therightscoop--2020-05-12--[UPDATE: VIDEO OF INTERVIEW RELEASED] – Here’s full interview with AG Barr and Catherine Herridge on

[UPDATE: VIDEO OF INTERVIEW RELEASED] – Here’s full interview with AG Barr and Catherine Herridge on the decision to drop the Flynn case and more!

As you may have heard by now , AG Barr sat down with Catherine Herridge to discuss the decision to drop the Flynn case and all things therein .
Unfortunately CBS News never put out the full interview in video format , at least that I could find , so instead I ’ m providing you the entire transcript that CBS News put out .
I ’ ve broken it up by section to highlight what was discussed .
> > UPDATE : CBS News has finally released the full 28 minute video interview with Barr .
So if prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions from Herridge are in bold : What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case ?
We dismissed or are moving to dismiss the charges against General Flynn .
At any stage during a proceeding , even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea , the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met .
As you recall , in January , General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea , and also alleged misconduct by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney , who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten years as a career prosecutor , Jeff Jensen , from St. Louis , to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case .
And he found some additional material .
And last week , he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case , which I fully agreed with , as did the U.S. attorney in D.C .
So we ’ ve moved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismiss by the Justice Department , this all came together really within the last week , based on new evidence ?
Right .
Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this .
And he reported to me last week .
Does Judge Sullivan have a say ?
Yes .
Under the rules , the case can be dismissed with leave of court .
Generally , the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants , to make sure the government doesn ’ t play games by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; bringing another charge , dismissing it .
But he does have a say .
But is the Flynn case effectively over today from the Justice Department ’ s point of view ?
We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed , as far as the Department of Justice is concerned .
And depending on the judge ’ s decision , could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition ?
Well , no charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not gon na speculate about what charges there may be .
All of that said , General Flynn pled guilty to lying to federal investigators during his interview in January of 2017 .
And Flynn admitted in court , quote , his “ false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI ’ s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia ’ s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
” Does the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators ?
Well to constitute a false statement , you need two things .
One , you need a false statement , lie .
And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation .
And I think on the question of lying , it ’ s as Comey , Director Comey said just a few months after this episode , he said it was a closed question .
And that , while you might make that argument , it was a very closed question .
But it ’ s on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a crime can not be established here because there was not , in our view , a legitimate investigation going on .
They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage , based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition .
So .
Let me just also say that when he pled , the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on .
And that ’ s information that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
The individual party would really not have that information .
So as new information just became available that has a bearing on whether there was a legitimate investigation , that requires us , our duty , we think is to dismiss the case .
Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying ?
Yes .
Essentially .
They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer , as you know , related to the campaign .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crossfire Hurricane team , was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn .
On the very day they prepared the final papers , the seventh floor , that is the director ’ s office and the deputy director ’ s office up there , sent down word they should keep that open .
So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador .
Let me say that , at that point , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , and was part of the transition , which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration .
And it is very typical , very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders .
And that call , there was nothing wrong with it whatever .
In fact , it was laudable .
He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration ’ s policies .
And it was in U.S. interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , “ Don ’ t escalate.
” And they asked him if he remembered saying that , and he said he didn ’ t remember that .
What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today ?
Well , as I said in my confirmation hearing , one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country .
And that the political and that the justice , or the law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games .
And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system .
There ’ s only one standard of justice .
And I believe that this case , that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn .
Are the actions you ’ re taking today bigger than the Flynn case ?
Well , I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country .
And that ’ s the way it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what political party you ’ re in , or , you know , whether you ’ re rich or poor .
We will follow the same standard for everybody .
Was there a crime committed , do we believe a crime was committed ?
And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt ?
And we don ’ t think either of those standards were applicable here .
Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general ?
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
It ’ s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that ’ s what we ’ re here to do .
We ’ re here to do what ’ s right .
It was an easy decision , yes .
I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case , it was an easy decision .
You know , one thing people will see when they look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates .
Deputy Attorney General Yates , I ’ ve disagreed with her about a couple of things , but , you know , here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice .
She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration , and they should go and tell the White House about their findings .
They and , you know , Director Comey ran around that .
When the special counsel report was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president ’ s favor .
Are you doing the president ’ s bidding in General Flynn ’ s case ?
No , I ’ m doing the law ’ s bidding .
I ’ m doing my duty under the law , as I see it .
President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case .
He said , “ What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.
” Were you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or his tweets ?
No , not at all .
And , you know , I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gon na look into what happened in 2016 and ’ 17 .
I made that crystal clear .
I was very concerned about what happened .
I was gon na get to the bottom of it .
And that included the treatment of General Flynn .
And that is part of John Durham , U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s portfolio .
The reason we had to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case .
And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it .
But John Durham is still looking at all of this .
This is one particular episode , but we view it as part of a number of related acts .
And we ’ re looking at the whole pattern of conduct .
The whole pattern of conduct before ?
After the election ?
Okay .
You talk about the importance of timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that helped you decide this issue ?
I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December .
They started that process .
And on January 4th , they were closing it .
And that when they heard about the phone call , which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there ’ s no question as to what was discussed .
The FBI knew exactly what was discussed .
And General Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DIA , said to them , you know , “ You listen , you listen to everything .
You know , you know what was said.
” So there was no mystery about the call .
But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation , which didn ’ t fly .
And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation .
And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch , lay a perjury trap for General Flynn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way we usually would be required by the Department .
They bypassed the Justice Department .
They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth .
These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on .
You know you ’ re gon na take a lot of incoming , as they say in the military , for this decision .
Are you prepared for that ?
Yeah , I ’ m prepared for that .
I also think it ’ s sad that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people have lost any sense of justice .
And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there ’ s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people ’ s lives and see great injustices done .
Just to be clear , you said this was your decision .
Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump ?
Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision ?
