12 thoughts on “Barr Will Find Spying On Trump”

  1. Yes, he surely will. And I think he’ll also find that to unmasking of the intercepts, which includes IDing people not covered by the warrant (such as Trump) that was done under Susan Rice’s name (she denies it was actually her), was done by the one person with the power to do it in someone else’s name – Obama.

    I also very strongly suspect that, amongst the people in the loop for the unmasked data will be people who passed the useful bits on to the Clinton campaign.

    I think we’ll also find out that Hillary’s server was used for a lot more than we currently know.

    As for Russian collusion, I think Barr will find that as well, in Uranium One (actually, way more than collusion). I think it is far, far from coincidental that the FBI bagged 20 Russian spies involved in that and kept it quiet (they would normally boast of that big a haul, one of the largest ever). Those spies were traded back to Russia for pretty much nothing by Hillary’s State Department. And who was head of the FBI at the time? Robert Muller.

    And they thought Watergate was bad.

  2. I think we ought to learn from the lesson of Mueller’s investigation (and of the earlier investigations of Clinton). Just because someone is being investigated by law enforcement doesn’t mean anything will come of it.

    It would be a turn for the better to see such high level politicians face justice, but I don’t think we should count on that happening. After all, why haven’t we seen progress before now?

    1. If Sessions had tried to indict these people before Mueller’s witch-hunt was concluded, the Democrats would have claimed Trump was trying to stop the witch-hunt.

      Now he has the moral high ground, having been investigated to the full extent of the Democrats’ power and found innocent.

      Besides, it would be poor politics to lock Clinton up in 2017 when he could wait until an election year.

      Not that I really believe those at the top will go to jail, but it looks far more likely than it did a year ago.

      1. If Sessions had tried to indict these people before Mueller’s witch-hunt was concluded, the Democrats would have claimed Trump was trying to stop the witch-hunt.

        Seems pretty thin to me, particularly since there’s not much downside to it.

        Besides, it would be poor politics to lock Clinton up in 2017 when he could wait until an election year.

        I guess that could be true. But then, Trump could claim reasonably that he prioritized justice over political convenience.

        1. “Seems pretty thin to me, particularly since there’s not much downside to it.”

          We’re talking about 4GW here. If you don’t win the moral level, you lose.

          Trump has now won that. Had he not let Mueller finish his witch-hunt, you’d have wrinkled cat-ladies all across America yelling ‘Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!’

          And they vote.

      2. Yes, they would have claimed it was obstruction. This is why Trump couldn’t release any unredacted FISA applications.

        The SC served several purposes: to protect the IC from being exposed, to shield the Obama administration, to run out the clock on statutes of limitations, to damage Trump politically and prevent him from moving his agenda through congress, to impact the midterm elections, and to goad Trump into making an error that would get him removed from office.

        The purpose wasn’t to look for collusion because the Obama administration already had access to all the communications and financials of Trump, his staff, and the Russians prior to the election. Mueller only had to look at the evidence already gathered, there wasn’t any, and make a pronouncement. Mueller didn’t learn anything over the last two years but was very successful at carrying out the actual goals of the SC.

    2. This is true. When the IG report came out that exposed the coup plotting lovebirds, he concluded there was no political bias and abuse.

  3. The page texts show Obama was involved in both the investigation into Hillary and Trump. Also, there was that fishy “by the book” memo from Powers.

    Just like with the IRS abuses, Obama doesn’t have to have a paper trail of giving an order to be responsible. That he knew of these programs carried out by his administration but did not shut them down, shows complicity, especially if he is running meetings dedicated to them.

  4. Two possibilities; One, They did it with the knowledge and approval, if not direction, of the president. Or two, they did it behind the back of the president. Which one would scare you more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *