thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--ObamaGate: Why Did Obama Tell The FBI To Hide Its Activities From The Trump Administration?

Even after Barack Obama had left office and James Comey had a new commander-in-chief to report to , Comey obeyed Obama by withholding intel from President Trump .
In 1980 , a teenage Amy Carter left a burnt cake in the oven of the White House ’ s family quarters in a reflex of childish revenge for her father ’ s landslide loss to Ronald Reagan .
In 2017 , Barack Obama and Joe Biden avenged Donald Trump ’ s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton by leaving what they claim was a Russian agent in the West Wing .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credible the FBI ’ s supposed predicates for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign and the four related probes into George Papadopoulos , Carter Page , Paul Manafort , and Michael Flynn .
On July 31 , 2016 , the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , purportedly to learn if members of the Trump team were “ coordinating or cooperating ” with the Russian government to influence or interfere with the 2016 elections .
By August 16 , 2016 , the FBI had opened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign , claiming their connections to Russian businesses , pro-Russian factions , or Russian-owned entities “ reasonably indicated ” they “ may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.
” Let the ‘ Russian Spy ’ Keep Spying The FBI maintained that it opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation , rather than providing Trump a defensive briefing on the report from a “ friendly foreign government ” that Russia had reached out to a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Hillary Clinton , because agents “ had no indication as to which person in the Trump campaign allegedly received the offer from the Russians.
” According to Counterintelligence Division Assistant Director E.W .
“ Bill ” Priestap , “ had we provided a defensive briefing to someone on the Trump campaign , we would have alerted the campaign to what we were looking into , and , if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians , he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth.
” Former deputy director of the FBI Andy McCabe likewise told Inspector General Michael Horowitz “ that he did not consider a defensive briefing as an alternative to opening a counterintelligence case ” because , “ based on the [ Friendly Foreign Government ] information , the FBI did not know if any member of the campaign was coordinating with Russia and that the FBI did not brief people who ‘ could potentially be the subjects that you are investigating or looking for.
’ ” McCabe further explained that “ in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a better understanding of what was occurring before taking an overt step such as providing a defensive briefing.
” While “ there are plenty of problems with Priestap and McCabe ’ s rationale , as well as the entire predicate for Crossfire Hurricane , ” a bigger problem arises if you take them at their word , because by the time Americans elected Trump president on November 8 , 2016 , the FBI had “ a better understanding of what was occurring , ” and had identified four individuals of concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide president-elect Trump a defensive briefing .
Then came the January 5 , 2017 , meeting in the Oval Office where Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates , FBI Director James Comey , CIA Director John Brennan , and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed President Obama , Vice President Joe Biden , and National Security Advisor Susan Rice on Russia-related issues .
Rice later wrote an email to herself on January 20 , 2017—Trump ’ s inauguration day and her last day in the White House—purporting to summarize that meeting .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election , ” Rice wrote , “ President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office .
Vice President Biden and I were also present.
” According to Rice , “ President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘ by the book.
’ ” But then she added a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ From a national security perspective , however , President Obama said he wants to be sure that , as we engage with the incoming team , we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we can not share information fully as it relates to Russia.
” The next portion of the email is classified , but Rice then noted that “ the President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey—who were to keep their posts under the Trump administration—that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the incoming administration , Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national security advisor .
Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised on Flynn being a Russian agent .
Yet , rather than direct his team to provide the president-elect a briefing on the Russia investigation as it related to Flynn , Obama suggested it would be appropriate to withhold such information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just what Comey did .
The following day , Comey provided “ an ostensibly similar briefing about Russian interference efforts during the 2016 campaign , ” and then “ [ a ] fter that briefing , Comey privately briefed Trump on the most salacious and absurd ‘ pee tape ’ allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier.
” While Comey found it important to tell the incoming commander-in-chief of the ridiculous “ pee tape ” “ intel , ” following Obama ’ s guidance the then-FBI director did not tell Trump that the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s incoming national security advisor predicated on the idea that Flynn was potentially a Russian agent .
Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new commander-in-chief to report to , Comey continued to follow Obama ’ s prompt by withholding intel from Trump .
Recently released documents included as exhibits to the Department of Justice ’ s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Flynn reveal this reality .
During that same January 5 , 2017 , Oval Office meeting in which Obama counseled Comey to be cautious in sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Obama and Comey discussed Flynn ’ s late-December telephone calls with the Russian ambassador .
Following Trump ’ s inauguration , Comey remained adamant that Trump not be briefed of the details of Flynn ’ s call with the Russian ambassador , and then “ broke every protocol ” to preempt Yates ’ s directive that he inform the White House of the conversation , by sending agents to interview Flynn in the West Wing on January 24 , 2017 .
But it wasn ’ t just Obama and Comey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that shows they put damaging the incoming Trump administration above protecting the country from purported Russian agents .
The Flynn investigation was but one aspect of the Crossfire Hurricane probe , and Trump was not briefed on the other investigations either—most significantly the continuing investigation of Carter Page .
The FBI ’ s targeting of Page included the use of four constitutionally defective Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance warrants .
The recent declassification of additional aspects of the four FISA applications exposes that the FBI believed Page continued to communicate with higher-ups in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2017 and the June 28 , 2017 , FISA renewal applications that sought continued surveillance on Page stated that “ the FBI assesses that Page continues to have access to senior U.S. Government officials.
” They put damaging the incoming Trump administration above protecting the country from purported Russian agents .
The renewal applications added that “ the FBI further assesses that Page is attempting to downplay his contacts with the Russian Government and to dispel the controversy surrounding him , so as to make him more viable as a foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , due to his continued contacts with senior U.S. Government officials , to influence U.S. foreign policy towards Russia.
” Yet the FBI did not brief Trump on its supposed belief “ that Russia sought to use Page ’ s connections with administration officials to influence America ’ s foreign policy .
Instead , as the newly declassified information reveals , following Trump ’ s inauguration , the FBI sought to , and apparently succeeded in , intercepting communications between Page and members of the Trump administration.
” So , not only was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian agent in the West Wing , it had no qualms about allowing another purported Russian agent to communicate with “ senior U.S. Government officials ” with the goal of influencing the Trump administration ’ s foreign policy .
The FBI , however , is not solely to blame for keeping this “ important ” information from Trump : They were only following the counsel of former President Barack Obama .
While a young Amy Carter can be forgiven for her juvenile vision of departing the White House “ content with the picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oven , ” there is no excuse for an outgoing president to withhold “ intel ” on supposed Russian agents from the president-elect .
And there is no excuse for an outgoing president to advise hold-over high-ranking officials to do likewise once the new president has taken office .
Or , rather , the only excuse is an equally scandalous one : Obama knew the Russia investigation was a hoax from the get-go .