No .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Department would be saying something in court .
And I said that we ’ d make up our mind what to do and file , you know , sometime before Monday .
File our responses to what was going on in court .
But other than that , no .
So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today ?
On the FBI asking if they should get Flynn to lie… No .
Okay .
A lot of records have come to light .
You talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Were those new records to you ?
Because– –of Jensen ?
Okay .
All right .
In addition to those records , there are handwritten notes from January 24th , 2017 .
This was the day of Michael Flynn ’ s interview .
And the writer states , “ What is our goal ?
Truth , admission , or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” Is that a routine , by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials ?
Well , as many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not unusual .
In the course of a bona fide investigation , when you ’ re doing a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation , that has a basis it ’ s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie .
But here ’ s what ’ s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate .
And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie .
But that language , does it bother you at all ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the documents , the way I interpret them , is there was a disagreement .
And that one of the agents , one of the senior agents felt that “ Let ’ s not be game playing here .
We have the transcript .
Show him the transcripts and find out what you wan na find out.
” Instead of instead of , you know , essentially reading excerpts and saying , “ Do you remember saying that ?
” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie .
But , again , because the FBI knew about the call , there was nothing wrong with the call , the FBI has the transcript of the call , whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything .
Who at the FBI was driving this ?
What are the consequences for these individuals ?
Based on the evidence that you have seen , did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser ?
Well , as I said , this is a particular episode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it , as we ’ ve discussed .
But I think , you know , that ’ s a question that really has to wait an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump ’ s administration .
What are the consequences for these individuals ?
Well , you know , I don ’ t wan na , you know , we ’ re in the middle of looking at all of this .
John Durham ’ s investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m gon na ask him to do some more work on different items as well .
And I ’ m gon na wait till all the evidence is , and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is .
But if , you know , if we were to find wrongdoing , in the sense of any criminal act , you know , obviously we would , we would follow through on that .
But , again , you know , just because something may even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there ’ s a violation of a criminal statute .
And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt .
The same standard applies to everybody .
It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon .
That ’ s what you ’ re saying you think happened here ?
I think , yes .
I think there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , for the last several decades , the Department has been used more and more , or the efforts have been made to draw the Department into that .
And I think it ’ s very important that that not happen .
People , you know , we should choose our leaders through the election process .
And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic .
Before we move on to some separate questions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided to Flynn ’ s defense team long ago .
Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray ?
Well , you know , Chris Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we ’ ve been running .
He cooperated fully with Durham , cooperated fully with Jensen .
But , you know , there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don ’ t consider it the director ’ s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t– I wouldn ’ t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray .
Does Director Wray have what it takes to make the changes at the FBI ?
Yeah , as I ’ ve said , you know , he ’ s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people ’ s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI .
And we work very well together .
And I think both of us know that we have to step up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore the American people ’ s confidence .
Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017 ?
FBI motives and more on Flynn ‘ lying ’ … These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel ’ s office , and in senior levels of the FBI .
So what drove them here ?
Well , I think one of the things you have to guard against , both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator , is that if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ re pursuing a particular agenda , you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn ’ t fit with your preconception .
And I think that ’ s probably the phenomenon we ’ re looking at here .
You know more about the investigation since Horowitz , since December .
Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today ?
You know , I ’ m not gon na , again , get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that , you know , points in that direction .
But I haven ’ t reached a final conclusion .
Before we just move onto to a couple of off-topic questions , the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned , was fired .
And that he admitted lying to the FBI .
Does the fact remain that he lied ?
Well , you know , people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes .
And as I said , the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something he would know about .
On its face , as Director Comey said , it ’ s not so clear .
But the question of materiality is not something he would know about .
That ’ s something that the government knows about .
And we have now gotten into it , drilled down , obtained new information .
And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation .
So it was not a crime .
Before we leave this topic , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add ?
Okay .
Just on COVID-19 .
Some of the news of today .
The valet at the White House has tested positive .
Have you had any exposure or interaction with this valet ?
I don ’ t think I have , no .
Do you have a view on whether the president , the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated ?
No , you know , I don ’ t have a view on that .
I don ’ t know about how close they were physically or what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we ’ re tested pretty regularly when we ’ re over at the White House to visit .
Every day , every other day ?
It depends how frequently , though at least once a week , but sometimes , you know , if you ’ ve been around and could have been infected , you can get further testing .
The president said that he ’ s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it ’ s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back ?
Yes .
You know , we had an opportunity , all the stakeholders in the administration , to discuss this , and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states .
Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic ?
Well , the case isn ’ t gon na be argued until October .
And the president ’ s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage of preexisting conditions .
And , you know , he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better health care system .
If governors continue to limit the size of gatherings , including religious services , what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take ?
Well , I think initially , you know , at the very beginning of the crisis , before we knew very much — and while , in some places , the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been defensible .
But as time goes by , it ’ s harder to justify those kinds of blanket restrictions on religious practice .
I think , if people can follow social distancing by leaving space , wearing masks and so forth , there has to be accommodation to religious practice .
The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way .
On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have tested positive for COVID-19 .
Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff ?
I think over time , we ’ ll be testing and perhaps get to that point .
You know , we got , right at the beginning , I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines .
And we ’ ve been building up our testing capacity .
And we ’ re doing more and more tests .
And , you know , we ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we can .
We let a lot of inmates who are older and don ’ t pose a threat to the community , we ’ ve put them on home confinement to get ’ em outta the institutions .
So we ’ re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates .
Generally speaking , historically , the infection rates roughly , from what I ’ ve seen , are comparable inside the institution ( SIC ) as they are in society at large .
And we ’ ve been able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in , you know , nursing homes and so forth .
It takes a lotta work , and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that .
Back to the Flynn case and John Durham… 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
I mean , it ’ s not gon na be the end of it .
What do you mean , it ’ s not the end of it ?
Well , I said we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what happened .
And later this year , do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham ?
Or do you expect indictments ?
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 law and should be brought to justice .
And that ’ s what we have our eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in the Flynn case ?
I don ’ t wan na get into particular individuals .
Attorney General William Barr , thank you very much for joining us here at CBS News .

