A talk with Bill Barr about accountability
Nov 9, 2022
Former Attorney General Bill Barr does not mince words about FBI misconduct in its pursuit of candidate, and then president, Donald Trump. “I think the behavior of the leadership of the FBI during 2016 and the first part of 2017 has been catastrophic,” Barr told me in a recent interview. “It harmed the country, it was completely unfair to the president, and it has completely undercut the FBI.”
I asked Barr for a brief description of what the FBI did that was so damaging. How would he characterize it? “Well, in July , before the election, they pounced on the flimsiest pretext, on the idea that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians, which is something the Clinton campaign was trying to whip up,” Barr began. “And they jumped on it. I don’t think there was a predicate for them to do it. And they started this investigation [Crossfire Hurricane] of the campaign.”
“And then they used what they should have known was a deeply flawed document, the so-called Steele dossier, to go and get a FISA application,” Barr continued. “And they ignored exculpatory information prior to the election. But I think the most serious activity happened after the election. … And [then FBI Director James] Comey announced pretentiously to the Congress that he had Trump, the campaign, under investigation.”
Barr, who appointed special counsel John Durham, said that Durham’s investigation has “fleshed out the role that the Clinton campaign played” in the matter, and also “the responsiveness of the FBI to this dirty trick.” Durham, Barr said, has exposed “very troubling behavior by the FBI in essentially trying to explain away information that didn’t fit into their apparently preformed narrative.”
In light of all that, Barr said, “I was hoping that there’d be accountability at the FBI.” But now, after Durham losses in two court cases, Barr does not see accountability ever coming for the bureau in the Russiagate matter. This is from the interview:
YORK: You talked about these acts taken by people at the highest level of the FBI, which really did create, certainly in Trump supporters, a lot of distrust of the FBI, hostility toward the FBI. Do you think there has been any accountability for that?
YORK: Do you think there will be any accountability?
BARR: Accountability in the sense of criminal or civil penalties? No.
YORK: Even reputational damage? Some sort of accountability?
BARR: Well, reputation in this country is largely under the control of the mainstream media, which likes to overlook these kinds of sins. But I think the story will be told, and maybe in a more sober age, people will appreciate how destructive and damaging to the country this was.
The key point Barr made was that criminal investigations require evidence and meticulous process. During the Durham investigation, Trump supporters who hoped to see Comey in an orange jumpsuit were either unaware of, or ignored, the requirements of a criminal investigation. “I tried to explain to people that when you’re going to charge — in order to pursue a government official for a crime when that official is performing their duties and doesn’t do anything that is facially criminal, you need very strong proof of corrupt motives,” Barr said. “And absent that, there wasn’t going to be any case.”
Still, Barr felt the Durham investigation was “essential.” Why? “The real question was how this false narrative got started, and why people doubled down on it after the  election, and when they knew that it really was nonsense. And so, I think [Durham] is getting as much to the bottom of it as anyone could, and I think, ultimately, will write a report, which is what I asked him to do.”
In the end, then, it all comes down to Durham’s report. There won’t be any more trials — two losses is apparently enough. What there will be is a report that Barr hopes will answer the key questions about the FBI’s conduct. But what about the FBI itself? The events of 2016-2017 suggest that it has changed, and not for the better.
“Durham’s case shows that the politicization doesn’t necessarily stop at the top,” Barr said. “Like most institutions in our country, like most agencies in the government, like many professional organizations, press, medical, science, [the FBI is] being slowly politicized. And I think it is ruinous to the country, and the next Republican administration is going to have to clean things out.”
KOMMONSENTSJANE – THE CASE AGAINST WILLIAM BARR
Posted on October 8, 2022 by kommonsentsjane
Looks like the jig is up? Is Obama running to the White House for protection?
John Mark Warren
The Case Against William Barr
If you’re willing to commit treasonous crimes, willing to subvert the election will of an entire citizenry and overthrow their government. Then lying is comparatively effortless. Lying is what you do in your spare time.
In fact, if you’re committing treason, then you’re most definitely lying to achieve the outcome. Otherwise, you’d play it straight, would be honest and obeying the rules like everyone else.