In 1980, a teenage Amy Carter left a burnt cake in the oven of the White House’s family quarters in a reflex of childish revenge for her father’s landslide loss to Ronald Reagan. In 2017, Barack Obama and Joe Biden avenged Donald Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton by leaving what they claim was a Russian agent in the West Wing.
That conclusion inevitably follows if one accepts as credible the FBI’s supposed predicates for launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign and the four related probes into George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn.
On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, purportedly to learn if members of the Trump team were “coordinating or cooperating” with the Russian government to influence or interfere with the 2016 elections. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened four subsidiary investigations on individuals connected to the campaign, claiming their connections to Russian businesses, pro-Russian factions, or Russian-owned entities “reasonably indicated” they “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.”
Let the ‘Russian Spy’ Keep Spying
The FBI maintained that it opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, rather than providing Trump a defensive briefing on the report from a “friendly foreign government” that Russia had reached out to a member of his campaign to release damaging information on Hillary Clinton, because agents “had no indication as to which person in the Trump campaign allegedly received the offer from the Russians.” According to Counterintelligence Division Assistant Director E.W. “Bill” Priestap, “had we provided a defensive briefing to someone on the Trump campaign, we would have alerted the campaign to what we were looking into, and, if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.”
Former deputy director of the FBI Andy McCabe likewise told Inspector General Michael Horowitz “that he did not consider a defensive briefing as an alternative to opening a counterintelligence case” because, “based on the [Friendly Foreign Government] information, the FBI did not know if any member of the campaign was coordinating with Russia and that the FBI did not brief people who ‘could potentially be the subjects that you are investigating or looking for.’”
McCabe further explained that “in a sensitive counterintelligence matter, it was essential to have a better understanding of what was occurring before taking an overt step such as providing a defensive briefing.”
While “there are plenty of problems with Priestap and McCabe’s rationale, as well as the entire predicate for Crossfire Hurricane,” a bigger problem arises if you take them at their word, because by the time Americans elected Trump president on November 8, 2016, the FBI had “a better understanding of what was occurring,” and had identified four individuals of concern. But still the FBI did not provide president-elect Trump a defensive briefing.
Instructing Holdovers to Keep Serving Obama
Then came the January 5, 2017, meeting in the Oval Office where Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice on Russia-related issues.
Rice later wrote an email to herself on January 20, 2017—Trump’s inauguration day and her last day in the White House—purporting to summarize that meeting. “On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election,” Rice wrote, “President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.”
According to Rice, “President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’” But then she added a significant caveat to that “commitment”: “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”
The next portion of the email is classified, but Rice then noted that “the President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”
At the time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey—who were to keep their posts under the Trump administration—that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the incoming administration, Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national security advisor. Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised on Flynn being a Russian agent.
Yet, rather than direct his team to provide the president-elect a briefing on the Russia investigation as it related to Flynn, Obama suggested it would be appropriate to withhold such information from the Trump administration.
That is just what Comey did. The following day, Comey provided “an ostensibly similar briefing about Russian interference efforts during the 2016 campaign,” and then “[a]fter that briefing, Comey privately briefed Trump on the most salacious and absurd ‘pee tape’ allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier.”
Lying to the President
While Comey found it important to tell the incoming commander-in-chief of the ridiculous “pee tape” “intel,” following Obama’s guidance the then-FBI director did not tell Trump that the FBI had an active investigation into Trump’s incoming national security advisor predicated on the idea that Flynn was potentially a Russian agent.
Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new commander-in-chief to report to, Comey continued to follow Obama’s prompt by withholding intel from Trump. Recently released documents included as exhibits to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Flynn reveal this reality.
During that same January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting in which Obama counseled Comey to be cautious in sharing information about Russia with the Trump administration, Obama and Comey discussed Flynn’s late-December telephone calls with the Russian ambassador.
Following Trump’s inauguration, Comey remained adamant that Trump not be briefed of the details of Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador, and then “broke every protocol” to preempt Yates’s directive that he inform the White House of the conversation, by sending agents to interview Flynn in the West Wing on January 24, 2017.
But it wasn’t just Obama and Comey’s secreting of the supposed intel about Flynn that shows they put damaging the incoming Trump administration above protecting the country from purported Russian agents. The Flynn investigation was but one aspect of the Crossfire Hurricane probe, and Trump was not briefed on the other investigations either—most significantly the continuing investigation of Carter Page.
Secrets and Lies
The FBI’s targeting of Page included the use of four constitutionally defective Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance warrants. The recent declassification of additional aspects of the four FISA applications exposes that the FBI believed Page continued to communicate with higher-ups in the Trump administration: The April 7, 2017 and the June 28, 2017, FISA renewal applications that sought continued surveillance on Page stated that “the FBI assesses that Page continues to have access to senior U.S. Government officials.”
They put damaging the incoming Trump administration above protecting the country from purported Russian agents.
The renewal applications added that “the FBI further assesses that Page is attempting to downplay his contacts with the Russian Government and to dispel the controversy surrounding him, so as to make him more viable as a foreign policy expert who will be in a position, due to his continued contacts with senior U.S. Government officials, to influence U.S. foreign policy towards Russia.”
Yet the FBI did not brief Trump on its supposed belief “that Russia sought to use Page’s connections with administration officials to influence America’s foreign policy. Instead, as the newly declassified information reveals, following Trump’s inauguration, the FBI sought to, and apparently succeeded in, intercepting communications between Page and members of the Trump administration.”
So, not only was the FBI content with leaving a supposed Russian agent in the West Wing, it had no qualms about allowing another purported Russian agent to communicate with “senior U.S. Government officials” with the goal of influencing the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
Obama Told Us To
The FBI, however, is not solely to blame for keeping this “important” information from Trump: They were only following the counsel of former President Barack Obama.
While a young Amy Carter can be forgiven for her juvenile vision of departing the White House “content with the picture of Nancy Reagan struggling to clean out the oven,” there is no excuse for an outgoing president to withhold “intel” on supposed Russian agents from the president-elect. And there is no excuse for an outgoing president to advise hold-over high-ranking officials to do likewise once the new president has taken office.
Or, rather, the only excuse is an equally scandalous one: Obama knew the Russia investigation was a hoax from the get-go.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--Lock Him UP! James Clapper Lied To Congress About Briefing Obama On Flynn’s Phone Calls

Accounts from former top FBI brass suggests James Clapper may have lied to Congress about whether he personally briefed President Barack Obama on the phone calls between Michael Flynn and Sergei Kislyak .
Former Director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) James Clapper testified to Congress in July of 2017 that he never briefed then-President Barack Obama on the substance of phone calls between Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak and incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn .
Accounts from fired former Federal Bureau of Investigations ( FBI ) executives James Comey and Andrew McCabe , however , directly contradict Clapper ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefed Obama on the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak which were used to justify Flynn ’ s ouster as President Donald Trump ’ s top foreign policy adviser .
The identities of the Obama administration officials who were aware of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak have become a key question in the investigation of U.S. attorney John Durham to determine whether any laws were broken during the course of the Crossfire Hurricane probe of the Trump campaign .
The substance of those calls , which is classified at the highest levels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in early January in order to create a pretext for the FBI to interview Flynn .
Handwritten documents from Bill Priestap , the FBI ’ s top counterintelligence official at the time , show that FBI officials wanted to use the calls and their interview of Flynn to “ get him fired ” as Trump ’ s national security adviser .
On July 17 , 2017 , Clapper was called to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the committee ’ s investigation of Russian interference in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clapper repeatedly testified that he was bothered to learn that Flynn , at the time the incoming president ’ s designee to serve as White House National Security Adviser , had repeatedly spoken to foreign leaders , such as Kislyak , during the presidential transition .
Clapper said he thought Flynn may have “ violated the principle that in this country we traditionally have one President and one administration at a time.
” “ I will tell you that I had concerns about that as I watched all this before I left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s conversations with foreign leaders .
Later in his testimony , Clapper said it was “ disconcerting ” to learn of Flynn ’ s calls with Kislyak just weeks before Trump ’ s inauguration as president .
“ Do you know who told you about the conversation [ between Flynn and Kislyak ] ?
” Rep. Francis Rooney , R-Fla. , asked Clapper .
“ What was your response when he told you ?
” Rooney asked .
“ I was kind of disturbed about it , frankly , ” Clapper answered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll put it that way , to learn of that conversation.
” “ Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call , the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls ?
” Rooney asked .
James Comey and Andrew McCabe , the director and deputy director of the FBI , respectively , both of whom were fired for corruption , directly contradicted Clapper ’ s testimony that he never told Obama about the intercepted phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak .
During congressional testimony on March 2 , 2017 , Comey said Clapper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of a pivotal Oval Office meeting about the matter between Obama , then-White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice , Comey , and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates .
According to Comey , the FBI was tasked with helping to figure out why Russia didn ’ t escalate tensions with the U.S. following the expulsion of several dozen Russian diplomats in late 2016 .
“ [ A ] ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out , so what is going on here ?
” Comey testified .
“ And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , do you have anything [ redacted ] that might reflect on this .
That turned up these calls [ between Flynn and Kislyak ] at the end of December , beginning of January.
” “ And then I briefed it to the Director of National Intelligence , and Director Clapper asked me for copies [ redacted ] , which I shared with him , ” Comey continued .
“ In the first week of January , he briefed the President and the Vice President and then President Obama ’ s senior team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had seen to help them understand why the Russians were reacting the way they did.
” In his book , McCabe told a similar story and pegged Clapper as the official who briefed Obama about the Flynn calls .
“ The [ Presidential Daily Briefing ] staff decided to write an intelligence assessment as to why Putin made the choice he did , ” McCabe wrote .
“ They issued a request to the intelligence community : Anyone who had information on the topic was invited to offer it for consideration.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI queried our own holdings , ” McCabe continued .
“ We came across information indicating that General Michael Flynn , the president-elect ’ s nominee for the post of national security adviser , had held several conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. , Sergey Kislyak , in which the sanctions were discussed.
” “ An analyst shared it with me ; I shared it with Comey ; Comey shared it with the director of national intelligence , James Clapper ; and Clapper verbally briefed it to President Obama , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or PDB , is an intelligence project compiled by the office of the DNI that seeks to collate and summarize for the president the major threats facing the U.S. each day .
The department that manages the PDB reports directly to the DNI .
Clapper has a history of lying to Congress .
In 2013 when asked directly by Sen. Ron Wyden , D-Ore. , whether the National Security Agency ( NSA ) collected information on Americans , Clapper lied and said no .
“ James Clapper needs to stop making excuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass surveillance , ” Wyden said in 2019 , after Clapper offered myriad excuses for why he was not truthful with Congress .
“ To be clear : I sent him the question in advance .
I asked him to correct the record afterward .
He chose to let the lie stand.
” On January 12 , Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that a “ senior U.S. government official ” told him about the Flynn-Kislyak calls .
Ignatius then suggested that Flynn ’ s conversations might run afoul of an unconstitutional and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain private speech critical of U.S. foreign policy .
Ignatius was the first journalist to publicly confirm the existence and substance of Flynn ’ s calls and to raise the idea that Flynn should be criminally investigated for them .
Comey himself cited the Ignatius article as a reason why the FBI needed to interview Flynn .
Washington Post reporter Adam Entous revealed during an October 2017 conference at Georgetown University that he had received similar leaks from multiple government officials before Ignatius ’ column was published .
“ [ M ] y @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whispering to me that there were all these mysterious communications between Michael Flynn , who was then the National Security Advisor designate for Trump and the Russian ambassador , Kislyak , ” Entous said .
During the conference , Entous said there were divisions within the newsroom at the Washington Post about whether those conversations were even newsworthy .
“ Why is it news that Michael Flynn is talking to the Russian ambassador ?
” Entous asked .
“ He should be talking to the Russian ambassador.
” “ I was arguing internally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that there was a conversation but I ’ m one of many reporters , ” Entous continued .
According to Entous , the story was spiked by the newsroom , and that ’ s when the leaks migrated to Ignatius , whom Entous said had a lower standard for reporting because he was a columnist and not a formal reporter .
“ This is something a columnist can do , unlike me as a news reporter , he was able to just throw this piece of red meat out there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation .
What was it about ? '
” Entous said .
“ I ’ m defending our decision not to run with this story earlier about just this flurry of questionable communications because I didn ’ t think it was enough.
” The New York Times reported in April that U.S. Attorney John Durham , who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI or other agencies involved in the anti-Trump Crossfire Hurricane investigation violated the law , was working to determine who leaked the existence of substance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 .

Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper testified to Congress in July of 2017 that he never briefed then-President Barack Obama on the substance of phone calls between Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak and incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Accounts from fired former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) executives James Comey and Andrew McCabe, however, directly contradict Clapper’s claim under oath that he never briefed Obama on the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak which were used to justify Flynn’s ouster as President Donald Trump’s top foreign policy adviser.
The identities of the Obama administration officials who were aware of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak have become a key question in the investigation of U.S. attorney John Durham to determine whether any laws were broken during the course of the Crossfire Hurricane probe of the Trump campaign. The substance of those calls, which is classified at the highest levels, was leaked to multiple Washington Post reporters in early January in order to create a pretext for the FBI to interview Flynn. Handwritten documents from Bill Priestap, the FBI’s top counterintelligence official at the time, show that FBI officials wanted to use the calls and their interview of Flynn to “get him fired” as Trump’s national security adviser.
On July 17, 2017, Clapper was called to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. During that testimony, Clapper repeatedly testified that he was bothered to learn that Flynn, at the time the incoming president’s designee to serve as White House National Security Adviser, had repeatedly spoken to foreign leaders, such as Kislyak, during the presidential transition.
Clapper said he thought Flynn may have “violated the principle that in this country we traditionally have one President and one administration at a time.”
“I will tell you that I had concerns about that as I watched all this before I left,” Clapper said, referring to Flynn’s conversations with foreign leaders.
Later in his testimony, Clapper said it was “disconcerting” to learn of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak just weeks before Trump’s inauguration as president.
“Do you know who told you about the conversation [between Flynn and Kislyak]?” Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., asked Clapper.
“Bobb Litt, my general counsel,” Clapper said.
“What was your response when he told you?” Rooney asked.
“I was kind of disturbed about it, frankly,” Clapper answered. “So it was disconcerting, I’ll put it that way, to learn of that conversation.”
“Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call, the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls?” Rooney asked.
“No,” Clapper replied.
James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the director and deputy director of the FBI, respectively, both of whom were fired for corruption, directly contradicted Clapper’s testimony that he never told Obama about the intercepted phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak.
During congressional testimony on March 2, 2017, Comey said Clapper himself briefed Obama on the phone calls ahead of a pivotal Oval Office meeting about the matter between Obama, then-White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
According to Comey, the FBI was tasked with helping to figure out why Russia didn’t escalate tensions with the U.S. following the expulsion of several dozen Russian diplomats in late 2016.
“[A]ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out, so what is going on here?” Comey testified. “And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might reflect on this. That turned up these calls [between Flynn and Kislyak] at the end of December, beginning of January.”
“And then I briefed it to the Director of National Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [redacted], which I shared with him,” Comey continued. “In the first week of January, he briefed the President and the Vice President and then President Obama’s senior team about what we found and what we had seen to help them understand why the Russians were reacting the way they did.”
In his book, McCabe told a similar story and pegged Clapper as the official who briefed Obama about the Flynn calls.
“The [Presidential Daily Briefing] staff decided to write an intelligence assessment as to why Putin made the choice he did,” McCabe wrote. “They issued a request to the intelligence community: Anyone who had information on the topic was invited to offer it for consideration.”
“In response to that request, the FBI queried our own holdings,” McCabe continued. “We came across information indicating that General Michael Flynn, the president-elect’s nominee for the post of national security adviser, had held several conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in which the sanctions were discussed.”
“An analyst shared it with me; I shared it with Comey; Comey shared it with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; and Clapper verbally briefed it to President Obama,” McCabe wrote.
The Presidential Daily Briefing, or PDB, is an intelligence project compiled by the office of the DNI that seeks to collate and summarize for the president the major threats facing the U.S. each day. The department that manages the PDB reports directly to the DNI.
Clapper has a history of lying to Congress. In 2013 when asked directly by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., whether the National Security Agency (NSA) collected information on Americans, Clapper lied and said no.
“James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance,” Wyden said in 2019, after Clapper offered myriad excuses for why he was not truthful with Congress. “To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand.”
On January 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that a “senior U.S. government official” told him about the Flynn-Kislyak calls. Ignatius then suggested that Flynn’s conversations might run afoul of an unconstitutional and never successfully prosecuted 1799 law that criminalizes certain private speech critical of U.S. foreign policy. Ignatius was the first journalist to publicly confirm the existence and substance of Flynn’s calls and to raise the idea that Flynn should be criminally investigated for them. Comey himself cited the Ignatius article as a reason why the FBI needed to interview Flynn.
Washington Post reporter Adam Entous revealed during an October 2017 conference at Georgetown University that he had received similar leaks from multiple government officials before Ignatius’ column was published.
“[M]y sources start then, my sources start whispering to me that there were all these mysterious communications between Michael Flynn, who was then the National Security Advisor designate for Trump and the Russian ambassador, Kislyak,” Entous said.
During the conference, Entous said there were divisions within the newsroom at the Washington Post about whether those conversations were even newsworthy.
“Why is it news that Michael Flynn is talking to the Russian ambassador?” Entous asked. “He should be talking to the Russian ambassador.”
“I was arguing internally that we need something more than just the fact that there was a conversation but I’m one of many
reporters,” Entous continued.
According to Entous, the story was spiked by the newsroom, and that’s when the leaks migrated to Ignatius, whom Entous said had a lower standard for reporting because he was a columnist and not a formal reporter.
“This is something a columnist can do, unlike me as a news reporter, he was able to just throw this piece of red meat out there and just say, ‘There was this conversation. What was it about?'” Entous said. “I’m defending our decision not to run with this story earlier about just this flurry of questionable communications because I didn’t think it was enough.”
The New York Times reported in April that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI or other agencies involved in the anti-Trump Crossfire Hurricane investigation violated the law, was working to determine who leaked the existence of substance of the Flynn-Kislyak to reporters in early 2017.
Sean Davis is CEO and co-founder of The Federalist. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn. He was named by The Hill as one of the top congressional staffers under the age of 35 for his role in spearheading the enactment of the law that created USASpending.gov. Sean received a BBA in finance from Texas Tech University and an MBA in finance and entrepreneurial management from the Wharton School. He can be reached via e-mail at sean@thefederalist.com


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Fascist Fauci, Whose Government-Guaranteed Paycheck is Secure, Emails NY Times Fake News Reporter Wi

Fascist Fauci, Whose Government-Guaranteed Paycheck is Secure, Emails NY Times Fake News Reporter With Warning of ‘Needless Suffering and Death’ in Opening Country ‘Prematurely’

