. Kutrz– I was thinking primarily of the political class including the unions. The UAW just endorsed Biden. I bet their members vote Trump. As for the Democrat politicians, if they cared about their constituents the blacks in their communities wouldn’t be living in such miserable conditions.

            2. When it does, the world will be subsumed by communism and China will hold dominion.

              The “…fundamentally transforming…” of the United States will be complete.

              Obama: Oh Happy Day!!!

              Can you say “collusion” with China?

              The “Wuhan Flu” was the preemptive “first strike” of World War III by China and its allies, the American Communist Party.

        2. Seth– That’s a medical issue. Address your question to Estovir or Karen.

        3. A deficit of ‘testing’ is a secondary problem. The problem is a deficit of personal protective equipment.

        4. My gosh one stupid remark after the other.

          1)Testing doesn’t cure the virus nor does it detect the virus all the times. Additionally the virus can disappear and then potentially reinfect.
          2) We have more than enough tests.
          3) Listen to Brix and how she says so many states didn’t even know they had the equipment or the availability.
          4) If you are still concerned recognize that the opening is slow so less tests would be needed even though more are coming out every day.

  5. this is a nothing story. yesterday the price of oil went to zero. how is this possible?
    read the wall street journal and figure it out

    market event of historic importance

    now a physical barrel is still worth something but the futures contracts were in negative numbers.

    commodities markets breaking.

    deflation and depression on their way

    I have cast the runes and this is what they say to me

    1. I would like to stipulate for the record, that I agree with Mr. Kurtz: this is a nothing story.

      Seth Warner, please record this in the Official JT Blog journal for future reference, and thanks for all the work you do around here. This blog would be absolutely unbearable without you being here to sheriff all the unruly posters trying to inject facts and reality into the discussions.

      1. Kydave: you alternating with other puppets?

        And here you defend puppeteering:

        “unruly posters trying to inject facts and reality into the discussions”.

        No, Dave, those “unruly protesters” are just empty shells to carry cookie-cutter, Trump friendly messages. And almost all the puppets, including ‘you’, are typically angry over Trump imagined grievances.

        1. Are you saying that injecting facts and reality is puppeteering, ’cause that how it reads. If “defending” facts and reality trigger you, I’m afraid there’s not much I can help you with–and especially without knowing which “Anonymous” you are.

          The motive for my post is plainly written in it. As we know, Mr. Warner is the self-appointed sheriff and attendance clerk of these comments sections. I was asking him to please record that I agreed with Mr. Kurtz on a single point in his (Kurtz’s) post.

          What’s your motive? I ask because there’s no substance in your post.

    2. “deflation and depression on their way I have cast the runes and this is what they say to me”

      Kurtz, try buying oil for zero dollars. Then consider why you can’t.

      To help solve the problem look at the futures market and see what oil is selling for in the future. There is a squeeze and that doesn’t represent the marketplace. It represents a quirk in the market. Deflation and depression may occur but the “zero” price for oil has little to do with it.

      If we do not open our markets up then your fears may be realized. That is the hope of Democrats. Don’t let the markets open and let the economy fail. If the Democrats succeed then the hope of many far left Democrats is that Socialism/ Communism will replace our present economic system That is what Peter Paint Chips was hoping for awhile back.

      1. Quoting Trump from his presser yesterday. Nice.

        Good to point out the differences between physical markets and futures markets, but do you know what causes a “squeeze”?

        And do you know why Trump had the devious grin when spoke of it?

        1. Yes, I am familiar with what causes a squeeze in relation to the discussion.

          I don’t read Trump’s mind but I had a facial expression when I first saw the numbers.

      2. i know about comex and backwardation but this is definitely a bigger market even than a quirk

        physical market prices often diverge from the exchange prices, one sees this with bullion often

        there is an oil glut and and a storage problem and the decline in demand is massive, incredible, hard to fathom, but this is a result that signals the magnitude of the disruption at hand is enormous

        the situation is bad

        1. The situation is indeed bad. For better or worse oil markets are leading indicators of sharp economic downturns. Oil crashed in 2007 for instance.