Incidentally, doesn’t the fact treasonous conspirators refuse to obey the rules—thereby considering themselves above the rules, clearly—doesn’t that scream elitism and authoritarianism?
It’s pretty obvious. The horrid scream, that is.
And who is it ignoring the rules, the law, and the US Constitution all the time—not to mention election results, court testimony verifying their crimes, indictments and convictions of their fellow traitors, being routinely caught in their lies and hypocrisy? More to the point, who are these “above the rules” elitists publicly pining for the authoritarianism of “democratic socialism?”
Liberals, of course. Specifically these treasonous traitors of which we speak: Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the FBI, CIA, and DOJ. Caught in espionage and lying to FISA courts, having thereby gauged themselves supreme among the voting plebes, these individuals are clearly done with the whole concept of free-and-fair elections. And their voters, er, subjects, apparently approve of the idea.
81-million record votes for a lemon like Joe Biden?
The traitors rigged and stole the 2020 election, sure. But they didn’t infuse that many votes into the count to win. They relied heavily on their “subjects” to steal the day. And don’t forget, tongue-polishing Obama’s loafers while all this treason was being planned, orchestrated, and executed—Biden, the “president” of the United States, was himself a conspirator, and traitor.
A fellow traitor winding up in power after a coup. How, novel.
In any event, it is clear now, settled. Treason was committed. Clinton thought it was her turn to win in 2016. Obama wanted his communist ambitions for the United States realized, and therefore weaponized his FBI, CIA and the Department of Justice to assist Clinton. And the cabal attempted a treasonous coup not merely to overthrow the government, but to dethrone America’s sovereign monarchy: the voters. Also known as: unworthy plebes.
So, confirmed: all are traitors. Clinton financed the fake Steele dossier. Obama and his federal agents used it to spy on the political opposition, and to subvert an election. The news media helped sell the conspiracy and to cover the crime. And Trump winning in 2016, gasp!, the cabal lost the ability to cover their tracks.
Their crimes exposed, enter former Attorney General William Barr.
Not wanting to affect the upcoming 2020 presidential election, or so he claimed, Barr didn’t have a lot to say regarding his special counsel’s—John Durham—work initially. Now, he seems to have found his voice. He’s a regular Chatty Cathy, in fact, and his communications present a question: is Barr a swamp creature assisting the traitors? Or worse: is he a conspirator and traitor himself?
Barr’s integrity and motivations are only in doubt because his remarks and opinions haven’t been supportive of Donald Trump, which, is perplexing, perhaps revealing, considering what Barr knows.
But, Barr initiated the Durham probe, you say. That’s true.
He set in motion the cabal’s exposure, and their potential capture and punishment! Yes, he did.
So, how can you question Barr’s integrity and loyalty?! You demand.
Fair enough. Let’s review …
After Robert Mueller’s failed Russian collusion investigation, failing for there being no collusion evidence discovered—because there was no evidence to discover, because the whole thing was a treasonous hoax. And after the Department of Justice’s Inspector General investigation into the FBI’s role in the hoax, AG Barr did indeed undertake an administrative review of the matter, which quickly evolved into a criminal investigation. What does this mean exactly?
It means, while “administratively reviewing” the matter, Barr came upon evidence of crime that turned his review into a “criminal investigation.” In other words, and for the benefit of liberal voters: Barr discovered that crimes had been committed. And who were the perpetrators of these crimes?
Well, who were Barr and Durham investigating?
The traitors, of course: Clinton. Obama. The FBI, CIA, and DOJ.
Barr initiated the administrative review, via Durham, in early 2019. Per his preliminary investigation, Durham thought other countries—Britain, Italy—might have information helpful to his investigation. So, Barr took summer trips to both places, opening a channel through which Durham could access the information, which Durham exploited. Shortly after Durham’s return, October 2019, Barr’s administrative review transformed into a criminal investigation. A status advancement that Barr, the US Attorney General, must deem justifiable and ultimately authorize.