Dr. Anthony Fauci emailed New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg Monday night with a preview of his message for a Senate hearing on Tuesday in which he warns of “ needless suffering and death ” if the country opens “ prematurely ” from the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus lockdowns .
Fauci , who is on ‘ modified quarantine ’ for contact with someone who tested positive for the virus is scheduled to testify by remote for the hearing held by the Senate Health Education , Labor and Pensions Committee .
The hearing will feature testimony by Fauci and three other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
“ The major message that I wish to convey to the Senate HLP committee tomorrow is the danger of trying to open the country prematurely .
If we skip over the checkpoints in the guidelines to : ‘ Open America Again , ’ then we risk the danger of multiple outbreaks throughout the country .
This will not only result in needless suffering and death , but would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal.
” TRENDING : Breaking Update : DNI Richard Grenell Declassifies List of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn in His Conversations with Kislyak Several states have been setting their own pace for reopening in defiance of recommendations by Fauci and coronavirus task force guidelines he helped develop .
Most notably Georgia which opened up two weeks ago .
Protesters around the country have demonstrated in support of ending or loosening the lockdowns to save society and the economy from catastrophic damage as the virus has shown to not be as lethal as models predicted .
The Senate hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. EDT in room 106 of the Dirksen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be chaired remotely by Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) who is in self-quarantine .
List of panelists , all of whom will be appearing by remote : Anthony Fauci , MD , Director , National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , National Institutes of Health ( modified quarantine ) ; Robert Redfield , MD , Director , United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( self quarantine ) ; Stephen Hahn , MD , Commissioner Of Food And Drugs , United States Food and Drug Administration ( self quarantine ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assistant Secretary For Health , United States Department of Health and Human Services .
Paula Reid of CBS News reported Fauci tested negative for the virus Monday and spent time at the White House meeting with coronavirus task force response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx , “ NEW : Dr. Fauci & Dr. Birx met today at White House .
During their meeting both docs wore masks & sat more than 6ft apart .
Fauci was was tested today as he arrived at WH – # COVID-19 quick test was negative .
He spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparing for tomorrow ’ s hearing .
”

Dr. Anthony Fauci emailed New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg Monday night with a preview of his message for a Senate hearing on Tuesday in which he warns of “needless suffering and death” if the country opens “prematurely” from the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus lockdowns. Fauci, who is on ‘modified quarantine’ for contact with someone who tested positive for the virus is scheduled to testify by remote for the hearing held by the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The hearing will feature testimony by Fauci and three other members of the White House coronavirus task force.
File screen image.
Stolberg posted Fauci’s message to Twitter:
“The major message that I wish to convey to the Senate HLP committee tomorrow is the danger of trying to open the country prematurely. If we skip over the checkpoints in the guidelines to: ‘Open America Again,’ then we risk the danger of multiple outbreaks throughout the country. This will not only result in needless suffering and death, but would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal.”
Full Fauci email message to me: pic.twitter.com/yq8IAa9f8g — Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) May 12, 2020
Several states have been setting their own pace for reopening in defiance of recommendations by Fauci and coronavirus task force guidelines he helped develop. Most notably Georgia which opened up two weeks ago. Protesters around the country have demonstrated in support of ending or loosening the lockdowns to save society and the economy from catastrophic damage as the virus has shown to not be as lethal as models predicted.
The Senate hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. EDT in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will be chaired remotely by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who is in self-quarantine.
List of panelists, all of whom will be appearing by remote: Anthony Fauci, MD, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (modified quarantine); Robert Redfield, MD, Director, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (self quarantine); Stephen Hahn, MD, Commissioner Of Food And Drugs, United States Food and Drug Administration (self quarantine) and ADM Brett Giroir, MD, Assistant Secretary For Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Paula Reid of CBS News reported Fauci tested negative for the virus Monday and spent time at the White House meeting with coronavirus task force response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, “NEW: Dr. Fauci & Dr. Birx met today at White House. During their meeting both docs wore masks & sat more than 6ft apart. Fauci was was tested today as he arrived at WH – #COVID-19 quick test was negative. He spent most of the day in his office preparing for tomorrow’s hearing.”


Remembering Barry Farber

A giant of conservative talk radio passes from the stage .
Surrounded by his beloved family , radio broadcast legend Barry Farber died at home , in his bed , on May 6 , one day after his 90th birthday .
His daughter subsequently recounted how her father had “ told me recently that his concept of death was ‘ going somewhere I ’ ve never been before , like Finland or Estonia.
’ ” A marvelous individual who had been so many places during the course of his nine decades of life , Mr. Farber was a gentleman in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world-class scholar , he was too humble and self-effacing to make a spectacle of his brilliance .
Instead , he doled it out in bite-sized pieces with a clarity that could be easily digested by everyone from child to university professor ; with an easy charm that could disarm even the most fervent political foe ; and with an eloquence that routinely held his radio audience spellbound .
Farber was born in Baltimore and raised in Greensboro , North Carolina , where he witnessed enough anti-black discrimination to make him a passionate advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early affinity for “ social democracy ” dissipated when he observed the abject failure of big-government programs across the United States .
Thus , the young Democrat evolved into a conservative who championed the type of limited government envisioned by the Founders and the Framers .
After serving in the U.S. Army , Farber became a newspaper reporter and then entered the world of broadcast journalism as the producer of a New York-based interview program on WNBC .
In 1960 , he launched a new career as a radio talk-show host .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry , Farber laid the groundwork – along with the late Bob Grant – for the giants who would come along a bit later : Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity , Mark Levin , Dennis Prager , Larry Elder , and others .
One of Farber 's most remarkable achievements was his success at learning foreign languages .
In his teen and college years alone , he mastered Italian , Spanish , French , Norwegian , Russian , and Serbo-Croatian .
By the end of his life , Farber was fluent , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different tongues .
In an interview he gave when he was 79 , Farber described this accomplishment with his characteristic humor , humility , and understatement : We have a language club [ that meets ] every Monday night in New York .
And we advise those who come to the language club : When anybody asks you , 'how many languages do you speak , ' it 's dangerous to answer that with a digit higher than 1 .
Because somebody will come at you with some street slang in that language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility .
So when you ask me , 'how many languages do you speak ? '
, I give you the approved , politically correct answer .
I say 'one . '
And then you pause and take a breath , and you say : 'However , I am a student of ' – and then you add as many languages as you like to think you speak .
I am a student of about 21 .
Even a very limited familiarity with another language , said Farber , could serve to bridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise might fail to recognize important things that they had in common : In no other field [ besides the study of languages ] is there as much difference between knowing zero , and knowing a little .
If you 're into brain surgery , for example , there 's very little difference between knowing nothing , and knowing a little .
If you 're into the flying or servicing of intercontinental jet aircraft , there 's very little difference between knowing nothing , and knowing a little .
But if you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language … Next time you 're in a cab , let 's say the driver is black … and you see by his name that it ends in an 'eau . '
[ … ] He 's got a French name and he 's black .
Ask him in English , 'Are you from Haiti ? '
The answer is always yes .
And when he says yes , say [ something in ] Haitian Creole .
That 's his language .
And you 'll see the smile light up from the back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you give him one word , one phrase of his language , the ice turns into steam [ and ] does n't even waste time going through the stage of water .
Notably , Farber drew a distinction between language and communication , the latter of which is something far deeper : “ You ca n't define communication , rapport between two people .
But when it 's not going on , you know it 's not going on .
I mean , you know when you 're clicking .
And you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo.
” Farber also emphasized the importance of putting one 's own ego aside , so as to leave room for courteousness and consideration of other people 's feelings : Once upon a time I was at a party , and the [ hostess ] was very , very wealthy .
[ And ] somebody else at the party worked for Christie 's or Sotheby 's , you know , one of those galleries .
And she said … 'Jean , I 've got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed to a picture on the wall – 'for $ 72 million . '
And the [ hostess ] did n't want to sell it .
And the woman who asked her said , 'Why [ not ] ? '
And the [ hostess ] said , 'Well , I like to look at it . '
That impressed me .
A couple of days later , I was a guest at an investment banker 's office in midtown Manhattan , and he was showing me around .
He was very proud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he pointed to a picture and said : 'You see there , that picture alone is worth $ 17 million . '
Now , freeze .
What is the natural human thing to do ?
The natural human thing to do is to say , 'Hey man , that 's nothing .
I was at a party the other night and I saw a picture worth $ 72 million . '
Uh-uh .
No , no.… You 'll get what you want a lot quicker if you just sit there and let yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parade ?
… It 's just common sense .
Put yourself in his position .
Another guideline for good manners , said Farber , was this : “ Do n't ever ask things , the negative answer to which would make [ the other person ] feel bad .
[ For example , ] 'Do you still date that movie star ? '
[ … ] 'How about that play you told us about , [ that ] you were writing , last Thanksgiving ? '
But these are just two examples .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Farber took a brief break from broadcasting in 1970 , when he ran for New York 's 19th U.S. House District seat against leftist Democrat Bella Abzug .
Though Abzug won , Farber made an impressive showing for a conservative running in Manhattan 's heavily Democratic West Side .
Part of his appeal was his fearless style .
When Abzug refused to debate him , Farber would confront her on the street while she was campaigning and challenge her to impromptu debates in public .
On one occasion , he held a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's face and demanded : “ Would you like to repeat your charge that I 'm a red‐baiter in front of all these people ?
” Following his election defeat in 1970 , Farber returned to radio .
Seven years later , Farber again made a run for political office , this time seeking the mayoralty of New York City .
After narrowly losing the Republican primary to Roy Goodman , he ran on the Conservative Party line in the general election and lost to Democrat Ed Koch .
Mike Long , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Farber 's Republican primary bid in '77 , recalls that Farber “ campaigned in different languages and wowed crowds with his humor and historical anecdotes.
” From the late Seventies through 1989 , Farber hosted an “ Afternoon Drive ” program on WMCA Radio in New York .
In 1990 , he became a national talk-show host on the ABC Radio Network .
A few years after that , Farber , Michael Castello , and Alan Colmes collaborated to establish their own independent network , called Daynet .
Farber eventually joined the Talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host until 2017 .
And from 2009 to nearly the end of his life , he hosted a program on CRN Digital Talk .
He made his final live broadcast the week before he died .
Mike Thompson , who worked with Farber on radio in the early 1980s , says that Farber “ captivated any audience ” with his skill as “ a classic storyteller.
” Central to that talent was Farber 's ability to say just enough to spark the listener 's attention , and just little enough to leave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story .
Farber himself once recounted such an occasion : Sean Hannity once said of Farber : “ Barry blazed the trail for all of us today in talk radio .
I 'm honored to call him a friend and a great American.
” Rush Limbaugh put it this way : “ Barry Farber was a standout when it was difficult to get a talk show – you had to be among the best to be hired to host long-form talk .
Barry Farber was … the best.
” Talkers magazine honored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in 2012 .
Two years later , Farber was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame .
Barry Farber was undoubtedly blessed with a great deal of natural ability and aptitude .
But he achieved greatness in his field through exceedingly hard work and focused determination .
“ The way to succeed , ” Farber once explained , “ is to do first what the failures hate doing most.
” In his later years , Farber was was asked how he personally defined success .
He replied : Those are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had his priorities in good order .
That 's what Barry Farber was .
An extraordinarily good man who was too humble to ever boast about his prodigious and unique abilities .
He will be greatly missed .