As you may have heard by now, AG Barr sat down with Catherine Herridge to discuss the decision to drop the Flynn case and all things therein. Unfortunately CBS News never put out the full interview in video format, at least that I could find, so instead I’m providing you the entire transcript that CBS News put out. I’ve broken it up by section to highlight what was discussed.
>>UPDATE: CBS News has finally released the full 28 minute video interview with Barr. So if prefer you can watch it below:
The questions from Herridge are in bold:
What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case? We dismissed or are moving to dismiss the charges against General Flynn. At any stage during a proceeding, even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea, the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met. As you recall, in January, General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea, and also alleged misconduct by the government. And at that time, I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney, who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten years as a career prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, from St. Louis, to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case. And he found some additional material. And last week, he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case, which I fully agreed with, as did the U.S. attorney in D.C. So we’ve moved to dismiss the case. So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department, this all came together really within the last week, based on new evidence? Right. Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this. And he reported to me last week. Does Judge Sullivan have a say? Yes. Under the rules, the case can be dismissed with leave of court. Generally, the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants, to make sure the government doesn’t play games by bringing a charge and then dismissing it; bringing another charge, dismissing it. But he does have a say. But is the Flynn case effectively over today from the Justice Department’s point of view? We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned. And depending on the judge’s decision, could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition? Well, no charges like that have been brought. And I’m not gonna speculate about what charges there may be.
On General Flynn ‘lying’…
All of that said, General Flynn pled guilty to lying to federal investigators during his interview in January of 2017. And Flynn admitted in court, quote, his “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Does the fact remain that General Flynn lied to federal investigators? Well to constitute a false statement, you need two things. One, you need a false statement, lie. And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation. And I think on the question of lying, it’s as Comey, Director Comey said just a few months after this episode, he said it was a closed question. And that, while you might make that argument, it was a very closed question. But it’s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on. They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition. So. Let me just also say that when he pled, the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on. And that’s information that’s really within the control of the government. The individual party would really not have that information. So as new information just became available that has a bearing on whether there was a legitimate investigation, that requires us, our duty, we think is to dismiss the case. Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying? Yes. Essentially. They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn. On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open. So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador. Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders. And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies. And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, “Don’t escalate.” And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.
Two standards of justice…
What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today? Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn. Are the actions you’re taking today bigger than the Flynn case? Well, I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country. And that’s the way it will be. It doesn’t matter what political party you’re in, or, you know, whether you’re rich or poor. We will follow the same standard for everybody. Was there a crime committed, do we believe a crime was committed? And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And we don’t think either of those standards were applicable here. Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general? I don’t know. I let other people judge that. It’s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to do what’s right. Not what’s easy. Right. Was it an easy decision? It was an easy decision, yes. I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case, it was an easy decision. You know, one thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates. Deputy Attorney General Yates, I’ve disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings. They and, you know, Director Comey ran around that. When the special counsel report was released last year, you were accused by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president’s favor. Are you doing the president’s bidding in General Flynn’s case? No, I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it.
Trump tweets on Flynn…
President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case. He said, “What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.” Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets? No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and ’17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn. And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this. This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct. The whole pattern of conduct before? And after. And after? Yeah, the election.
Perjury Trap…
After the election? Okay. You talk about the importance of timing in this decision. What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue? I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it. And that when they heard about the phone call, which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there’s no question as to what was discussed. The FBI knew exactly what was discussed. And General Flynn, being the former director of the DIA, said to them, you know, “You listen, you listen to everything. You know, you know what was said.” So there was no mystery about the call. But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation, which didn’t fly. And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation. And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn. They didn’t warn him, the way we usually would be required by the Department. They bypassed the Justice Department. They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth. These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on.
The Flynn decision and President Trump…
You know you’re gonna take a lot of incoming, as they say in the military, for this decision. Are you prepared for that? Yeah, I’m prepared for that. I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done. Just to be clear, you said this was your decision. Uh-huh. Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump? No. Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision? No. They were aware, because of the schedule, that the Department would be saying something in court. And I said that we’d make up our mind what to do and file, you know, sometime before Monday. File our responses to what was going on in court. But other than that, no. So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today? Yes. Not earlier? No.
On the FBI asking if they should get Flynn to lie…
No. Okay. A lot of records have come to light. You talk about the records for closing the Flynn case. Were those new records to you? Because– Yes. –of Jensen? Okay. All right. In addition to those records, there are handwritten notes from January 24th, 2017. This was the day of Michael Flynn’s interview. And the writer states, “What is our goal? Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Is that a routine, by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials? Well, as many people point out, you know, it’s not unusual. In the course of a bona fide investigation, when you’re doing a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation, that has a basis it’s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie. But here’s what’s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate. And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie. But that language, does it bother you at all? Well, my understanding is, just looking at the documents, the way I interpret them, is there was a disagreement. And that one of the agents, one of the senior agents felt that “Let’s not be game playing here. We have the transcript. Show him the transcripts and find out what you wanna find out.” Instead of instead of, you know, essentially reading excerpts and saying, “Do you remember saying that?” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him in something that could be called a lie. But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.