          Not that we need another sign than 20 + million filing for unemployment inside of a couple months. That alone tells us. Economies need people spending money to be anywhere near healthy. Things are beyond bad.

          1. yes and not even long enough for all the rental and mortgage defaults to begin really showing up yet… who knows where that will lead, but, I suspect real estate prices will tank too. its obvious why they’ve opened up the federal reserve MMT fire-hose full bore but will it be enough to keep the hot air balloon inflated enough not to crash in disaster?

            unemployment will climb and I suspect that the disease has injected a new structural problem into employment that just didn’t exist before.

            nobody knows where this will end up

        2. Kurtz, the entire market has been hit by the shutdown here and elsewhere in the world oil included making things bad but the specific ‘zero value of oil’ is more of a quirk.

          1. the physical market price diverges from the comex prices at times with various commodities. that is part of the picture here.

            but it is a lot more than a quirk. it is a huge historic pricing event which is a dark portent of deep problems emerging and bubbling to the surface like the now-cheap “black gold” itself

            4/21 morning WSJ:

            “Oil Takes Historic Dive Below $0”

            after the close tuesday:

            “U.S. Oil Costs Less Than Zero After a Sharp Monday Selloff”


            i will extend the analogy i refered to earlier with bullion. the comex price for silver and the price for physical silver began to diverge more and more several years ago and that effect has endured. it happens with gold too, though less frequently than silver.

            if you have gone into coin shops to get some SAEs or junk silver before Allan and I suspect you have then maybe you know what im talking bout

            it’s an effect that could spell a lot bigger problems for society when happens with a critical commodity like oil which is a component of so much stuff like food not just gasoline– by comparison to gold which has very very few critical uses

            1. “it’s an effect that could spell a lot bigger problems for society”

              Kurtz, the whole market is in turmoil so I wouldn’t pick on the zero pricing as causation. Extend your look to a short time forward where oil is worth more than zero. That is what makes it a quirk plus the fact that somehow I can’t buy it for anywhere near zero.

      3. Alan, dont bother taunting me anymore. Mr Smith doesn’t want me responding to you. Smith apparently thinks you’re too feeble to stand on your two feet. So it’s a waste of time for me to answer you. This will probably be deleted like all my other replies to you.

        1. Re: “taunting”

          Paint Chips, do you not have control over your own body?

          Do you mean your wishing for the failure of the economy to push socialism/ communism is something that shouldn’t be discussed and criticized? Do you mean your insults of entire groups of people is acceptable behavior only to hear you cry when the insults hit you? Do you mean that your falsehoods should remain unchallenged?

          Why are you making more excuses and hiding under someone’s skirt? Since you lie all the time why should I believe anything you say?

        2. Oh, and don’t ever say that Darren is — in theory — a ‘neutral moderator.’

          1. Darren isnt even commenting anymore and seeing how the leftwing trolls have pummeled the blog, Darren likely is doing the bare minimum.

            Check thehill, washington post, and msnbc articles comments sections. they are parroting the same exact verbiage as Bythebook, Seth, Fishwings, etc

            The DNC has descended on the internet comments forums with full force, not that Americans give a rip. FOXNews is their go to source… not CNNLOL


          2. Who can believe anything Paint Chips says?

            If Paint Chips sees deletions of what he should actually be embarrassed about he should also note that entire threads are also removed which means all party’s comments are removed. Peter is an hysteric about everything and if he is at the center of things he should try and think why. He’s a narcissist so he doesn’t realize how dumb he sounds.

            Actually you should be permanently removed as should anyone without a specific alias and a real address.

  6. JT: “I fail to see why this is a wise political strategy. It is designed to get a brief media hit but also dilutes the impact of real matters that warrant investigation.”

    And that’s the point. The reason for these cockamamie investigations(Russia, Ukraine, etc) may be(I say it is) to dilute the impact of real matters that warrant investigation. Perhaps the Dems are actually following a very wise strategy? Hopefully, Durham ends all this.

