Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees

[Albwan]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:28 AM, John Adams said:

 

I was wondering how you guys would be spinning this! 

 

"The swamp won this round" is a fantastic way to go. You guys were saying Rosenstein, Strzrok, and a myriad of others would be behind bars, treason would be clear to America, the DS "war" would be known, etc. 

 

Wah wah waaaaaaah

 

Same deal with your moron liberal cronies saying Trump is going to prison. 

.....nothing burger.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Albwan

[B-Man]

THEY ALWAYS SHOW YOU WHAT THEY’RE AFRAID OF:  

 

The Left’s Revealing Overreaction to Attorney General Barr’s Landmark Speech.

 

 

 

..

[3rdnlng]

38 minutes ago, B-Man said:

THEY ALWAYS SHOW YOU WHAT THEY’RE AFRAID OF:  

 

The Left’s Revealing Overreaction to Attorney General Barr’s Landmark Speech.

 

 

 

..

From your link:

 

But Barr’s real crime in his November speech was detailing the damage being done to the Constitution by Congress and the courts usurping presidential authority. 

The American presidency, Barr said, is “one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution.” It has been “one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people.” The “steady encroachment on presidential authority” has “substantially weakened the functioning of the executive branch, to the detriment of the nation.”

Many historians mistakenly believe the American Revolution was a rebellion against “monarchical tyranny” and that the Founders wanted a weak executive. By that time, though, the British Parliament had “effectively neutered” the monarchy.  In fact, as Barr explained, the Founders understood that their “prime antagonist was an overweening” legislature, a view strengthened by a weak executive during the American Revolution as well as under the Articles of Confederation.

Thus, said Barr, the Founders wanted a strong executive who could “act with energy, consistency, and decisiveness.” As Thomas Jefferson put it, for “the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary.” And so we have the constitutional doctrine of the unitary executive.

Barr pointed out that one of the “more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is the breathless attacks” on the unitary executive as if this doctrine is something new that justifies “executive power of sweeping scope.” But this is also wrong.  

Not only isn’t the unitary executive a new idea, but rather than pertaining to “the breadth of presidential power,” it simply means that that the powers  of the executive branch, whatever they are, “must be exercised under the president’s supervision.” 

Thus, when Congress encroaches on the authority of the executive branch by vesting the “power to enforce the law in someone beyond the control of the president, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the president.” So much, says Barr, “for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.”

Barr is deeply concerned that “there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority” that damages the ability of the president to carry out his constitutional duties and to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people. With Trump’s election, his opponents launched what Barr called “The Resistance,” an explicit strategy to use “every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his administration.”  

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

48 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

But Barr’s real crime in his November speech was detailing the damage being done to the Constitution by Congress and the courts usurping presidential authority. 

The American presidency, Barr said, is “one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution.” It has been “one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people.” The “steady encroachment on presidential authority” has “substantially weakened the functioning of the executive branch, to the detriment of the nation.”

Many historians mistakenly believe the American Revolution was a rebellion against “monarchical tyranny” and that the Founders wanted a weak executive. By that time, though, the British Parliament had “effectively neutered” the monarchy.  In fact, as Barr explained, the Founders understood that their “prime antagonist was an overweening” legislature, a view strengthened by a weak executive during the American Revolution as well as under the Articles of Confederation.

Thus, said Barr, the Founders wanted a strong executive who could “act with energy, consistency, and decisiveness.” As Thomas Jefferson put it, for “the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary.” And so we have the constitutional doctrine of the unitary executive.

Barr pointed out that one of the “more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is the breathless attacks” on the unitary executive as if this doctrine is something new that justifies “executive power of sweeping scope.” But this is also wrong.  

Not only isn’t the unitary executive a new idea, but rather than pertaining to “the breadth of presidential power,” it simply means that that the powers  of the executive branch, whatever they are, “must be exercised under the president’s supervision.” 

Thus, when Congress encroaches on the authority of the executive branch by vesting the “power to enforce the law in someone beyond the control of the president, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the president.” So much, says Barr, “for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.”

Barr is deeply concerned that “there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority” that damages the ability of the president to carry out his constitutional duties and to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people. With Trump’s election, his opponents launched what Barr called “The Resistance,” an explicit strategy to use “every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his administration.”  