Who at the FBI was driving this?
Who at the FBI was driving this? Well, this particular episode, it looks like the impetus came from the seventh floor. The seventh floor is Director Comey. I believe it’s Director Comey and the deputy’s office.
What are the consequences for these individuals?
Based on the evidence that you have seen, did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser? Well, as I said, this is a particular episode. And it has some troubling features to it, as we’ve discussed. But I think, you know, that’s a question that really has to wait an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump’s administration. What are the consequences for these individuals? Well, you know, I don’t wanna, you know, we’re in the middle of looking at all of this. John Durham’s investigation, and U.S. Attorney Jensen, I’m gonna ask him to do some more work on different items as well. And I’m gonna wait till all the evidence is, and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is. But if, you know, if we were to find wrongdoing, in the sense of any criminal act, you know, obviously we would, we would follow through on that. But, again, you know, just because something may even stink to high heaven and be, you know, appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute. And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies to everybody. It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon. That’s what you’re saying you think happened here? I think, yes. I think there was an aspect of that. And I think, for the last several decades, the Department has been used more and more, or the efforts have been made to draw the Department into that. And I think it’s very important that that not happen. People, you know, we should choose our leaders through the election process. And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic.
On FBI Director Christopher Wray…
Before we move on to some separate questions, many of these records should have been provided to Flynn’s defense team long ago. Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray? Well, you know, Chris Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we’ve been running. He cooperated fully with Durham, cooperated fully with Jensen. But, you know, there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don’t consider it the director’s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in each case. So I don’t– I wouldn’t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray. Does Director Wray have what it takes to make the changes at the FBI? Yeah, as I’ve said, you know, he’s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people’s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI. And we work very well together. And I think both of us know that we have to step up. That it’s very important to restore the American people’s confidence. Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017? I think he does.
Steele Dossier…
Newly declassified footnotes in the Horowitz report suggest that the Steele dossier was likely the product of Russian disinformation. And there were multiple warnings to the FBI at that time, yet they continued to use that. How do you explain that? I think that’s one of the most troubling aspects of this whole thing. And, in fact, I said it in testimony on the Hill, I can’t remember if it was my confirmation, that I said I was very concerned about the possibility that that dossier and Steele’s activities were used as a vector for the Russians to inject disinformation into the political campaign. I think that is something that Robert Mueller was responsible for looking at under his charter, which is the potential of Russian influence. But I think it was ignored and there was mounting indications that this could very well have been happening and no one really stopped to look at it.
FBI motives and more on Flynn ‘lying’…
These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel’s office, and in senior levels of the FBI. So what drove them here? Well, I think one of the things you have to guard against, both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator, is that if you get too wedded to a particular outcome and you’re pursuing a particular agenda, you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn’t fit with your preconception. And I think that’s probably the phenomenon we’re looking at here. You know more about the investigation since Horowitz, since December. Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today? You know, I’m not gonna, again, get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything. There’s certainly more information that has come out that, you know, points in that direction. But I haven’t reached a final conclusion. Before we just move onto to a couple of off-topic questions, the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned, was fired. And that he admitted lying to the FBI. Does the fact remain that he lied? Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes. And as I said, the question of lying, you know, it’s something he would know about. On its face, as Director Comey said, it’s not so clear. But the question of materiality is not something he would know about. That’s something that the government knows about. And we have now gotten into it, drilled down, obtained new information. And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime. Before we leave this topic, is there anything that you would like to add? No.
Coronavirus related questions…
Okay. Just on COVID-19. Some of the news of today. The valet at the White House has tested positive. Have you had any exposure or interaction with this valet? I don’t think I have, no. Do you have a view on whether the president, the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated? No, you know, I don’t have a view on that. I don’t know about how close they were physically or what the medical advice is the president gets. But we’re tested pretty regularly when we’re over at the White House to visit. Every day, every other day? It depends how frequently, though at least once a week, but sometimes, you know, if you’ve been around and could have been infected, you can get further testing. The president said that he’s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it’s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year. What’s your position? Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back? Yes. You know, we had an opportunity, all the stakeholders in the administration, to discuss this, and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states. Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic? Well, the case isn’t gonna be argued until October. And the president’s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of preexisting conditions. And there will be coverage of preexisting conditions. And, you know, he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better health care system. If governors continue to limit the size of gatherings, including religious services, what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take? Well, I think initially, you know, at the very beginning of the crisis, before we knew very much — and while, in some places, the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system, you know, the initial limitations may have been defensible. But as time goes by, it’s harder to justify those kinds of blanket restrictions on religious practice. I think, if people can follow social distancing by leaving space, wearing masks and so forth, there has to be accommodation to religious practice. The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way. On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 inmates and over 360 Bureau prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19. Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff? I think over time, we’ll be testing and perhaps get to that point. You know, we got, right at the beginning, I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines. And we’ve been building up our testing capacity. And we’re doing more and more tests. And, you know, we’ve been trying to keep our inmates as safe as we can. We let a lot of inmates who are older and don’t pose a threat to the community, we’ve put them on home confinement to get ’em outta the institutions. So we’re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates. Generally speaking, historically, the infection rates roughly, from what I’ve seen, are comparable inside the institution (SIC) as they are in society at large. And we’ve been able to prevent our prisons from becoming Petri dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in, you know, nursing homes and so forth. It takes a lotta work, and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that.
Back to the Flynn case and John Durham…
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? 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. Uh-huh. I mean, it’s not gonna be the end of it. What do you mean, it’s not the end of it? Well, I said we’re gonna get to the bottom of what happened. And later this year, do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham? Or do you expect indictments? 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. And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case? I don’t wanna get into particular individuals. Attorney General William Barr, thank you very much for joining us here at CBS News. Thank you.