Surrounded by his beloved family, radio broadcast legend Barry Farber died at home, in his bed, on May 6, one day after his 90th birthday. His daughter subsequently recounted how her father had “told me recently that his concept of death was ‘going somewhere I’ve never been before, like Finland or Estonia.’”
A marvelous individual who had been so many places during the course of his nine decades of life, Mr. Farber was a gentleman in every sense of the word. A world-class scholar, he was too humble and self-effacing to make a spectacle of his brilliance. Instead, he doled it out in bite-sized pieces with a clarity that could be easily digested by everyone from child to university professor; with an easy charm that could disarm even the most fervent political foe; and with an eloquence that routinely held his radio audience spellbound.
Farber was born in Baltimore and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina, where he witnessed enough anti-black discrimination to make him a passionate advocate of civil rights. Meanwhile, his early affinity for “social democracy” dissipated when he observed the abject failure of big-government programs across the United States. Thus, the young Democrat evolved into a conservative who championed the type of limited government envisioned by the Founders and the Framers.
After serving in the U.S. Army, Farber became a newspaper reporter and then entered the world of broadcast journalism as the producer of a New York-based interview program on WNBC. In 1960, he launched a new career as a radio talk-show host. While becoming one of the giants of the industry, Farber laid the groundwork – along with the late Bob Grant – for the giants who would come along a bit later: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, and others.
One of Farber’s most remarkable achievements was his success at learning foreign languages. In his teen and college years alone, he mastered Italian, Spanish, French, Norwegian, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian. By the end of his life, Farber was fluent, to varying degrees, in more than 20 different tongues. In an interview he gave when he was 79, Farber described this accomplishment with his characteristic humor, humility, and understatement:
We have a language club [that meets] every Monday night in New York. And we advise those who come to the language club: When anybody asks you, ‘how many languages do you speak,’ it’s dangerous to answer that with a digit higher than 1. Because somebody will come at you with some street slang in that language, and you’ll lose your … credibility. So when you ask me, ‘how many languages do you speak?’, I give you the approved, politically correct answer. I say ‘one.’ And then you pause and take a breath, and you say: ‘However, I am a student of’ – and then you add as many languages as you like to think you speak. I am a student of about 21.
Even a very limited familiarity with another language, said Farber, could serve to bridge psychological and cultural gaps between people who otherwise might fail to recognize important things that they had in common:
In no other field [besides the study of languages] is there as much difference between knowing zero, and knowing a little. If you’re into brain surgery, for example, there’s very little difference between knowing nothing, and knowing a little. If you’re into the flying or servicing of intercontinental jet aircraft, there’s very little difference between knowing nothing, and knowing a little. But if you know one word of [a] foreign language … Next time you’re in a cab, let’s say the driver is black … and you see by his name that it ends in an ‘eau.’ […] He’s got a French name and he’s black. Ask him in English, ‘Are you from Haiti?’ The answer is always yes. And when he says yes, say [something in] Haitian Creole. That’s his language. And you’ll see the smile light up from the back of his head…. The minute you give him one word, one phrase of his language, the ice turns into steam [and] doesn’t even waste time going through the stage of water.
Notably, Farber drew a distinction between language and communication, the latter of which is something far deeper: “You can’t define communication, rapport between two people. But when it’s not going on, you know it’s not going on. I mean, you know when you’re clicking. And you know when you’re dropping a tulip leaf down the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo.”
Farber also emphasized the importance of putting one’s own ego aside, so as to leave room for courteousness and consideration of other people’s feelings:
Once upon a time I was at a party, and the [hostess] was very, very wealthy. [And] somebody else at the party worked for Christie’s or Sotheby’s, you know, one of those galleries. And she said … ‘Jean, I’ve got a customer for that picture’ – she pointed to a picture on the wall – ‘for $72 million.’ And the [hostess] didn’t want to sell it. And the woman who asked her said, ‘Why [not]?’ And the [hostess] said, ‘Well, I like to look at it.’ That impressed me. A couple of days later, I was a guest at an investment banker’s office in midtown Manhattan, and he was showing me around. He was very proud of the artwork in the office, and he pointed to a picture and said: ‘You see there, that picture alone is worth $17 million.’ Now, freeze. What is the natural human thing to do? The natural human thing to do is to say, ‘Hey man, that’s nothing. I was at a party the other night and I saw a picture worth $72 million.’ Uh-uh. No, no.… You’ll get what you want a lot quicker if you just sit there and let yourself be impressed. Why rain on his parade?… It’s just common sense. Put yourself in his position.
Another guideline for good manners, said Farber, was this: “Don’t ever ask things, the negative answer to which would make [the other person] feel bad. [For example,] ‘Do you still date that movie star?’ […] ‘How about that play you told us about, [that] you were writing, last Thanksgiving?’ But these are just two examples. Two communicatory snowflakes in an unending blizzard.”
Farber took a brief break from broadcasting in 1970, when he ran for New York’s 19th U.S. House District seat against leftist Democrat Bella Abzug. Though Abzug won, Farber made an impressive showing for a conservative running in Manhattan’s heavily Democratic West Side. Part of his appeal was his fearless style. When Abzug refused to debate him, Farber would confront her on the street while she was campaigning and challenge her to impromptu debates in public. On one occasion, he held a pocket tape recorder up to Mrs. Abzug’s face and demanded: “Would you like to repeat your charge that I’m a red‐baiter in front of all these people?”
Following his election defeat in 1970, Farber returned to radio.
Seven years later, Farber again made a run for political office, this time seeking the mayoralty of New York City. After narrowly losing the Republican primary to Roy Goodman, he ran on the Conservative Party line in the general election and lost to Democrat Ed Koch. Mike Long, the longtime Conservative Party state chairman who managed Farber’s Republican primary bid in ’77, recalls that Farber “campaigned in different languages and wowed crowds with his humor and historical anecdotes.”
From the late Seventies through 1989, Farber hosted an “Afternoon Drive” program on WMCA Radio in New York. In 1990, he became a national talk-show host on the ABC Radio Network. A few years after that, Farber, Michael Castello, and Alan Colmes collaborated to establish their own independent network, called Daynet. Farber eventually joined the Talk Radio Network as a weekend and fill-in host until 2017. And from 2009 to nearly the end of his life, he hosted a program on CRN Digital Talk. He made his final live broadcast the week before he died.
Mike Thompson, who worked with Farber on radio in the early 1980s, says that Farber “captivated any audience” with his skill as “a classic storyteller.” Central to that talent was Farber’s ability to say just enough to spark the listener’s attention, and just little enough to leave the listener begging to hear the rest of the story. Farber himself once recounted such an occasion:
‘Charles Fawcett. American, Episcopalian aristocrat from Charleston, South Carolina, who married and divorced six Jewish women within 18 months to save their lives.’ Now, is there anybody who can live without hearing the rest of that story?
Sean Hannity once said of Farber: “Barry blazed the trail for all of us today in talk radio. I’m honored to call him a friend and a great American.” Rush Limbaugh put it this way: “Barry Farber was a standout when it was difficult to get a talk show – you had to be among the best to be hired to host long-form talk. Barry Farber was … the best.”
Talkers magazine honored Farber with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” in 2012. Two years later, Farber was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame.
Barry Farber was undoubtedly blessed with a great deal of natural ability and aptitude. But he achieved greatness in his field through exceedingly hard work and focused determination. “The way to succeed,” Farber once explained, “is to do first what the failures hate doing most.”
In his later years, Farber was was asked how he personally defined success. He replied:
My definition of success now is going to bed at night and realizing that there is nothing, there is nothing in your life that you have to apologize for. There is nobody you have wronged…. If you did, you made proper amends long ago. And there is absolutely zero-zero point zero-zero on your conscience…. Other elements of my life might be in chaos. But the important things are bull-proof and pig-tight. I don’t owe anybody anything, and I haven’t done anybody any wrong.
Those are the sentiments of a very good man who had his priorities in good order. That’s what Barry Farber was. An extraordinarily good man who was too humble to ever boast about his prodigious and unique abilities. He will be greatly missed.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Moochelle Obama Dealt Sobering Blow by Critics After Netflix Flop