 

 

 

...thanks for sharing......did not read his speech before, but AG Barr is dead on and hope he delivers.......these attacks on the Executive, the Executive Branch, the Constitution, Electoral College, the Republic, the Rule of Law, societal civility, humility and respect, etc ALL have to root cause to the 2016 election results, as in "we lost....BUT...not yet"......the Dems launched "win at ANY cost regardless of damage we may cause or more appropriately intend to do to this country"....sure as hell hope Barr delivers.....

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...thanks for sharing......did not read his speech before, but AG Barr is dead on and hope he delivers.......these attacks on the Executive, the Executive Branch, the Constitution, Electoral College, the Republic, the Rule of Law, societal civility, humility and respect, etc ALL have to root cause to the 2016 election results, as in "we lost....BUT...not yet"......the Dems launched "win at ANY cost regardless of damage we may cause or more appropriately intend to do to this country"....sure as hell hope Barr delivers.....

B-Man posted the link. I just CP'd a trailer.

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/mizdonna/status/1199046360026230784

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/mizdonna/status/1199046360026230784

 

 

And the rebuttal will be "They had to be handled differently, because of the very sensitive nature of investigating a presidential candidate cooperating with Russia.  We had to bypass the normal approval process and have these approved at a very high level because of how they impacted the very fabric of our electoral process."  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[John Adams]

On 11/25/2019 at 11:56 AM, Albwan said:

Same deal with your moron liberal cronies saying Trump is going to prison. 

.....nothing burger.

 

 

 

Except...I've been saying the impeachment is dumb from the beginning. 

 

Try not be one of the PPP lemmings. 

On 11/25/2019 at 1:58 PM, 3rdnlng said:

From your link:

 

But Barr’s real crime in his November speech was detailing the damage being done to the Constitution by Congress and the courts usurping presidential authority. 

The American presidency, Barr said, is “one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution.” It has been “one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people.” The “steady encroachment on presidential authority” has “substantially weakened the functioning of the executive branch, to the detriment of the nation.”

Many historians mistakenly believe the American Revolution was a rebellion against “monarchical tyranny” and that the Founders wanted a weak executive. By that time, though, the British Parliament had “effectively neutered” the monarchy.  In fact, as Barr explained, the Founders understood that their “prime antagonist was an overweening” legislature, a view strengthened by a weak executive during the American Revolution as well as under the Articles of Confederation.

Thus, said Barr, the Founders wanted a strong executive who could “act with energy, consistency, and decisiveness.” As Thomas Jefferson put it, for “the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary.” And so we have the constitutional doctrine of the unitary executive.

Barr pointed out that one of the “more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is the breathless attacks” on the unitary executive as if this doctrine is something new that justifies “executive power of sweeping scope.” But this is also wrong.  

Not only isn’t the unitary executive a new idea, but rather than pertaining to “the breadth of presidential power,” it simply means that that the powers  of the executive branch, whatever they are, “must be exercised under the president’s supervision.” 

Thus, when Congress encroaches on the authority of the executive branch by vesting the “power to enforce the law in someone beyond the control of the president, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the president.” So much, says Barr, “for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.”

Barr is deeply concerned that “there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority” that damages the ability of the president to carry out his constitutional duties and to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people. With Trump’s election, his opponents launched what Barr called “The Resistance,” an explicit strategy to use “every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his administration.”  

 

 

Congress should do its job and take back its rightful power from the executive, which (not who) has taken over legislation in the US. 

 

I'm a lot less concerned with Congress stepping on the President's toes than the opposite. And no, it doesn't matter who is sitting where. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Except...I've been saying the impeachment is dumb from the beginning. 

 

Try not be one of the PPP lemmings. 

 

Congress should do its job and take back its rightful power from the executive, which (not who) has taken over legislation in the US. 

 

I'm a lot less concerned with Congress stepping on the President's toes than the opposite. And no, it doesn't matter who is sitting where. 

i'm sorry but... didn't Congress essentially abdicate it's rightful powers to the Executive branch?

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Except...I've been saying the impeachment is dumb from the beginning. 