  7. It would be helpful if our law professor host actually knew the laws and rules of issue he chooses to carry Trump water on. The law which the ICIG operates under requires him to investigate and report any “violation…..mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to the public health and safety” within his authority as the IG of the Intelligence community. He is not limited as the ALiar Barr and JT pretend to classified document disputes though by statute classified information must be involved – and it was. The reason he was fired was because Trump was evening a score and ditching yet another public servant who wouldn’t bow down along with Barr and JT and rightly alerted the Congress – and therefore the country – to the use of our tax dollars by Trump as a bribe to a foreign head to help his re-election. If Obama had done anything remotely like this, these Trump stooges here – and JT’s – heads would explode.

    1. HAHAHAHA: It would be even more helpful if Leftists actually knew the laws and rules of issue (sic) [they choose ] to” harangue Trump over. The ICIG’s charge is to investigate the things you list… …for specifically-defined actors within the intelligence community. The ICIG does not have carte blanche to investigate any US person of their choosing.

      The IC *reports* to the office of the President, and therefore, the office of the President is outside the IC by definition. Atkinson knew, or should have known, this and knowingly, proactively chose to exceed his jurisdiction. Additionally, he willfully ignored the correct determination that the complaint was outside his authority (because the office of the President was the subject of the complaint, and *not* an actor within the IC), and further exposed his disdain for his own office by running to Chairman Schiff like the little snot-nosed twerp tattling on Jimmy, “’cause he didn’t close his eyes during prayer.”

      Just as when the tattling twerp is confronted with the truth that “you wouldn’t have known that if your eyes were closed” has no defense, so too the ICIG. Yes, I know the twerp example does not apply to the ICIG’s actions (although the language certainly does), the resultant lack of defense certainly does..

      “Knew the laws and rules of issue,” indeed.

      1. kydave, the statute does not exempt the President for “violations…..mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to the public health and safety” which he commits, and his behavior was part of an activity involving Intelligence Officials. Here, you can look it up and report if you see such an exemption:

        It is true that our democracy to some extent relies on the assumption that voters are not such sorry judges of character to put a self dealing low life like Trump in office, and in fact they didn’t. The EC did that. Whether he could be criminally prosecuted while in office is a question the DOJ has answered in the negative, but that does not mean he can’t be reported or removed from office. I’m sure you will appreciate these rules if Biden ever tries to pull a similar scum bag deal when he’s in office.

        1. Book, Dave is Crazed Idiot. Crazed Idiot is determined to dominate these threads. And he almost seems to have official backing to field as many puppets as he can write.

          1. But, but, Wait! I thought, per seth and anon, that I was Crazed Idiot! Can’t you make up your minds?

            1. Looking at Seth’s comments is like going through the NYC White Pages…backwards…on glue

        2. Why would I read any further than:
          §3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
          (b) Purpose
          The purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is-

          (1) to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;

          (3) to provide a means for keeping the Director of National Intelligence fully and currently informed about-
          (A) problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and
          (B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions; and

          (4) in the manner prescribed by this section, to ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept similarly informed of-
          (A) significant problems and deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and
          (B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions.

          And I sure don’t see much reason to red beyond
          (g) Authorities
          (2)(A) The Inspector General shall, subject to the limitations in subsection (f), make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and activities within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or desirable.

          So, please tell me how the office of the President is a direct-report of ODNI. Your cart is before you horse, BTB.

          1. (g) (3) (3) The Inspector General is authorized to receive and investigate, pursuant to subsection (h), complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Once such complaint or information has been received from an employee of the intelligence community-….

            (k)(2) (B) The Director shall transmit to the congressional intelligence committees each report under subparagraph (A) within 7 calendar days of receipt of such report, together with such comments as the Director considers appropriate. The Director shall transmit to the committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over a department of the United States Government any portion of each report under subparagraph (A) that involves a problem, abuse, or deficiency related to a component of such department simultaneously with transmission of the report to the congressional intelligence committees….

            3)(A) In the event that-

            ….(iii) a matter requires a report by the Inspector General to the Department of Justice on possible criminal conduct by a current or former official described in clause (ii);

            (iv) the Inspector General receives notice from the Department of Justice declining or approving prosecution of possible criminal conduct of any current or former official described in clause (ii); or

            (v) the Inspector General, after exhausting all possible alternatives, is unable to obtain significant documentary information in the course of an investigation, inspection, audit, or review,

            the Inspector General shall immediately notify, and submit a report to, the congressional intelligence committees on such matter.