therightscoop--2020-05-12--Pelosi and House Democrats unveil new $3 TRILLION dollar stimulus bill

Pelosi and House Democrats have just unveiled a new coronavirus relief bill totaling around $ 3 TRILLION : DC EXAMINER – House Democrats Tuesday introduced a new round of coronavirus legislation costing more than $ 3 trillion that would provide an historic level of federal aid to those hurt by the pandemic .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi will announce the “ Heroes Act ” Tuesday afternoon and has scheduled a Friday vote on the legislation .
The measure provides $ 1 trillion to state , local , municipal and tribal governments to help them keep operating without the tax revenue lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure provides $ 200 billion in “ hazard pay ” for those working in grocery stores , medical facilities , and other frontline jobs ; a new round of $ 1,200 direct payments to individuals ; and an extension to January of the $ 600 in extra unemployment insurance benefits now provided to those who lost jobs in the pandemic .
The measure also calls for $ 175 billion to pay for rent , mortgages , utilities , and other housing costs for those who can not pay .
It would also increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The measure adds $ 25 billion to bail out the Postal Service , which is badly in debt and threatening it can not continue functioning without a new infusion of federal aid .
This reminds of the old song that says “ anything you can do , I can do better.
” In this case Pelosi and House Democrats are saying “ any amount you can spend , we can spend higher.
” Geez .
Note the bill doesn ’ t just give people another $ 1200 stimulus check , it also pays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” !
And on top of that it continues the $ 600 unemployment benefits for the rest of the year .
So if you ’ re unemployed with a mortgage and utilities in this pandemic economy , you could be the real winner here .
In reality this bill is an utter waste of time by Democrats because there ’ s no way it will pass the Senate .
But Pelosi and House Democrats know this because they didn ’ t even bother negotiating with Republicans .
They are just putting it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like they are doing something for the American people , when it ’ s nothing but Kabuki theater .

Pelosi and House Democrats have just unveiled a new coronavirus relief bill totaling around $3 TRILLION:
DC EXAMINER – House Democrats Tuesday introduced a new round of coronavirus legislation costing more than $3 trillion that would provide an historic level of federal aid to those hurt by the pandemic. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will announce the “Heroes Act” Tuesday afternoon and has scheduled a Friday vote on the legislation. The measure provides $1 trillion to state, local, municipal and tribal governments to help them keep operating without the tax revenue lost because of the economic shutdown. The measure provides $200 billion in “hazard pay” for those working in grocery stores, medical facilities, and other frontline jobs; a new round of $1,200 direct payments to individuals; and an extension to January of the $600 in extra unemployment insurance benefits now provided to those who lost jobs in the pandemic. The measure also calls for $175 billion to pay for rent, mortgages, utilities, and other housing costs for those who cannot pay. It would also increase food stamp benefits by 15%. The measure adds $25 billion to bail out the Postal Service, which is badly in debt and threatening it cannot continue functioning without a new infusion of federal aid.
This reminds of the old song that says “anything you can do, I can do better.” In this case Pelosi and House Democrats are saying “any amount you can spend, we can spend higher.” Geez.
Note the bill doesn’t just give people another $1200 stimulus check, it also pays for “rent, mortgages, utilities”! And on top of that it continues the $600 unemployment benefits for the rest of the year. So if you’re unemployed with a mortgage and utilities in this pandemic economy, you could be the real winner here.
In reality this bill is an utter waste of time by Democrats because there’s no way it will pass the Senate. But Pelosi and House Democrats know this because they didn’t even bother negotiating with Republicans. They are just putting it out there to try and make it look like they are doing something for the American people, when it’s nothing but Kabuki theater.


therightscoop--2020-05-12--WATCH LIVE: Kayleigh McEnany holds presser at 2PM

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is holding a press conference today at 2PM and you can watch it below @

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is holding a press conference today at 2PM and you can watch it below:
WHITE HOUSE:
FOX NEWS:
PBS NEWSHOUR:
WHILE YOU WAIT:
He doesn't even look real! pic.twitter.com/72zRK67cM5 — The Dodo (@dodo) May 9, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-12--“I don’t think you’re the end all” – Senator Rand Paul confronts Dr. Fauci in hearing

Dr. Fauci got an earful from Senator Rand Paul today , who pointed out how people have been wrong about coronavirus predictions and suggested we need to look at the Swedish model .
He also told Dr. Fauci , “ with all due respect ” of course , that he doesn ’ t think he ’ s the end all that should be making all the decisions : Paul made a good point , noting that outside of the New England states we haven ’ t seen pandemic levels of the coronavirus in many states .
He was arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local level as to opening up the economy and getting kids back in school .
He also argued that in all likelihood people who ’ ve had the virus now have immunity from getting it again , saying it ’ s better to say that than ‘ there ’ s no evidence ’ that people get immunity from the virus .
Dr. Fauci did respond to Paul ’ s comments toward the end of the video noting that when it comes to children and school , he ’ d rather be cautious given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know about the virus .
He agreed with Paul that we should be humble about what we don ’ t know about the virus , but suggesting that we shouldn ’ t put children at risk given that we don ’ t know everything about the virus .

Dr. Fauci got an earful from Senator Rand Paul today, who pointed out how people have been wrong about coronavirus predictions and suggested we need to look at the Swedish model. He also told Dr. Fauci, “with all due respect” of course, that he doesn’t think he’s the end all that should be making all the decisions:
Paul made a good point, noting that outside of the New England states we haven’t seen pandemic levels of the coronavirus in many states. He was arguing that decisions should be made more on the local level as to opening up the economy and getting kids back in school.
He also argued that in all likelihood people who’ve had the virus now have immunity from getting it again, saying it’s better to say that than ‘there’s no evidence’ that people get immunity from the virus.
Dr. Fauci did respond to Paul’s comments toward the end of the video noting that when it comes to children and school, he’d rather be cautious given that there are still things they don’t know about the virus. He agreed with Paul that we should be humble about what we don’t know about the virus, but suggesting that we shouldn’t put children at risk given that we don’t know everything about the virus.
Watch the video for more…


therightscoop--2020-05-12--Trump backs Elon Musk as he restarts Tesla plant in defiance of Alameda County rules…

Trump this morning backed Elon Musk who is demanding Alameda County let him open his Tesla plant so they can @ @ @ @ @ Yesterday Elon Musk wrote that he was going to restart his plant in defiance of @ @ @ @ @ said he ’ d be out there on the floor and asked that if anyone @ @ @ @ @ him : He also added yesterday that he ’ s been singled out by an @ @ @ @ @ , saying that the state of California gave him the go ahead but “ an @ @ @ @ @ ” that decision : I checked Musk ’ s timeline to see if anything negative @ @ @ @ @ far nothing .
Hopefully Alameda County will leave Musk alone so he can continue back @ @ @