It is to say, Barr is the boss. He knew the precise nature of the criminal evidence, and the extent. Thus, the authorization. The nation’s top law enforcement official, in fact, Barr knows everything about the treasonous collusion crime.
When Durham’s investigation is completed, to whom is final report delivered?
The Attorney General of the United States.
Who decides whether or not that report gets released to the American public?
The attorney general—now Merrick Garland.
See now why it was vital to steal the 2020 election with a pandemic and mail-in ballots? The winner selects the attorney general, to whom Special Counsel Durham reports.
In other words, what Durham knows, AG Garland knows—and can manage favorably for those, the traitors, who selected him.
Likewise, what Durham knows, Barr knew from the investigation’s beginnings, and knows now.
To be crystal clear, if redundant, Barr is comprehensively informed about the treasonous collusion crime. An example of that thorough insight and knowledge, Barr drafted this letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in September 2020—just before the November election, incidentally—responding to requests from the committee into the origins of the Russia collusion probe:
“In connection with your committee’s investigation of these matters and ongoing hearings, you have been asking us to accelerate this process and to provide any additional information relating to the reliability of the work of Christopher Steele and the so-called ‘Steele dossier,’ as long as its release would not compromise U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation.
“A footnote in the Inspector General’s report contains information, which up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the Steele dossier. The FBI has declassified the relevant portion of the footnote, number 334, which states that ‘the Primary Sub-source [Igor Danchenko] was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.’
“I have consulted with Mr. Durham, who originally brought this information to my attention in the course of his investigation, and he has informed me that the disclosure of the information will not interfere with his criminal investigation.”
Barr added that he had alerted then Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, to “certain classified information in possession of the intelligence community” which “bears upon the FBI’s knowledge of the reliability of the dossier.”
In other words, the dossier was fake, and the FBI knew it from the start, and all along.
The point here is that Barr knew Danchenko had lied, that Steele had then lied, that the FBI knew both men had lied, and yet not only put both men on the FBI payroll, but continued their Trump surveillance and FISA court renewals, anyway. And why, not so incidentally, would the FBI, a conspirator in all this, remember, put both men on the payroll?
Confidential Human Sources (CHS) of the FBI, the traitors could keep both men concealed and protected, which, of course, was protection for the traitors themselves.
Nevertheless, if the Steele Dossier, the primary evidence used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and later the Trump White House, was a fabrication—in fact, a known fabrication. Then Barr knew the FBI had attempted a treasonous coup against the 45th President of the United States, Trump, at the behest of Clinton and Obama.
There is no other conclusion.
It wasn’t a political dirty trick. The FBI wasn’t duped. Obama didn’t want everything “done by the book.”
It was treasonous plot against not only Donald Trump, but the American people.
Barr knew. He knows now. He knows everything. In fact, Barr publicly affirmed that Trump had been spied on, and essentially that a coup had indeed occurred.
So then, why is Barr not Trump’s biggest, most vociferous defender?
Why, in one breath, is Barr publicly bemoaning a judge’s ruling for a special master regarding the FBI’s unprecedented raid on Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago residence, and thereby undermining Trump’s efforts to expose the treasonous conspiracy that Barr himself knows took place? And in the next breath saying, “It’s hard for me not to conclude it’s a political hit job,” in regard to NY Attorney General, Letitia James’, latest lawsuit against Trump and his family?
Russian collusion wasn’t the mother of all “political hit jobs?”
Barr can’t be found to talk about Durham’s investigation prior the 2020 election. When he does talk, he claims he doesn’t want to threaten the upcoming election’s integrity with details of democrat treason—I say again, with details of democrat treason. Yet Barr has no problem preliminarily opining on the veracity of James’ case. No problem at all.
Of course, Barr would argue capacity. Meaning, his capacity as attorney General prevented him from speaking on certain matters: these details of democrat treason. But, that’s not the excuse he used. It was that he didn’t want the investigation to interfere with the election, which was nonsense. His obligations are to the law and the truth and the American people, not Washington and politics.
How differently would these record setting 81 million voters have voted had they known the details?
Not much, probably. “Subjects” tend to do as their told.