            …(6) In accordance with section 535 of title 28, the Inspector General shall expeditiously report to the Attorney General any information, allegation, or complaint received by the Inspector General relating to violations of Federal criminal law that involves 1 a program or operation of an element of the intelligence community, or in the relationships between the elements of the intelligence community, consistent with such guidelines as may be issued by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of such section. A copy of each such report shall be furnished to the Director.

            The IG has responsibilities on reporting violations, including reporting to Congress and the AG, but the AG’s authority over these actions are not enumerated.

            1. Why do you keep posting references that destroy your own stance?

              (g) (3) (3) …within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence…

              POTUS does not answer/report to ODNI, you nitwit.

              (k)(2) (B) The Director shall transmit to the congressional intelligence committees each report…

              ODNI transmits reports, not ICIG personally, just because s/he feels like it.

              You don’t seem to have very many problems typing in English, but can you comprehend it when you read it? The ICIG investigates all matters under the purview of ODNI. POTUS is, by definition, the consumer of ODNI’s products and is in no way, shape, or form its purview.

              How can you manage looking things up on the Google machine and yet be so dense??

              1. The DNI MacGuire was properly notified and in fact was the one who sent the report to Congress.

                1. Sorry to bother you with facts:
                  Aug. 12: Some random guy–who is absolutely NOT named Eric Ciaramella–files a complaint stating that the he dislikes Bad Orange Man ‘s policies
                  Aug. 26: the “Complaint” is forwarded to Maguire
                  Sept. 2: Maguire declined to issue a report on the whistleblower claim (for the same reasons you keep dodging)
                  Sept. 9: Atkinson alerts Congress
                  Sept. 10: Schiff stomps his feet and holds his breath

                  You still haven’t explained why you think POTUS answers to ODNI, thus providing jurisdiction for the ICIG to do anything with the “complaint” beyond dismissing it out of hand.

                  1. I began by stating the plain fact that the President is not exempted from the controlling statute. You were not able to find such an exemption. Unless you think the President does not have to comply with any laws or rules – that would be a different position from saying he cannot be indicted while in office, as the DOJ has stated – of course he is subject to being reported for violations.

                    Why you would advocate such a position is not understandable unless you think Trump will be president for ever.

                    1. It’s not a matter of POTUS being excluded: it’s the fact that s/he is not included to begin with. I haven’t “found” an exemption because there’s no reason for Congress to have written one in the first place.

                      You still haven’t explained why you think POTUS answers to ODNI, thus providing jurisdiction for the ICIG to do anything with the “complaint” beyond dismissing it out of hand

                      Your “President doesn’t have to comply with any laws or rules” straw man is a very clear miss and very near idiotic. The “President forever” one actually is. I know it’s hard for you to admit that you’re wrong about the scope and authority of the ICIG. I know.

                      I also know it must be tough for you to read and understand the words in the USC link you provided: especially the “within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence” part. It has some big, fancy words in it that have never been explained to you.

                      It must be unbearable for you to have been presented with facts about who notified Congress (Atkinson, and not the DNI–counter to the statute). I’m really sorry all those disappointments have happened in a single thread. Why don’t you just stop now, while you’re way behind, instead of continuing the heartache of a fading illusion in the light of shining facts.

                      It’s ok to stop. Really. It’s ok. It won’t lower anyone’s opinion of you. Believe me: it might even encourage folks to think you’re actually sentient if you do.

                    2. kydave is correct and I was wrong. Atkinson notified Congress, not MacGuire.

                      The violation occurred during an activity involving Intelligence personnel. As the President knew, they were listening in on his conversation with Zelensky. Therefore the event met the definition I provided you and the President is not elsewhere exempted. As you note he was not listed in the statute, but then no one is specified as being covered in it.