Former first lady Michelle Obama ’ s fans and supporters were excited for the May 6 release of her new Netflix documentary “ Becoming , ” expecting it to be as successful as her 2018 book was .
But after the widely anticipated film , directed by Nadia Hallgren , was released , critics weren ’ t exactly raving about it .
In fact , some seemed to be pretty disappointed .
Prior to its release , the trailer appeared to offer a better inside look into the Obamas than what reviewers got .
TRENDING : New Study Confirms We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Have Collapsed Thanks to Obama , Common Core Variety accused the film of presenting the former first lady in a “ manicured ” fashion .
“ There are no big revelations here , no gotcha moments or intimate scenes in which Hallgren ’ s subject lets down her guard , but the target audience hardly expects anything tougher , ” Variety wrote .
“ Far more than the memoir , the film presents a manicured version of the way Michelle Obama sees herself — and yet , even such a carefully image-managed impression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so significantly from the way the world perceives her.
” Other critics painted the film as nothing more than a tool to help the Obama family “ retreat from the global stage.
” “ The film feels very much like an artifact of the Obamas ’ attempted retreat from the global stage in favor of private lives producing socially relevant nonfiction films , ” Vulture wrote .
“ There ’ s no more eloquent , if disappointing , flex of power than the film ’ s refusal to really engage on the topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out the sidewalk he ’ s standing on is technically public property.
” The former FLOTUS isn ’ t just getting flack about what Variety called her book ’ s “ DVD bonus feature.
” Conservatives and pro-lifers weren ’ t happy about the comments she made in regard to motherhood during her documentary .
“ My relationship with Barack was all about our equal partnership , ” Obama said in the film .
“ The thing that really changed it was the birth of our children .
I wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it harder , ” she added .
“ Something had to give and it was my aspirations and dreams.
” Outrage about her comments on motherhood broke out on Twitter shortly after the film was released .
Between criticisms of the documentary ’ s watered-down look and Obama ’ s comments on motherhood , “ Becoming ” likely isn ’ t the smash hit that the former first family was hoping for .
But given the ongoing relationship between the Obamas and Netflix , Michelle Obama will likely get plenty more chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Former first lady Michelle Obama’s fans and supporters were excited for the May 6 release of her new Netflix documentary “Becoming,” expecting it to be as successful as her 2018 book was.
But after the widely anticipated film, directed by Nadia Hallgren, was released, critics weren’t exactly raving about it. In fact, some seemed to be pretty disappointed.
Prior to its release, the trailer appeared to offer a better inside look into the Obamas than what reviewers got.
I’m thrilled to give you a sneak peek of BECOMING before it premieres on Netflix on May 6. This movie tells my story, from my childhood on the South Side of Chicago to my life today—and it celebrates the powerful stories of the people I met along the way. #IAmBecoming pic.twitter.com/jXqGTMRIZc — Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) May 4, 2020
Variety accused the film of presenting the former first lady in a “manicured” fashion.
“There are no big revelations here, no gotcha moments or intimate scenes in which Hallgren’s subject lets down her guard, but the target audience hardly expects anything tougher,” Variety wrote.
“Far more than the memoir, the film presents a manicured version of the way Michelle Obama sees herself — and yet, even such a carefully image-managed impression can be telling, since it diverges so significantly from the way the world perceives her.”
Other critics painted the film as nothing more than a tool to help the Obama family “retreat from the global stage.”
Do you think this film is pro-Obama propaganda? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (5252 Votes) No: 1% (52 Votes)
“The film feels very much like an artifact of the Obamas’ attempted retreat from the global stage in favor of private lives producing socially relevant nonfiction films,” Vulture wrote. “There’s no more eloquent, if disappointing, flex of power than the film’s refusal to really engage on the topic lurking at its edges like a stalker pointing out the sidewalk he’s standing on is technically public property.”
The former FLOTUS isn’t just getting flack about what Variety called her book’s “DVD bonus feature.”
Conservatives and pro-lifers weren’t happy about the comments she made in regard to motherhood during her documentary.
“My relationship with Barack was all about our equal partnership,” Obama said in the film.
“The thing that really changed it was the birth of our children. I wasn’t really ready for that. That really made it harder,” she added. “Something had to give and it was my aspirations and dreams.”
Outrage about her comments on motherhood broke out on Twitter shortly after the film was released.
Michelle Obama said in her Netflix documentary that having kids ruined all her career aspirations. What aspirations? Losing your law license? — DeAnna Lorraine ?? (@DeAnna4Congress) May 8, 2020
Ummm… Wow… Happy Mother’s Day Michelle? “Michelle Obama says having kids was ‘concession’ in new Netflix doc” https://t.co/YAqhoswUST — Deneen Borelli (@deneenborelli) May 8, 2020
How incredibly sad for her two daughters to hear this. And what an dreadful (and untrue) message for moms across the country, essentially saying kids ruin everything.https://t.co/mtXq7Bqj6J — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) May 8, 2020
Between criticisms of the documentary’s watered-down look and Obama’s comments on motherhood, “Becoming” likely isn’t the smash hit that the former first family was hoping for.
But given the ongoing relationship between the Obamas and Netflix, Michelle Obama will likely get plenty more chances to try.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--President Trump Orders Federal Retirement Money Invested in Chi-Com Stocks to Pull Out

Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox .
Sign up here .
President Trump is moving to cut investment ties between U.S. federal retirement funds and Chinese equities , FOX Business has learned in a move that is tied to the handling of COVID 19 .
In the first letter written Monday , obtained exclusively by FOX Business , national security adviser Robert O ’ Brien and National Economic Council Chair Larry Kudlow write to U.S. Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia stating that the White House does not want the Thrift Savings Plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to have money invested in Chinese equities that numbers about $ 4 billion in assets .
It says the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board is “ Departing from the Board ’ s established index for the International Stock Investment Fund ( I Fund ) to track one that maintains Chinese equities is risky and unjustified . ''
The letter directly links China ’ s handling of COVID-19 as one of several reasons why investment in Chinese companies should not occur .
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy , the chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board , sharing the Kudlow/O ’ Brien letter noting the two have “ grave concerns with the planned investment on grounds of both investment risk and national security.
” It concludes by saying that moving the assets out of a certain fund is `` at the direction of President Trump . ''
WAITING FOR CORONAVIRUS STIMULUS CHECK ?
DIRECT DEPOSIT INFORMATION IS DUE WEDNESDAY , IRS SAYS The move is likely to rachet up tensions between the U.S. and China as the terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under scrutiny .
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.
President Trump is moving to cut investment ties between U.S. federal retirement funds and Chinese equities, FOX Business has learned in a move that is tied to the handling of COVID 19.
In the first letter written Monday, obtained exclusively by FOX Business, national security adviser Robert O’Brien and National Economic Council Chair Larry Kudlow write to U.S. Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia stating that the White House does not want the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a federal employee retirement fund, to have money invested in Chinese equities that numbers about $4 billion in assets.
It says the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board is “Departing from the Board’s established index for the International Stock Investment Fund (I Fund) to track one that maintains Chinese equities is risky and unjustified." The letter directly links China’s handling of COVID-19 as one of several reasons why investment in Chinese companies should not occur.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
In the second letter, Scalia writes to Michael Kennedy, the chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, sharing the Kudlow/O’Brien letter noting the two have “grave concerns with the planned investment on grounds of both investment risk and national security.”
It concludes by saying that moving the assets out of a certain fund is "at the direction of President Trump."
Scalia wants a response by Wednesday.
WAITING FOR CORONAVIRUS STIMULUS CHECK? DIRECT DEPOSIT INFORMATION IS DUE WEDNESDAY, IRS SAYS
The move is likely to rachet up tensions between the U.S. and China as the terms of their Phase One trade deal come under scrutiny.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board had no comment on the letter.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--After Democrat NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Effectively Murdered Thousands of Seniors, NY Nursing Homes

After Democrat NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Effectively Murdered Thousands of Seniors, NY Nursing Homes Can FINALLY Turn Away Chi-Com Virus Patients

On Sunday , Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D-N.Y. ) finally signed an executive order effectively reversing an order from New York health chief Howard Zucker ’ s order mandating that nursing homes accept people regardless of their coronavirus testing status — indeed , that they couldn ’ t even require a test before admission .
Cuomo signed the order with little fanfare , but the order carries tremendous significance because more than 40 percent of coronavirus deaths nationwide have occurred in nursing homes , where less than one percent of the U.S. population lives , and the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epicenter .
The new order requires nursing homes to test all personnel , including employees , medical staff , operators , and administrators , for the coronavirus twice every week .
Any positive test must be reported to the Department of Health by 5 p.m. the following day .
The order applies harsh penalties for non-compliance , empowering the Commissioner of Health to strip a nursing home ’ s operating certificate , and levying hefty fines .
The new order also requires hospitals to perform a COVID-19 test on any patient before discharging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to check with the nursing home that it is equipped to care for such a patient .
It is quite noteworthy that these commonsense requirements came so late in New York State ’ s handling of the crisis .
As The New York Post reported , this order effectively reversed Zucker ’ s March 25 mandate requiring nursing homes to admit patients regardless of their coronavirus status .
In other words , it follows nearly two months during which coronavirus cases at nursing homes spiked thanks to the state ’ s previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and officials knew that the elderly were at increased risk for complications and death from COVID-19 , and yet they refused to let nursing homes turn away people who had tested positive for the virus .
In one particularly horrific case , state officials signed off on allowing nurses who had tested positive for the virus to continue working at Hornell Gardens nursing home in upstate New York .
Tests administered on April 8 and 9 revealed that 46 of the 140 people who live or work at the home tested positive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that nursing home have died .
Tragically , it seems this new executive order would not have prevented COVID-positive Hornell Gardens staff from returning to work since state health officials made that call .
Even so , the order is a belated step in the right direction when it comes to requiring hospitals to test patients before sending them to nursing homes .
It is unspeakably damning that this order ever needed to be issued at such a late date .
Until this point , Cuomo stood by as his administration mandated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to the virus reside — could not turn away patients who had tested positive for the virus .
This policy endangered the lives of the most vulnerable in the name of fighting the virus .
That ’ s utterly despicable .
Gov .
Cuomo has a great deal to answer for .
Tyler O ’ Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay : The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center .
Follow him on Twitter at @ Tyler2ONeil .
Editor ’ s Note : Want to support PJ Media so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and the virus they unleashed on the world ?
Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25 % off your VIP membership .
Here ’ s How Much New York City Is Skewing America ’ s Coronavirus Numbers

On Sunday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) finally signed an executive order effectively reversing an order from New York health chief Howard Zucker’s order mandating that nursing homes accept people regardless of their coronavirus testing status — indeed, that they couldn’t even require a test before admission. Cuomo signed the order with little fanfare, but the order carries tremendous significance because more than 40 percent of coronavirus deaths nationwide have occurred in nursing homes, where less than one percent of the U.S. population lives, and the New York City area is America’s coronavirus epicenter.
The new order requires nursing homes to test all personnel, including employees, medical staff, operators, and administrators, for the coronavirus twice every week. Any positive test must be reported to the Department of Health by 5 p.m. the following day. The order applies harsh penalties for non-compliance, empowering the Commissioner of Health to strip a nursing home’s operating certificate, and levying hefty fines.
The new order also requires hospitals to perform a COVID-19 test on any patient before discharging him or her to a nursing home and to check with the nursing home that it is equipped to care for such a patient.
It is quite noteworthy that these commonsense requirements came so late in New York State’s handling of the crisis. As The New York Post reported, this order effectively reversed Zucker’s March 25 mandate requiring nursing homes to admit patients regardless of their coronavirus status. In other words, it follows nearly two months during which coronavirus cases at nursing homes spiked thanks to the state’s previous policy.
During that time, doctors and officials knew that the elderly were at increased risk for complications and death from COVID-19, and yet they refused to let nursing homes turn away people who had tested positive for the virus.
In one particularly horrific case, state officials signed off on allowing nurses who had tested positive for the virus to continue working at Hornell Gardens nursing home in upstate New York. Tests administered on April 8 and 9 revealed that 46 of the 140 people who live or work at the home tested positive for COVID-19. At least 15 people from that nursing home have died.
Tragically, it seems this new executive order would not have prevented COVID-positive Hornell Gardens staff from returning to work since state health officials made that call.
Even so, the order is a belated step in the right direction when it comes to requiring hospitals to test patients before sending them to nursing homes.
It is unspeakably damning that this order ever needed to be issued at such a late date. Until this point, Cuomo stood by as his administration mandated that nursing homes — where the population most vulnerable to the virus reside — could not turn away patients who had tested positive for the virus. This policy endangered the lives of the most vulnerable in the name of fighting the virus. That’s utterly despicable.
Gov. Cuomo has a great deal to answer for.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world? Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off your VIP membership.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-13--LAME: NBC’s Chuck Fraud Offers Mealy-Mouthed Apology for Deceptive Edit, Blames . . . CBS?

Behold , the epitome of laziness .
On Tuesday ’ s MTP Daily , NBC News political director Chuck Todd offered a muddled and pathetic apology/non-apology for the deceptive edit Sunday ’ s Meet the Press carried out against Attorney General Bill Barr , saying that he was “ very sorry for that mistake ” but blamed CBS News clips for this kerfuffle .
Only in the final seconds of the 65-second bit did Todd offer the magic words : “ I obviously am very sorry for that mistake .
We strive to do better going forward.
” Translation ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t engaging in basic journalism or research .
Somewhere , Lyin ’ Brian Williams is giving Chuck two thumbs up .
Todd began by stating he “ wanted to talk for a moment about something that occurred on Sunday 's edition of Meet the Press ” in which “ we had a soundbite from a CBS News interview with the Attorney General , Bill Barr ” concerning the Justice Department ’ s decision to drop its case against retired General Michael Flynn .
He noted what he aired on Sunday and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s full answer to CBS ’ s Catherine Herridge : In the bite that we aired and commented on , Mr. Barr was asked how he thinks the history of his decision to end the prosecution of the former national security adviser Michael Flynn will be written .
Mr. Barr answered : “ History is written by the winner so it largely depends on who ’ s writing the history.
” In the full version of the interview and transcript , he went onto say , “ but I think a fair history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it upheld the rule of law.
” Todd could ( and should ) have stopped there with the explanations .
He could ( and should ) have moved to stating how “ sorry ” he was for not only spreading this lie , but sorry to Barr for taking him out of context and to CBS News and Herridge for butchering the interview .
Alas , Todd chose to throw CBS under the bus , claiming that NBC didn ’ t “ edit ” Barr ’ s answer out “ because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that CBS did air.
” Presumably , Todd was referring to Barr ’ s abbreviated answer from Thursday ’ s CBS Evening News .
Just over 12 hours later , Barr ’ s full answer aired on Friday ’ s CBS This Morning .
Here was that portion as it aired on the show ( click “ expand ” ) : HERRIDGE : Barr told CBS News he didn ’ t discuss the decision with President Trump .
[ TO BARR ] Are you doing the President ’ s bidding in General Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m doing the law ’ s bidding .
I ’ m doing my duty under the law as I see it .
HERRIDGE : When history looks back on this decision , how do you think it will be written ?
BARR : Well , history ’ s written by the winners .
So it largely depends on -- on who ’ s writing the history .
But I think a fair history would say it was a -- it was a good decision because it -- it upheld the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice , and it undid what was an injustice .
Since apparently Chuck Todd and his Meet the Press crew can ’ t conduct basic research when CBS published the full interview on May 7 , here ’ s the full exchange ( click “ expand ” ) : HERRIDGE : In closing , this was a big decision in the Flynn case , to -- to say the least .
When history looks back on this decision , how do you think it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about your decision making ?
BARR : Well , history is written by the winner .
So it largely depends on who 's writing the history .
But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law .
It helped , it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice , and it undid what was an injustice .
BARR : I mean , it 's not gon na be the end of it .
HERRIDGE : What do you mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
BARR : Well , I said we 're gon na get to the bottom of what happened .
HERRIDGE : And later this year , do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham ?
Or do you expect indictments ?
BARR : Well , as you know , I 'm not gon na predict the outcome .
But I said that we 're certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work .
But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that 's what we have our eye on .
HERRIDGE : And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case ?
BARR : I do n't wan na get into particular individuals .
As a fellow broadcast network , Todd and his team should know how network interviews work with highlights , extended bites , and then the full interview ( and transcript ) published online later due to the time constraints of newscasts .
Even with those points , Todd ’ s excuses remained weak .
Playing the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he and his team should have “ checked for a full transcript ” and watched the full interview , making for “ a mistake that I wish we had n't made and one that I wish I hadn ’ t made.
” To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC ’ s MTP Daily on May 12 , click “ expand.
” CHUCK TODD : Before we go do break , I wanted to talk for a moment about something that occurred on Sunday 's edition of Meet the Press .
During the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News interview with the Attorney General , Bill Barr .
In the bite that we aired and commented on , Mr. Barr was asked how he thinks the history of his decision to end the prosecution of the former national security adviser Michael Flynn will be written .
Mr. Barr answered : “ History is written by the winner so it largely depends on who ’ s writing the history.
” In the full version of the interview and transcript , he went onto say , “ but I think a fair history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it upheld the rule of law.
” Now , we did not edit that out .
That was not our edit .
We did n't include it because we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air .
We should have looked at both and checked for a full transcript , a mistake that I wish we had n't made and one that I wish I hadn ’ t made .
The second part of the attorney general 's answer would have put it in the proper context .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview , I would not have framed the conversation the way I did and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake .
We strive to do better going forward .