 

Try not be one of the PPP lemmings. 

 

Congress should do its job and take back its rightful power from the executive, which (not who) has taken over legislation in the US. 

 

I'm a lot less concerned with Congress stepping on the President's toes than the opposite. And no, it doesn't matter who is sitting where. 

Why include that?

[John Adams]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i'm sorry but... didn't Congress essentially abdicate it's rightful powers to the Executive branch?

 

Congress's inability to legislate does not equate to re-writing the Constitution. 

 

Where are my originalist/textualists? There's nothing in Article 2 about the Executive being allowed to legislate when Congress sucks. 

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Why include that?

 

Because it's a series of presidents that have done this, not one individual...so I was referring to the office and thus chose the word "which."

 

 

[B-Man]

SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES TO THINK WE’RE STUPID

In The Plot Against the President, Lee Smith makes the case that the New York Times and the Washington Post have turned themselves into arms of the Resistance to the Trump administration that manifested in the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign undertaken by the FBI. The FISA warrant taken out on Carter Page by the FBI in October 2016 constituted a key element of the investigation. The warrant was based in substantial part on the patently absurd Steele Dossier; that warrant in particular is the subject of the Department of Justice Inspector General report to be released on December 9 by Michael Horowitz.

 

Leaks emanating from the subjects of the pending report have formed the basis of a few stories offering a preview. This is all preparation of the battlespace by the Comey brigade and its media adjunct. The Timesman Adam Goldman is prominent among the members of this media adjunct. Thus we now have Goldman’s New York Times preview of the IG report in “Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying.” Subhead: “The F.B.I. never tried to place undercover agents or informants inside the Trump campaign, a highly anticipated inspector general’s report is expected to find.”

 

They think we’re stupid. We shall see whether “they” include Michael Horowitz. Undercover Huber responds concisely to Goldman’s story in the tweets below.

 

The spin that FBI/DOJ didn’t investigate the “Trump campaign” - just the campaign chairman, it’s highest ranking military advisor and two foreign policy advisors - deserves at least some credit for being audacious

 

Ignoring the spin:
—FBI used informants against Trump campaign advisors (obvs)

—FBI failed to include in FISA apps potentially exculpatory statement by PapaD said to Halper

—Mifud is now a “Russian intermediary”, not agent
—Steele dossier did not match his sources

 

This better be NYT spin & not the nature of the report itself, because nobody asked whether FBI “inserted” spies into the campaign, that doesn’t need to be “debunked” - the question is whether FBI spied on the campaign and had a predicate to do so. If not, that’s not a “mistake”

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/somebody-up-there-likes-to-think-were-stupid.php

[Deranged Rhino]

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES TO THINK WE’RE STUPID

In The Plot Against the President, Lee Smith makes the case that the New York Times and the Washington Post have turned themselves into arms of the Resistance to the Trump administration that manifested in the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign undertaken by the FBI. The FISA warrant taken out on Carter Page by the FBI in October 2016 constituted a key element of the investigation. The warrant was based in substantial part on the patently absurd Steele Dossier; that warrant in particular is the subject of the Department of Justice Inspector General report to be released on December 9 by Michael Horowitz.

 

Leaks emanating from the subjects of the pending report have formed the basis of a few stories offering a preview. This is all preparation of the battlespace by the Comey brigade and its media adjunct. The Timesman Adam Goldman is prominent among the members of this media adjunct. Thus we now have Goldman’s New York Times preview of the IG report in “Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying.” Subhead: “The F.B.I. never tried to place undercover agents or informants inside the Trump campaign, a highly anticipated inspector general’s report is expected to find.”

 

They think we’re stupid. We shall see whether “they” include Michael Horowitz. Undercover Huber responds concisely to Goldman’s story in the tweets below.

 

The spin that FBI/DOJ didn’t investigate the “Trump campaign” - just the campaign chairman, it’s highest ranking military advisor and two foreign policy advisors - deserves at least some credit for being audacious

 

Ignoring the spin:
—FBI used informants against Trump campaign advisors (obvs)

—FBI failed to include in FISA apps potentially exculpatory statement by PapaD said to Halper

—Mifud is now a “Russian intermediary”, not agent
—Steele dossier did not match his sources

 

This better be NYT spin & not the nature of the report itself, because nobody asked whether FBI “inserted” spies into the campaign, that doesn’t need to be “debunked” - the question is whether FBI spied on the campaign and had a predicate to do so. If not, that’s not a “mistake”

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/somebody-up-there-likes-to-think-were-stupid.php

 

I can't recommend his book enough -- it's very well done.

[Deranged Rhino]

The (Criminal) probe keeps expanding...
 

But the NYT swears Horowitz is going to disprove it all. 
 

Fake news gonna fake. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1200195164234551296

 

 

[snafu]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

But the NYT swears Horowitz is going to disprove it all. 

 

I actually give a 40% chance of this being true.  And a 75% chance of the report being so neutral that nothing comes of it.

I’ll be happy to be wrong about this. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by snafu

[Deranged Rhino]

28 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I actually give a 40% chance of this being true.  And a 75% chance of the report being so neutral that nothing comes of it.

I’ll be happy to be wrong about this. 

 

 

 

 

I’ve long said, to you and others, that your expectation is the most sane and rational just going off past history. No question. 
 

But this spin on the Horowitz report is not journalism. It’s information warfare tactics and narrative framing 101. It is focused solely on the OIG, whose scope is limited (which is not a deflection, but a reality) while omitting the other agencies involved who do not fall under Horowitz’s purview. Horowitz may rightfully say “the FBI did not spy on Trump’s campaign” — because it was the CIA and foreign assets (Britain, Australia, New Zealand et al) who did that at the behest of the fusion team running the Trump “investigation”.  
 

If they lead with that, while omitting the other side (which they will, because the NYT has motive to lie and cover this up considering their role and how they benefited from it), it allows them to gaslight millions who think Horowitz is the end of the line. 
 

He’s not. Not since Durham went public over three months ago now. 
 

And if Durham’s probe is expanding to State and DoD, it’s not because “Horowitz disproved the spying theory”. 
 

 

[keepthefaith]

54 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I actually give a 40% chance of this being true.  And a 75% chance of the report being so neutral that nothing comes of it.

I’ll be happy to be wrong about this. 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree the report will be somewhat neutral because this is so politically charged and Horowitz being a democrat will likely cause him to be somewhat sympathetic to the swamp.  I don't believe there is anyone that in this role and in this matter that can completely park their political leanings and act without any bias. 

[3rdnlng]

30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I’ve long said, to you and others, that your expectation is the most sane and rational just going off past history. No question. 
 

But this spin on the Horowitz report is not journalism. It’s information warfare tactics and narrative framing 101. It is focused solely on the OIG, whose scope is limited (which is not a deflection, but a reality) while omitting the other agencies involved who do not fall under Horowitz’s purview. Horowitz may rightfully say “the FBI did not spy on Trump’s campaign” — because it was the CIA and foreign assets (Britain, Australia, New Zealand et al) who did that at the behest of the fusion team running the Trump “investigation”.  
 

If they lead with that, while omitting the other side (which they will, because the NYT has motive to lie and cover this up considering their role and how they benefited from it), it allows them to gaslight millions who think Horowitz is the end of the line. 
 

He’s not. Not since Durham went public over three months ago now. 
 

And if Durham’s probe is expanding to State and DoD, it’s not because “Horowitz disproved the spying theory”. 
 

 

My homepage is MSN (only to provide me with "information" I might not otherwise see). The NYT article came across as "BREAKING NEWS". I was immediately suspicious of the headline that claimed that the FBI didn't infiltrate the Trump campaign. My thoughts were: "WTF said they did?" Other people picked up on this and I think a reference to the article was posted in 4 different threads. Some used it as a justification for downplaying all of the investigations.

 

This just goes to show how people not knowledgeable about what's been going on are so easily fooled by the disinformation that the MSM puts out there favoring the Left and Deep State. Yes, people like Tiberius and Gary Busey are so weak minded that they fall for such a charade and then try to use it to argue points here.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1200401982990749696
 

The rub, because the investigatory team was a fusion team (CIA/FBI/NSA), Halper was likely sourced through DoD/Brennan/CIA. It’s semantics.