                    3. From below (we’ve reached our quota of rely levels):
                      BTB – […] The violation occurred during an activity involving Intelligence personnel. As the President knew, they were listening in on his conversation with Zelensky. Therefore the event met the definition I provided you and the President is not elsewhere exempted. As you note he was not listed in the statute, but then no one is specified as being covered in it.

                      1) Thank you for the Atkinson acknowledgment.

                      2) That IC personnel were listening to the call does not invoke the ICIG’s authority over the phone call in and of itself. It is irrelevant whether the President was aware of their monitoring or not. The words and actions of the President are not inside the IC’s bailiwick, therefore the ICIG was the wrong avenue for Mr. NOT-Ciaramella to bring his policy complaints to. In point of fact, the ICIG *should* have responded to Mr. NOT-Ciaramella that he (the ICIG) could not investigate his (NOT-Ciaramella’s) grievances (which was Mr. Maguire’s correct line of reasoning).

                      3) You misread my “note [that the President] was not listed in the statute.” I was referencing the facts in point 2 above: that the statute only authorizes the ICIG to investigate actions alleged to have occurred within the confines of the IC/ODNI–which, as previously explained, by definition can–and does–*not* include the President. Meanwhile, you keep repeating that the President is not excluded from controlling statue, and I keep repeating that the office of the President lies outside of the controlling statute. I believe your error is not seeing the profound distinction.

                      4) You are correct that the controlling statute does not reference any US person by name.

    2. BTB– Okay, Midget, I have to ask: Are you really a sock puppet for Rep. Hank Johnson? Tell us about Guam flipping again.

  8. What you mean is Comrade Schiffless will do anything Comrade Pelosillyni tells him to do no matter how stoooooopid it makes him look.

  9. Schiff says:. “Cali for ya here I come. Right back where I started to come. My rubber has a hole and I’m leaking on the floor.” Yeah on the floor of the Senate.

  10. Meanwhile in this greatest of greatest countries to ever have existed on this planet, the public water system in Flint Michigan is a disaster (or perhaps you like lead with your water?), the unemployment compensation system in Florida is a mess with people unemployed for a month unable to get through on the web system or phone to file a claim. In Idaho, they don’t know how to add in the $600 fed money for unemployment. Washington state thinks fishing alone on a lake or river is dangerous due to the potential COVID-19 transmission (to what? fish?).

    The Rs for the past 30 years want to dismantle our societal system, the Ds talk about how bad it is but when they get a chance to govern, what do they do? Pay bankers bonuses rather than give money to people actually hurt by the bankers illegal actions, Create a health care system that has been tied up in the courts and has set back a truly universal health care system in this country by 20 years at least. The Ds used their authority in the last days of the Obama administration to investigate Trump illegally, I’m still hoping for some indictments on that one.

    Here is the best outcome I hope for in the election later this year. If they are in office, do not vote them back. Thus we get a D president, an R House, and a D senate. 100% new blood. The one bad thing about that is based on the current D nominee, we get another old white guy that may be in the early stages of dementia. Sheeeeeesh.

    The Rs and Ds have failed us. Make America Great Again, vote the bums out.

    1. Joe Biden will never be president. Nor should he be. Not ever. And neither should his likely VP pick, kamala harris. She is the worst. Let’s go Trump 2020.

    2. You cannot say you are “hoping for indictments” on Obama’s illegal spying on Trump and his campaign while also hoping a D gets elected president along with a D senate!! As creepy Joe would say, Come on, man.

  11. We can debate the particulars here but the reality is that Sciff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, continue to attempt to wield power they do not possess. They so continue to press boundaries that any reasonable person would logically conclude they’re doing heavy drugs, particularly so in light of Covid-19, which they have not only politicized but actually weaponized.

  12. As chairman of the intelligence committee, I am wondering what what did Adam Schiff know and when did he know it.

    And Nancy Pelosi is a feckless (insert body part here).

  13. The reality is that Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, continue to attempt to wield power they do not possess. They so continue to press boundaries that any reasonable person would logically conclude they’re doing heavy drugs, particularly so in light of Covid-19, which they have not only politicized but been wholly weaponized.

