The guy (whose picture is to the left) is under a most vicious attack by Senate Democrats. Attorney General Barr testified for several hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He faced a barrage of professional and personal insults and verbal assaults from Democrat Committee members. The attacks and insults were no surprise at all. It was all a setup. The setup culprit? The Washington Post.
“Mueller complained to Barr about the memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative of the March 24 letter and Barr’s public explanation made it clear: he had NO intent to summarize the Mueller Report at that time — he couldn’t in a simple statement or letter. But Barr wanted to get the Report released publicly ASAP: which he did.
It comes as no surprise that the day before the Attorney General is to testify, the Washington Post would invite reporters to come to their offices to “read” Mueller’s letter. They wouldn’t send reporters away with a copy of the letter! Why? It’s our opinion that The Post editorial staff was thinking ahead about possible prosecution for “leaking” classified documents to the media.
Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s 400+ pages – the “nature and substance” of the report. Barr explained publicly why he COULD NOT in a summary discuss the report — THE REPORT IS TOO LARGE! And to that end, Barr (though he didn’t have to) released the full report just hours after that press statement to the public, as he promised.
This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. Here’s Mueller’s letter:
Dear Attorney General Barr:
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.
Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).
While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of the investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of congressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).
Robert S. Mueller, III
What is the Hoo-Ha From Democrats against Barr?
That question can best be answered by former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy who stated:
“The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.
Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:
‘When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.’
So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.”
A Mueller Question or Two
- Have you heard anyone state who actually wrote the Mueller Report? Certainly, the Special Counsel was involved in its preparation. But there is far too much political angling in it for it to be penned by him. Though as of today I have no evidence to confirm my thoughts on that, the Mueller Report seems eerily similar to the past writings of one of the worst federal prosecutors in U.S. History. Who is that? Andrew Weismann. Weismann is known to be a proverbial bulldog that will do anything to find justification for prosecution and conviction of everyone involved in every case on which he works. Not only does the verbiage and structure of the report reek of his methods, the pre-dawn raids with armed FBI SWAT agents at Manaforte and Roger Stone’s homes were certainly orchestrated by Weismann. Who is he?
- Andrew Weismann, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissmann shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissmann has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weismann was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans. Weismann was hired by Mueller — even with that shady history — to be the “aggressive” investigator/ prosecutor on his team. I guarantee he not only wrote the Mueller Report, but he also penned the Mueller letter we’re discussing today AND leaked it to the Washington Post THE NIGHT BEFORE BARR’S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS! TruthNewsNetwork researchers will NOT rest until we get firm answers to the question: who edited (if not wrote) both the Mueller Report and the final Mueller letter to Barr. Certainly, we will share out findings. I doubt we’ll be able to confirm who leaked it to the Washington Post.
It Gets Wilder!
Do Democrats really care about the truth, facts, and the 2-year, $25 million Mueller Investigation and its findings? That report in its classified and unredacted form that includes ALL that Democrats demanded from Mueller has been in a secure room in the Senate available for any member of Congress to examine in its entirety. There are 535 members of the House and Senate. Do you know how many have gone to that room and read the unredacted report? TWO! AND BOTH WERE REPUBLICANS! Can anyone say, “HYPOCRISY?’
Let’s just face facts: Congressional Democrats have NO regard for anyone who stands in support of this president — it’s that simple. Further, they have no regard for an Attorney General (or a Special Counsel, for that matter) who stands in support, not of a president, but “The Rule of Law.” That was best illustrated in that committee hearing by Hawaii’s U.S. Senator
The Senator from Hawaii illustrated my reasoning for the first sentence of this story today. Further, the 3 Democrat 2020 presidential candidates on the committee did themselves NO favors with their questioning. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) embarrassed the citizens of their respective states with their obviously coordinated drilling of the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I was embarrassed for the citizens of Minnesota, New Jersey, and California. The very carefully coordinated questions asked by those 3 showed how desperate Democrats are to take this president down. And, also, that hearing was another bit of confirmation for what we have stated again and again at TruthNewsNetwork: Congressional Democrats are dead-set on the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
No matter that Special Counsel Mueller found no Russian collusion and no specific grounds of Obstruction of Justice against President Trump. The truth, facts, evidence (or lack of), and the Rule of Law are lost on Senate Democrats.
I am ashamed at what we watched play out on national television as probably the smartest person in the hearing room embarrassed those Leftist Democrats with his answers in which he held close to facts and the Law. Isn’t it ironic that any American citizen — Me — would even have a thought that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would literally bend the truth, ignore facts, demean a career federal attorney now Attorney General simply because he works for Donald Trump — a president that each of those Senators hates?
Our final thoughts today are concise and very simple: It is obvious that Democrats in Congress are certainly headed for House Impeachment proceedings. There is NO doubt they are petrified of a Donald Trump second term as President. But it became very clear in that hearing that Congressional Democrats — at least Senate Democrats — are all-in for getting rid of Attorney General William Barr!
Think about that: he served once before as Attorney General. He is known by thousands of attorneys and judges through the U.S. — especially judges — as one of the top legal minds in U.S. Law. And he is a brilliant Constitutionalist. His record is impeccable. Yet a dozen or so Democrat Senators spent hours on Wednesday saying the vilest things making continual vicious unfounded allegations against Mr. Barr.
How did he respond? He NEVER raises his voice; he NEVER impugned any Senators for their questions, their attitudes, or their reasoning for their vitriolic demeanor during the hearing. I could never be as civil, controlled, and certainly compliant with their questioning under those circumstances.
Donald Trump made a brilliant move by appointing William Barr as Attorney General. And one thing more: certainly you have heard this, “The hen that clucks the loudest is almost always the one that lays the egg?” Based on the limited facts in the public about this AND what America saw and heard in that Senate Judiciary hearing, I would not be surprised if several of those Senators sitting on the Left side of that hearing table are the subject of several of those 70,000+ sealed federal indictments that many are waiting to watch start being executed.
Do you think maybe there was some “hen-clucking” going on in Congress during that hearing?