Trump this morning backed Elon Musk who is demanding Alameda County let him open his Tesla plant so they can get back to business:
California should let Tesla & @elonmusk open the plant, NOW. It can be done Fast & Safely! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2020
Yesterday Elon Musk wrote that he was going to restart his plant in defiance of Alameda County rules. He said he’d be out there on the floor and asked that if anyone got arrested, it be him:
Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules. I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
He also added yesterday that he’s been singled out by an unelected official in Alameda County, saying that the state of California gave him the go ahead but “an unelected county official illegally overrode” that decision:
Yes, California approved, but an unelected county official illegally overrode. Also, all other auto companies in US are approved to resume. Only Tesla has been singled out. This is super messed up! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
I checked Musk’s timeline to see if anything negative happened yesterday, but so far nothing. Hopefully Alameda County will leave Musk alone so he can continue back to work.


therightscoop--2020-05-13--“Here are the absurd provisions Dems want to waste money on in the middle of a pandemic” – Tom Cotto

“Here are the absurd provisions Dems want to waste money on in the middle of a pandemic” – Tom Cotton exposes Pelosi’s “relief” bill sham

Tom Cotton just put out a great Twitter statement on Nancy Pelosi ’ s 3 trillion dollar coronavirus “ relief @ @ @ @ @ absurd provisions that House Democrats want to waste money on during the pandemic : GET @ @ @ @ @ !
FORCING STATES TO ALLOW VOTE BY MAIL !
MAKING SURE A GOOD CRISIS DOESN @ @ @ @ @ !
In a normal world the media would be all over politicians for trying to @ @ @ @ @ like this .
But we live in an era of garbage media who only oppose @ @ @ @ @ free pass on nearly everything .

Tom Cotton just put out a great Twitter statement on Nancy Pelosi’s 3 trillion dollar coronavirus “relief” bill, explaining the absurd provisions that House Democrats want to waste money on during the pandemic:
Nancy Pelosi’s 1,800-page virus “relief” bill is yet another wish list for liberal activists and donors. Here are just a few of the absurd provisions Democrats want to waste money on in the middle of a pandemic: — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARDS!
Pelosi’s bill would give get-out-of-jail free cards to every federal prisoner with asthma or diabetes or who is over age 50. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
FORCING STATES TO ALLOW VOTE BY MAIL!
The Democrats also want to force states to allow vote by mail—but would *prohibit* states from requiring photo ID, notarization, or witness signatures to send or receive mail-in ballots. This is the perfect storm for voter fraud. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
…The Democrats even require states to send mail-in ballots to people for every federal election going forward, even if they just wanted one for this election. In other words, they want to permanently change our elections, even though it increases the risk of fraud. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
AMNESTY!
And of course the Democrats snuck amnesty into the bill: Illegal immigrants in “essential services” would be authorized to work for the duration of the crisis. Meanwhile, 22 million Americans are unemployed. Don’t you think those Americans want a job? — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
The Democrats’ bill also would require DHS to review the files of every illegal alien in its custody to determine whether they should be released in the middle of a pandemic and Depression-level unemployment. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
MAKING SURE A GOOD CRISIS DOESN’T GO TO WASTE!
The Democrat-run House isn’t even in session, but Speaker Pelosi is hard at work giving your money to liberal activists and donors. This isn’t about the pandemic for Democrats. It’s about making sure a good crisis doesn’t go to waste. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) May 13, 2020
In a normal world the media would be all over politicians for trying to milk a pandemic for stuff like this. But we live in an era of garbage media who only oppose Republicans and give Democrats a free pass on nearly everything.


therightscoop--2020-05-14--Ted Cruz says Joe Biden has been caught in TWO LIES in 24 hours

Ted Cruz hit Joe Biden tonight for being caught in two lies in 24 hours .
Both lies come from his interview with ABC News yesterday morning , where Biden claimed he knew nothing about the moves to investigate Flynn : Notice Biden literally repeated back exactly what Stephanopoulos asked him , just in the negative , saying “ I knew nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn… ” But then , after Stephanopoulos reminded Biden that he was in an Oval Office meeting with Obama and Comey discussing it , he suddenly remembers and claims that he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had anything to do with Flynn being prosecuted .
Puhleaze .
Ted Cruz calls this lie # 1 , that Biden ‘ knew nothing ’ about the moves to investigate Flynn .
Then Biden changes his answer to “ I was aware that they asked for an investigation , but that ’ s all I know about it.
” Given today ’ s revelations that Biden was part of the unmasking of Flynn , Ted Cruz says that he was obviously aware of much more than just the desire to investigate Flynn this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in 2016 when Trump would do an interview and would say something off kilter , the media would immediately pounce all over him .
It would be headline news for at least the next 24 hours .
But yesterday Joe Biden just burps out a ridiculous claim that he didn ’ t understand the initial question when he got called out by Stephanopoulos , and the media is all asleep as if they never heard him say it .
And then to top it off , as Cruz points out , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just another lie , which was revealed today in the unmasking revelations .
But all the media can do , even if they discuss the unmasking revelations , is accuse Republicans of playing politics and justify the unmasking of Flynn for whatever stupid reason they can come up with .
Garbage media doing their best to defend Democratas and persecute Republicans .

