Trump Buffer Vows to Work to Diminish Effectiveness of the FBI

Trump Buffer Vows to Work to Diminish Effectiveness of the FBI April 10, 2019

Bought and paid for, partisan to his very core.

Well, I had a very small hope in the beginning that William Barr wouldn’t be the Trump-loyal hack that many feared. What we know for a certainty is that there would be no William Barr as our attorney general today, were it not for a hyper-critical opinion piece he authored that slammed Robert Mueller’s work on the Russia probe.

Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey for loyalty.

Trump repeatedly excoriated former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not protecting him from the Russia probe.

For the last two years, President Trump has wailed and ranted about the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the possibility that he, or members of his campaign team were at least on some level, complicit in a foreign attack on our republic. He has acted exactly like a man with the long shadow of imprisonment looming over his future.

He acted desperate.

Why wouldn’t he actively work to get someone in place to be his puppet, rather than a servant of the law and the nation?

Ultimately, there was nothing (to our knowledge) in the final Mueller report that leapt out. That doesn’t mean there was nothing there, and no matter what Trump and his sycophants say, he was not “completely exonerated.”

As a matter of fact, Judge Andrew Napolitano, the legal analyst for American Pravda (also known as Fox News), took it a step further on Wednesday morning, suggesting that not only is there nothing in Mueller’s report, or William Barr’s 3 to 4 page summary, that plainly states Donald Trump is exonerated.

“I have argued for a couple of weeks that the Barr summary, the four-page attorney general summary, did not say no evidence of conspiracy,” Napolitano said on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom.”

“It did not say no evidence of obstruction. It said not enough evidence to establish the crime. Establish is lawyer-speak for prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Napolitano added that “there must be some evidence of something” in the report on Mueller’s investigation.

“If there was no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever then the attorney general would have said that in his four-page summary and he didn’t,” he said.

This wasn’t the first time Napolitano has cautioned Trump-loving revelers to slow their roll.

“In the 700-page summary of the 2 million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice,” he said in March. “Just not enough evidence.”

He’s right, and given Trump’s continued hysterics about the probe, it becomes quite clear that he’s worried about what could have emerged.

But let’s get back to William Barr.

Barr gave testimony before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department on Wednesday. During that time, he fielded questions from Senator Jeanne Shaheen, (D-N.H), in regards to news that he was putting together a team to examine the FBI and why they opened a counter-intelligence inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It’s not as if someone isn’t already on top of this, because they are. The Office of Inspector General is already working on it. Unfortunately, the inspector general isn’t a Trump stooge, so he can’t be trusted to come up with what the administration needs him to come up with.

In his answer to Senator Shaheen’s questions, Barr stripped away any illusion of being a non-partisan arbiter of our nation’s laws.

“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal,” Barr said, an apparent reference to GOP allegations that the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor former Trump 2016 campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

“I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated — I need to explore that. I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane,” the attorney general added.

Barr said he “believed” that Trump’s campaign team was spied on, in spite of the results of an earlier investigation by our intelligence community that concluded nothing of the sort had went on.

He suggested that this new move of his was to keep a promise made during his confirmation hearing to examine how the investigation began, as well as the conduct surrounding the start of it.

“And a lot has already been investigated and is being investigated by the Office of Inspector General at the department,” he said. “But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.”

Barr also clarified when pressed by Shaheen whether he would redact parts of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his findings from the federal Russia inquiry to protect President Trump’s privacy and reputational interests.

“No, I’m talking about people in private life, not public office holders,” Barr said.

Color me skeptical.

Barr was pretty cagey in his testimony today, but don’t be mistaken about his intent. He wants those waters muddied and for further doubt to be cast on a lawful investigation that was intended to protect our nation from a hostile act by our geopolitical foes.

By prefacing his statement with “I believe…” he buys himself room to claim he never disparaged our nation’s top law enforcement division, or our intelligence community. He was simply expressing an opinion.