In any event, Barr knows all of the Russian collusion conspirators. He can’t see that these same actors are involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid? He can’t see that the raid—a search for declassified and dooming Russian collusion documents, and other corruption and conspiracy affirming material—is an attempt by the traitors to conceal their crimes and escape justice? He can’t see that the raid is a continuation of their coup, one that he knows, in full and complete detail, occurred?
Being legally and professionally involved and unable to speak about ongoing litigation is understandable. But, the Sussmann trial didn’t take place? The conspiracy-confirming revelations in that trial didn’t occur and weren’t publicized? Of the upcoming Igor Danchenko trial, Durham didn’t just say in a court filing that Danchenko was a known fraud paid by the FBI anyway? All this and so much more that is publicly known about the crime via congressional investigations—Objective Medusa, and federal court testimony. And yet this: “The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it,” is Barr’s opinion regarding the court granting Trump a special master over the Mar-a-Lago raid?
A judge is stepping in to prevent treasonous conspirators from continuing their coup, and Barr, the man who knows every conspirator and every intimate detail about the coup, thinks the traitors should appeal the judge’s ruling?
“[The judge’s ruling] is deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don’t think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don’t see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I don’t think it changes the ball game so much as maybe we’ll have a rain delay for a couple of innings.
“And none of that really relates to the content of documents. It relates to the fact that there were documents there and the fact that they were classified and the fact that they were subpoenaed and never delivered. But they don’t have to show the content, you know, the specific advice given in a memo, for example, in order to prevail in this case. So I think it’s not really going to change the decision.”
Were Barr an honest and honorable man, a man truly devoted to the law and beholden to justice. Were he a patriot interested in the preservation of democracy and the United States, his remarks should be this simple and straightforward:
Well, the whole thing is secondary, in my well-informed opinion. This judge has likely seen the revelations from the Sussmann trial, and is suspicious about the Department of Justice’s and the FBI’s motivations—as well he should be, given my comprehensive knowledge of John Durham’s investigation. Given the overwhelming evidence, there is every reason to question motivation. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, and then rolled the espionage into a coup to undermine his presidency and to ultimately eliminate him—a plot that involved the FBI and DOJ, remember, some of the very same conspirators that managed and executed the raid at Mar-a-Lago. Despite what I myself know about the Russian collusion crime, which is comprehensive, Durham has provided enough trial evidence to warrant suspicion and caution. I’m not the biggest Trump fan, admittedly, but Durham’s trial evidence alone confirms Trump was the target of a political coup. This is now fact, and we should be fixated on the perpetrators of that crime, not Trump. If a special master redirects the focus, terrific.
Barr knows what happened, every detail. Remember that …
Asked about having turned on Trump, Barr said, “That’s the way news is covered these days—as if it’s a sporting event. And you’re either wearing this jersey or that jersey. And the jersey, you know, I think, is specific to the facts and the truth in any individual situation. There are times where people may be conducting legitimate investigations into some of Trump’s actions, but this [the NY Attorney General’s fraud case] isn’t one of them. It is simply true that there are a lot of long-knives out for him, and people tend to go after Trump, target him unfairly, apply different standards of justice. And when that happens, I think it has to be called out.”
“Has to be called out,” Barr Says. Like, a treasonous plot and its traitors must be called out?
And these “facts and truths in any individual situation” of which he speaks. Where are they in regards to the plot and traitors, now exposed in federal court testimony, no less? Why isn’t Barr highlighting that information in his television performances and “calling out” the traitors?” And these countless “investigations into some of Trump’s actions,” which of them proved legitimate?
How many? Not a single one.
And is Barr, the most comprehensively informed person on the treasonous plot, helping the citizens of the United States to connect the dots and understand?
So then, these “long knives” out for Trump. Is Barr wielding one of them?
The evidence to affirm seems more than circumstantial.
If you aren’t helping to expose the crime, one you know full-well occurred, no less. Then you’re helping to cover it up.
And in that case, well, you’re a traitor, too.
The prosecution rests.
All Rights Reserved
JMWs latest: New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside.
Is this talk with Byron York just more cover up?