Behold, the epitome of laziness. On Tuesday’s MTP Daily, NBC News political director Chuck Todd offered a muddled and pathetic apology/non-apology for the deceptive edit Sunday’s Meet the Press carried out against Attorney General Bill Barr, saying that he was “very sorry for that mistake” but blamed CBS News clips for this kerfuffle.
Only in the final seconds of the 65-second bit did Todd offer the magic words: “I obviously am very sorry for that mistake. We strive to do better going forward.”
Translation? Todd admitted that he and his staff weren’t engaging in basic journalism or research. Somewhere, Lyin’ Brian Williams is giving Chuck two thumbs up.
Todd began by stating he “wanted to talk for a moment about something that occurred on Sunday's edition of Meet the Press” in which “we had a soundbite from a CBS News interview with the Attorney General, Bill Barr” concerning the Justice Department’s decision to drop its case against retired General Michael Flynn.
He noted what he aired on Sunday and then the omitted part of Barr’s full answer to CBS’s Catherine Herridge:
In the bite that we aired and commented on, Mr. Barr was asked how he thinks the history of his decision to end the prosecution of the former national security adviser Michael Flynn will be written. Mr. Barr answered: “History is written by the winner so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.” In the full version of the interview and transcript, he went onto say, “but I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.”
Todd could (and should) have stopped there with the explanations. He could (and should) have moved to stating how “sorry” he was for not only spreading this lie, but sorry to Barr for taking him out of context and to CBS News and Herridge for butchering the interview.
Alas, Todd chose to throw CBS under the bus, claiming that NBC didn’t “edit” Barr’s answer out “because we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air.”
Presumably, Todd was referring to Barr’s abbreviated answer from Thursday’s CBS Evening News. Just over 12 hours later, Barr’s full answer aired on Friday’s CBS This Morning. Here was that portion as it aired on the show (click “expand”):
HERRIDGE: Barr told CBS News he didn’t discuss the decision with President Trump. [TO BARR] Are you doing the President’s bidding in General Flynn’s case? BARR: No, I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law as I see it. HERRIDGE: When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? BARR: Well, history’s written by the winners. So it largely depends on-- on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say it was a-- it was a good decision because it-- it upheld the rule of law. It helped-- it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.
Since apparently Chuck Todd and his Meet the Press crew can’t conduct basic research when CBS published the full interview on May 7, here’s the full exchange (click “expand”):
HERRIDGE: In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to-- to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making? BARR: Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice. HERRIDGE: Uh-huh. BARR: I mean, it's not gonna be the end of it. HERRIDGE: What do you mean, it's not the end of it? BARR: Well, I said we're gonna get to the bottom of what happened. HERRIDGE: And later this year, do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham? Or do you expect indictments? BARR: Well, as you know, I'm not gonna predict the outcome. But I said that we're certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work. But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the law and should be brought to justice. And that's what we have our eye on. HERRIDGE: And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case? BARR: I don't wanna get into particular individuals.
As a fellow broadcast network, Todd and his team should know how network interviews work with highlights, extended bites, and then the full interview (and transcript) published online later due to the time constraints of newscasts.
Even with those points, Todd’s excuses remained weak. Playing the role of Captain Obvious, he noted that he and his team should have “checked for a full transcript” and watched the full interview, making for “a mistake that I wish we hadn't made and one that I wish I hadn’t made.”
He then concluded:
The second part of the attorney general's answer would have put it in the proper context. And had I seen that part of the interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake. We strive to do better going forward.
Cue the eye-rolling GIFs, everyone.
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s MTP Daily on May 12, click “expand.”


thelibertydaily--2020-05-13--FBI Accidentally Releases Name Of Saudi Official Suspected Of Directing Support For 9/11 Attack

The FBI accidentally revealed the identity of a Saudi government official who officials had suspected of helping direct support to two of the Al-Qaeda hijackers that carried out the September 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans .
Yahoo News reported late on Tuesday that the revelation was contained in court documents filed late last week , which have since been withdrawn , in response to a lawsuit from families of the 9/11 victims against the Saudi government .
Buried more than 850 words in Yahoo News ’ article , reporter Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jill Sanborn , the assistant director of the FBI ’ s counterterrorism division ] says in one instance that it involves “ any and all records referring to or relating to Jarrah.
” The reference is to Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah , a mid-level Saudi Foreign Ministry official who was assigned to the Saudi Embassy in Washington , D.C. , in 1999 and 2000 .
His duties apparently included overseeing the activities of Ministry of Islamic Affairs employees at Saudi-funded mosques and Islamic centers within the United States .
Relatively little is known about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees , he reported to the Saudi ambassador in the United States ( at the time Prince Bandar ) , and that he was later reassigned to the Saudi mission in Morocco .
His current whereabouts are unknown but he is believed to be in Saudi Arabia .
The report noted that the Jarrah ’ s name was released in a portion of the declaration where Sanborn referenced a partially declassified report on possible ties between the hijackers and the Saudi government .
That probe , the existence of which has only become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially focused on two individuals : Fahad al-Thumairy , a Saudi Islamic Affairs official and radical cleric who served as the imam of the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and Omar al-Bayoumi , a suspected Saudi government agent who assisted two terrorists , Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi , who participated in the hijacking of the American Airlines plane that flew into the Pentagon , killing 125 .
… Elsewhere in her declaration , Sanborn asserts that the contention that Jarrah “ tasked ” Thumairy and Bayoumi with assisting the hijackers was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents working the case rather than a conclusion based on hard evidence .
Former President Barack Obama blocked a bill in 2016 that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government .
Republican majorities in the House and Senate overrode Obama ’ s veto with a 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and 348-to-77 vote in the House .
The Yahoo report tried to make it seem like Attorney General William Barr and Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell were involved in a cover up because they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Grenell and Barr said that the disclosure could cause “ significant harm to the national security ” because publicly disclosing FBI internal documents would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods that the U.S. government uses to collect classified information and would damage cooperation from foreign government in future sensitive investigations because they would not want any of their internal documents revealed in public court .
The Daily Wire , headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro , is a leading provider of conservative news , cutting through the mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important , relevant , and engaging stories of the day .
Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member .

The FBI accidentally revealed the identity of a Saudi government official who officials had suspected of helping direct support to two of the Al-Qaeda hijackers that carried out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans.
Yahoo News reported late on Tuesday that the revelation was contained in court documents filed late last week, which have since been withdrawn, in response to a lawsuit from families of the 9/11 victims against the Saudi government.
Buried more than 850 words in Yahoo News’ article, reporter Michael Isikoff wrote:
[The filing from Jill Sanborn, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterterrorism division] says in one instance that it involves “any and all records referring to or relating to Jarrah.” The reference is to Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah, a mid-level Saudi Foreign Ministry official who was assigned to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., in 1999 and 2000. His duties apparently included overseeing the activities of Ministry of Islamic Affairs employees at Saudi-funded mosques and Islamic centers within the United States. Relatively little is known about Jarrah, but according to former embassy employees, he reported to the Saudi ambassador in the United States (at the time Prince Bandar), and that he was later reassigned to the Saudi mission in Morocco. His current whereabouts are unknown but he is believed to be in Saudi Arabia.
The report noted that the Jarrah’s name was released in a portion of the declaration where Sanborn referenced a partially declassified report on possible ties between the hijackers and the Saudi government.
Yahoo News added:
That probe, the existence of which has only become public in the past few years, initially focused on two individuals: Fahad al-Thumairy, a Saudi Islamic Affairs official and radical cleric who served as the imam of the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi government agent who assisted two terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who participated in the hijacking of the American Airlines plane that flew into the Pentagon, killing 125. … Elsewhere in her declaration, Sanborn asserts that the contention that Jarrah “tasked” Thumairy and Bayoumi with assisting the hijackers was more a “theory” of the agents working the case rather than a conclusion based on hard evidence.
Former President Barack Obama blocked a bill in 2016 that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. Republican majorities in the House and Senate overrode Obama’s veto with a 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and 348-to-77 vote in the House.
The Yahoo report tried to make it seem like Attorney General William Barr and Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell were involved in a cover up because they did not want the information being made public.
Grenell and Barr said that the disclosure could cause “significant harm to the national security” because publicly disclosing FBI internal documents would reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods that the U.S. government uses to collect classified information and would damage cooperation from foreign government in future sensitive investigations because they would not want any of their internal documents revealed in public court.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.