The statement, however, coming from the attorney general of the United States gives the frothing MAGA forces, already teetering dangerously close to an uprising against our nation, in favor of installing an authoritarian dictatorship, the blunt instrument they’ve longed for to further press on to that end. They did not hear “I believe,” nor would they acknowledge the subtle reference to opinion, not fact.

Barr can claim to have clean hands, no matter what comes next.

Unfortunately, the fabric of our nation will pay the price, and partisans like Barr do nothing to help us.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ColoradoSusan

    Author Susan Wright says AG Barr is “bought and paid for” because he doesn’t agree with her. Wright has stated that she had studiously followed the Russian collusion story since the beginning, and yet she still appears to know nothing about it.

    She doesn’t seem to know that the DNC and Hillary’s campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, that Fusion then hired Steele who wrote the unverified (per Comey) dossier that was presented to the FBI and that FBI/DOJ then misled FISA Court by using the dossier to get a warrant to spy on Trump’s campaign (Carter Page and anyone Page came into contact with).

    Wright doesn’t seem to know that Lisa Page testified that the FBI had next to no evidence at all that Trump was working with the Russians when they began their surveillance of Trump and his campaign.

    This information is not conspiracy theory, nor is it hidden. It has been reported by publications such as WaPo, The Hill, and National Review, among others.

    I am very suspicious of Susan Wright’s statement that she has studied this topic from the beginning. If she had, she would know at least the basics, which she does not.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Perhaps if you had studied the facts a bit more and the Trump propaganda a bit less, you’d not be spouting Trump propaganda now.

    Susan Wright is well aware (as are the conservatives that post here) of what parts of each of your so-called “points” are factual and which are fictional or hyperbole (for the simpleton Trumpians like you, that means which parts contain some truth and which parts are those that Trump has made up out of thin air or exaggerated to the point the factual components are no longer recognizable).

    You don’t seem to know how to look at the “news” (either CNN or Trump tweets that read like a 2nd-grader with his thumb stuck in his ears) and extract the facts from the opinions and biased “narrative”.

    You don’t seem to know how to recognize when you are being misled and lied to – and will likely continue to vote for the man that has now openly attempted to get law-enforcement officials to disregard the law and the courts because he believes that he is above the law.

    You should be more suspicious of anything and everything Trump says than what Susan Wright says. Susan’s statements are based in truth and she’s not pulling punches. That may be hard for snowflakes like yourself and your orange man-crush to handle, but reality is what it is.

    You can attempt to deny reality when it becomes inconvenient to your worldview, but such warped thinking only adds to the damage Trump is doing to this country.

  • Ronald Langdon

    I would say the best thing anyone can do for Susan Wright is to pray for her and that her hatred will be changed to something more valuable to soceity!!!LOL Like Love of truth and not conspiracy theories spun by MSM

  • Stephen

    Very well said.

  • ColoradoSusan

    Your post is not an argument. You personally attack me, but don’t attempt to refute even one point I made.

    Care to try?

  • John Hinkle

    During the Republican primaries, Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to do oppo research on Trump. The funding came from a donor connected to Marco Rubio. When it became apparent Trump would win the nomination, the funding stopped, and the Clinton campaign picked it up. There’s nothing unusual about oppo research.

    The request for the FISA warrant was a continuation of an existing FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page, who had and may have continued to have communications with Russia. The Steele Dossier had little if anything to do with it. There was, as far as what I’ve read, no deception involved.

    The fact that Lisa Page testified that, after many months of investigation, the FBI still couldn’t say there was collusion, I say: So what. That’s what investigations are for, to find wrongdoing or not. Again, the stage was set by Carter Page.

    If Barr wants to investigate the investigations, and waste staff time and our money, so be it. If he finds wrongdoing, let justice be done. But I’m confident he’ll find little to nothing.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    There’s nothing but personal insults and vague references in your post TO refute.

    You make no points and cite no facts – just conspiracy theories and rehashed Trump whining as well as rehashing the opinions of well-known Trump boot-lickers as if their whinings were factual.