  14. Atkinson should have been fired months ago. He plainly overstepped his bounds and failed in his role as an IG, which is actually nothing but an inspector. The regulation states that an IG’s opinion is subject to review and approval by higher authority. He took it to the Democrats in Congress, knowing full well he didn’t have the authority to do so. Too much is made of the IG role in the first place. They have powers but only to a degree. As for the Democrats, they have one goal in mind and that is to get Donald Trump out of office. This is plainly a political move to feed more propaganda to Democrats, who are already drinking the Kool-Aid over the Coronavirus. I guarantee you that Democratic governors, judges and mayors are going to prevent a return to normal in their jurisdictions as long as possible. In short, this is politics as usual to the extreme.

  15. Politicize everything. Investigate everything. Decry everything. It’s what you do when you’re flat out of ideas and the things you believe in fervently are utterly corrupt in the Nietzschean sense.

  16. On the other hand, the move by Dems makes perfect sense. Arguably, the set of IGs in the federal government are largely Dem-aligned or Never Trumpers or Deep State. So, if the DoJ IG is “anti-Trump” then he’ll create a narrative that supports the Dem view. Or, if he’s not “anti-Trump” then he’ll support the narrative that Barr and Trump are engaged in a cover-up.

    At any rate, fodder for the Dem propaganda machine clawing for air time: CNN, ABC, MSNBC.

    And the witch hunt beat goes on. And on….

    1. Atkinson had previously distinguished himself as a DOJ prosecutor by convicting Dem Rep Jefferson.
      If Deep State means someone not a Trump stooge, we need more of them.

  17. Trump, throughout his career, has learned how to be awful at his job and go right up to the boundary of illegality while still retaining a degree of deniability. This has obviously carried over into his administration and cabinet on many levels, Barr being one.

    Nothing wrong with investigating the factual reality…, but Trump will be out of office before the investigation comes to fruition.

    1. Anonymous knows how to cast aspersions at Trump being “awful” at his job, and going right up the boundrary of illegallity. He continues with unfounded aspersions against AG Barr.
      It is time to investigate Schiff and the Democrat leaders who have done nothing in the last three and a half years, but lie about facts, create false facts to suit their narrative, and investigate anything and everything that they don’t agree with.
      If they had spent more of their time, doing what they are paid for, perhaps Pres. Trump and his administration could have accomplished even more than they did.
      The leftists, like Anonymous appears to be, have no plans to make America a better place for Americans, they have only one thing in mind and that is getting rid of Trump.
      After that, no plans other than to do what Bernie, AOC, and the squad have been wanting…too dismal to even consider during an epidemic that is destroying us as well.

      1. “…Pres. Trump and his administration could have accomplished even more than they did….”

        Uh, what would that be? Gettting Republicans to pass a tax cut aimed at the richest? Real genius there. Keep a rolling 7 year economy going with slightly lower numbers than Obama? Check. What else? No wall, no health care, no infrastructure, huge trade deficits, exploding debt, wrecked global alliances with fellow democracies, jilted romance with NK, giving Putin back rubs, stabbing the Kurds in the back and almost getting thrown out of Iraq? Have I missed something? This guy has not swung one deal, that which he claims expertise in, unless you think that tax cut was a hard sell to the GOP. Who does a deal with a liar you can’t trust for more than a few hours?

        1. Missed how hard Trump has shafted the farmers. And in the realm of dubious achievement, he’s destroyed tons of environmental protections by executive order.

          1. Trump has Ag. Sec. Perdue come out in his daily dog and pony the other day >> Soybean Oil dives another 100 + points since Friday.

            No one trusts Trump on anything…

            Except for here, anyway.

            1. I would assume that there is a component of demand for soybean oil in biofuel diesel, which is now slackening–

              due to the relative cheapness of petroleum oil which became painfully clear yesterday

              i wouldnt know how much of a component that soybeans into diesel thing is, but i heard it’s more than a little

  18. Since Atkinson abused his discretion and tainted the office, firing him was perfectly appropriate and firing him for the reason stated was appropriate. You’ve continuously repaired to establishmentarian attitudes in lieu of grasping the actual significance of much of what’s gone on.

Comments are closed.