    When you post something objective, we might start to have a discussion. As long as you are simply posting attacks on Susan’s character and on the truth without specific reasons or specific citations to back up your whining and crying or show us how you connect random Trump rantings to form some type of coherent (factual) conclusion, there is nothing to talk about.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    …says our resident QAnon representative…..

  • ColoradoSusan

    What you are doing is called a communication shunt. Instead of debating, you resort to changing the subject to a personal attack against me.

    I never attacked Susan Wright’s character; I raised issues with her thinking and writing. But you certainly are attacking my character.

    You say I provided nothing but “vague references”. Not true. The information I offered does not come from Trump nor his biased followers; it can be found in WaPo, The Hill, National Review and the Wall St. Journal, which are hardly in Trump’s camp.

    You may find The Hill’s John Solomon’s writings on this topic interesting. He has been following this from the beginning and provides much information.

    Best Wishes to you.

  • ColoradoSusan

    John, the Steele dossier was used to get a warrant from the FISA Court in 2016 to get a warrant for surveillance on Carter Page. By law, information on who paid for that dossier is supposed to be in the body of the warrant request. Instead, the FBI put the information that the DNC and Hillary’s campaign paid for it in tiny letters at the very bottom of the request. This was a deceptive and misleading move by the FBI.

  • JASmius

    You say Susan Wright “doesn’t know the basics” of Russiagate because she doesn’t agree with you.

    Meanwhile, you don’t seem to know that, for instance, it was the Washington Examiner that originally hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump during the GOP primaries (and for very good reason), not La Clinton Nostra, who only picked it up later. Or that FBI/DOJ did not “mislead” the FISA Court, as its inspector general confirmed last year, or that the only “spying” going on was of Russian intelligence attempts to subvert the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Trump’s favor, in the process of which they couldn’t help but notice numerous interactions with very eager and cooperative Trump campaign operatives.

    The only conspiracy theory in this discussion is the Trumpie nonsense you think you “know”. Which inevitably evokes the famous expression, “forget everything you think you know”. “Alternative facts” may be the coin of the realm in which you’re entangled, but they carry no weight here.

  • ColoradoSusan

    I am aware of all the players who paid Fusion GPS for oppo research on Trump and the timeline of who paid and when.

    You are wrong. The original client of Fusion GPS was not Washington Examiner; it was Washington Free Beacon. Washington Examiner had nothing to do with it.

    Later, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign paid Fusion GPS for continuing research, and it is at this point the Steele dossier emerges.

    DOJ IG Michael Horowitz is still investigating alleged wrongdoing by FBI and DOJ regarding FISA warrants. His report is scheduled to come out in May or June. Horowitz has not made any statements regarding FBI nor DOJ actions associated with FISA warrants.

    If you care to get more information on these topics, I refer you to John Solomon at The Hill, WaPo, Wall St. Journal and Andy McCarthy at National Review. These are hardly in the Trump camp.

    Best wishes to you.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    The WaPo is solidly in Trump’s camp. I never read The Hill because of its reputation as an exceedingly biased, non-factual gossip-rag and I have no interest in the Wall St Journal as it tends to lean heavily toward lefty politics and lefty conspiracy theories.

    The conservatives on this site may dislike Trump but is for far different reasons than the lefties, socialists and communists in the DNC partisan ideology that also dislike Trump and his GOP cult.

    We attempt to vote for leadership and look for character in our leaders. The DNC just wants to hate anyone that thinks differently or that does NOT want to actively destroy this country.

    Both the DNC and GOP now have devolved into nothing but hate groups – each voting for revenge and whichever dictator they think will get them that revenge upon the ‘other’ party for imagined slights sometime in the ancient past. Democrats hate conservatives for no reason other than for the sake of hating conservatives and under Trump, the GOP is devolving into the same mindset.

    I think the hatred may have started when conservatives ignored the whining of the hippies in the ’60s and laughed at their claims that “flower power” and total unilateral military disarmament would bring peace with power-mad dictators. The problem is that many of those same hippies are now charge of our government (Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, etc…)

    That hatred was later to feed a host of special-interest groups with their own grievances and demands – each wilder and more ridiculous than the previous – to the point that it has been totally out of control for the past decade or so.

  • ColoradoSusan

    Hello, IllinoisPatriot.
    WaPo is absolutely not in Trump’s court. They have been very biased against him since day one. Their new tag line “Democracy dies in darkness” is their self-admitted stand against Trump. And The Hill is actually quite a bit less biased than WaPo. WSJ = elitist centrist/lefty nonsense most of the time.

    That being said, the reason I referred to those publications is so that you may have somewhere to go to confirm the points that I had made.

    Thank you for sharing your political analysis. I carefully considered what you said and I hope that you will do the same with what I say.
    re: Trump – I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson. In fact, I switched parties from Republican to Libertarian because of Trump. (Have switched back to Republican.) I voted a bit early, and two days before the election, when Comey came out and said Hillary was going to walk, a lot of things fell into place for me. I realized that the FBI, the officials anyway, were not on the side of the American people. How could they be, if they were going to let someone off who we knew had used private unsecured servers for sensitive and classified state business?

    I realized that Trump was right. We have people who work inside our government who do not have the people’s best interest in mind. Our bureaucracy is too big, too intrusive, and too powerful.

    I have been pleased with many things President Trump has done. The tax/jobs law and also business deregulation has helped our economy a great deal. He has been very supportive of the pro-life movement, he is attempting to get illegal immigration under control, some of his policies have greatly increased American manufacturing, he has been strong on religious freedom, he has appointed Constitutionalist judges, and he is absolutely standing up to the left and the leftist poison.

    When I was a NeverTrumper before the election, I spent seven and a half months studying Trump supporters. I found a statement by former VA U.S. Rep Virgil Goode who is a strong Constitutionalist. Goode said, “Trump is trying to conserve this country, and you cannot get any more conservative than that.”

    I believe that now. Regarding Trump’s “character” – as far as we can tell, he works, hangs out with his son Barron, has long dinners with his wife, tweets, and goes to bed. Where’s the sinning?

    As far as his past – we’re all sinners, no one is really, really good. Barbara Bush admitted that George H. Bush had an affair while he was President. George W. Bush is a self-admitted alcoholic who cannot drink and crashed his car into the garage long ago when he was drunk. Laura Bush was responsible for killing someone in a car crash in high school. GWB was not pro-life until he ran for President, and same with Ronald Reagan.

    And about all this – I don’t care! I believe in forgiveness and in looking for the good in people and seeing what they are doing now. Trump is helping this country. That’s what I care about.

  • John Hinkle

    Susan, to continue our conversation from above (or below, depending on your disqus preferences)…

    I had read that the Oct 2016 FISA warrant request was a continuation request, but now I can’t find it. So perhaps the Oct 2016 warrant was pursued as a result of the Steele dossier. (The Jan 2017 FISA warrant was a continuation of the Oct warrant, so maybe that’s what I remembered). Carter Page was also surveilled in 2014 due to conversations with Russians connected to the Kremlin. It’s unclear if that surveillance continued through to 2016.

    According to this article, the FBI found Steele’s reporting to be credible. Steele found that Carter Page had conversations with Kremlin connected individual(s) who had compromising information on Clinton. This is on top of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia was manipulating the election. Since Carter was part of Trump’s campaign, this allegation was enough surveil Carter, and apparently the Trump campaign as a whole.

    Don’t you think this was a reasonable reaction on the FBI’s part? Or do you believe private, anti-Trump texts between Lisa Page and Strzok meant the whole FBI investigation, and by extension Mueller’s investigation, were tainted?

    We’ll have to see what Horowitz reports, and maybe what Barr follows up with.

    BTW, I looked at the redacted FISA request, and since it’s 400+ pages, I only looked at roughly the first and last 30 pages. I don’t see where they put in “tiny letters” that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. In any case, if that info needed to be in the FISA request by law – which I question – it was there nonetheless, according to you. In your opinion, that’s deceptive. In my opinion, that’s compliance.

  • Michael Weyer

    I do have to point out how you tend to think “the left/Dems” are one grand hive mind who think and move in lockstep. They’re not. There are scores of levels just as on the right. Yes, there are ultra-progressives who think banning guns are a good idea and outright socialists. And then there are scores of moderate liberals who think those people are loons and socialism/communism doesn’t work.

    There are lots of liberals who are also Christian, who serve in the military and even have beliefs that can lean toward classic conservatism. Yes, it’s easy to slam them on their wild fringes but that’s not represenative of the whole group anymore than saying everyone on the right is an alt-right Trump fanatic.

    And sorry but when it comes to “hating anyone that thinks differently,” that comes as much from the right as seen by attacks on LGBT/persons of color/immigrants and such. Saying it’s “only the left who hate” is a rather naive attitude.

  • ColoradoSusan

    IllinoisPatriot – I posted a lengthy, very respectful reply to you last night and it was deleted as spam. I have contacted Patheos to find out why this happened. Wanted to let you know.

  • ColoradoSusan

    Hi, John. The DOJ October 2016 request for a surveillance warrant on Carter Page was almost wholly based on Steele’s dossier which had not been verified by the FBI. Per Comey, it still has not been verified.

    FISA process runs on an honor system – FISA Court assumes that DOJ/FBI are being honest. I believe the FBI was not being honest. They used an unverified dossier that was bought by an opponent (DNC and Hillary’s campaign) with money laundered through a law firm. FBI did not verify Steele’s sub sources. FBI also used a news article from Yahoo as “evidence” when they already knew that the only source of that article was Steele. FBI was also deceptive about Dems buying the dossier by using a convoluted footnote saying such.

    The October 2016 warrant request was filed 3 months after FBI began it’s investigation on Trump’s campaign.

    Page was a convenient target. Mueller reported that there was no “collusion”.

    Page surveillance is a small piece of everything that was going on, including: Attempt to plant Halper as a spy in Trump’s campaign, Obama tying together communications of all 17 intelligence agencies right before he left office, hundreds of Americans unmasked in 2016 under the names of Susan Rice and Samantha Power, Strzok-Page texts (see “insurance policy”), Evelyn Farkas’s admittance that “they” were trying, by ANY means, to get as much info on Trump as they could and to illegally leak it, Bruce Ohr (at DOJ) and his wife Nellie (at Fusion GPS) involvement in Steele’s dossier, Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson’s very evasive Congressional testimony, Comey’s extremely evasive Congressional testimony (he couldn’t remember a thing), McCabe’s illegal leaking, among other incidents.

    Fed govt bureaucracy which is 97% Democrats always push back when there’s a GOP Pres. But this time they went over the edge. Why not? They thought Hillary would win and they’d never get caught.

    Good refs of who’s been covering this:
    John Solomon at The Hill
    Andy McCarthy at National Review
    Sara Carter
    Kim Strassell at WSJ
    Conservative Treehouse

    My best!

  • John Hinkle

    Colorado Susan,

    Peace. Will you rethink things if the final outcome doesn’t match your expected outcome?

    I will.


  • ColoradoSusan

    Hi, John. I actually don’t have an expected outcome. I have no idea what will happen.

    However, with or without an investigation by DOJ, we already know some facts: DNC and Hillary’s campaign paid for the dossier, and, by Comey’s own admiss the FBI did not verify the dossier by the Woods procedure, which they are supposed to do when using

  • ColoradoSusan

    Hi, John. I don’t have an expected outcome. I don’t know what will happen.

    However, with or without a DOJ investigation, we already know some things to be facts. The most significant ones, I believe, are: DNC and Hillary’s campaign paid for Steele’s dossier, and, by Comey’s own admission (in his Congressional testimony), the FBI did not verify the dossier before using it in a FISA request, as they are always supposed to do.

    So, no matter what DOJ finds, we are left with these facts.

    I want to thank you for posting respectfully and in good faith.