Ted Cruz hit Joe Biden tonight for being caught in two lies in 24 hours. Both lies come from his interview with ABC News yesterday morning, where Biden claimed he knew nothing about the moves to investigate Flynn:
Biden claims he knew “nothing” about moves to investigate Gen. Flynn but then backtracks when Stephanopoulos reminds him he was at the Oval Office meeting about it. pic.twitter.com/Zik4GkA4mZ — Benny (@bennyjohnson) May 12, 2020
Notice Biden literally repeated back exactly what Stephanopoulos asked him, just in the negative, saying “I knew nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn…” But then, after Stephanopoulos reminded Biden that he was in an Oval Office meeting with Obama and Comey discussing it, he suddenly remembers and claims that he thought he was asked by Stephanopoulos if he had anything to do with Flynn being prosecuted. Puhleaze.
Ted Cruz calls this lie #1, that Biden ‘knew nothing’ about the moves to investigate Flynn.
Then Biden changes his answer to “I was aware that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about it.”
Given today’s revelations that Biden was part of the unmasking of Flynn, Ted Cruz says that he was obviously aware of much more than just the desire to investigate Flynn this is lie #2:
TWO Biden falsehoods revealed in 24 hours. First, he tell ABC he knew nothing about Obama targeting Gen. Flynn. George STEPHANOPOLOUS calls him out & Biden backtracks. Second, Biden says “that’s ALL I know about it.” Also FALSE—revealed today Biden personally unmasked Flynn. https://t.co/senHwofwWb — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 14, 2020
I remember back in 2016 when Trump would do an interview and would say something off kilter, the media would immediately pounce all over him. It would be headline news for at least the next 24 hours.
But yesterday Joe Biden just burps out a ridiculous claim that he didn’t understand the initial question when he got called out by Stephanopoulos, and the media is all asleep as if they never heard him say it. And then to top it off, as Cruz points out, Biden’s correction to his answer was just another lie, which was revealed today in the unmasking revelations. But all the media can do, even if they discuss the unmasking revelations, is accuse Republicans of playing politics and justify the unmasking of Flynn for whatever stupid reason they can come up with. Garbage media doing their best to defend Democrats and persecute Republicans.


therightscoop--2020-05-13--BREAKING: Flynn judge just appointed Clinton judge to argue AGAINST dropping case against Flynn [UPD

BREAKING: Flynn judge just appointed Clinton judge to argue AGAINST dropping case against Flynn [UPDATE: THERE’S MORE]

It turns out Judge Sullivan isn ’ t just interested in getting amicus brief statements from anti-Trump organizations , he ’ s now appointing a Clinton judge to argue against dropping the case against Flynn : The order by Judge Sullivan says : As Davis readily notes , there is no one opposed to the dropping of this case , except perhaps the judge himself .
When asked last week if the judge gets a say , AG Barr went out of his way to answer professionally without saying anything to antagonize the judge .
When Trump was asked today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , he evaded the question , changing the subject to just talk about Flynn .
My point is no one is antagonizing this judge so that one could say he ’ s acting reacting to that .
It appears this is all coming from the judge himself who apparently , for whatever reason , wants to keep this case going for a while before he ultimately ends up allowing it to be dismissed .
UPDATE : Apparently Sullivan also said he may pursue a contempt or perjury charge against Flynn for abandoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Wednesday suggested he may pursue contempt or perjury charges against former national security adviser Micheal Flynn for abandoning an earlier guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI .
The brief one-page order does not say why Flynn could be held in contempt for perjury .
It is likely the contempt charge stems from declaring under oath at two different court proceedings that he was guilty of lying to the FBI .
Flynn later reversed course in January and claimed he never lied .
He had pled guilty in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the FBI about his contacts with the former Russian ambassador in the transition period before Mr. Trump took office .
Good grief .
Talk about not wanting to let the case go .

It turns out Judge Sullivan isn’t just interested in getting amicus brief statements from anti-Trump organizations, he’s now appointing a Clinton judge to argue against dropping the case against Flynn:
The judge in Flynn's case just appointed a retired judge appointed by Bill Clinton to argue *against* dismissing the corrupt case against Flynn. Note that the motion to dismiss the case is unopposed by all parties to the case. Emmet G. Sullivan is as corrupt as Comey's FBI. pic.twitter.com/sZ2X2FF0VP — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 13, 2020
The order by Judge Sullivan says:
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, it is hereby ordered that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.
As Davis readily notes, there is no one opposed to the dropping of this case, except perhaps the judge himself.
When asked last week if the judge gets a say, AG Barr went out of his way to answer professionally without saying anything to antagonize the judge. When Trump was asked today if he thinks the judge should recuse himself, he evaded the question, changing the subject to just talk about Flynn. My point is no one is antagonizing this judge so that one could say he’s acting reacting to that.
It appears this is all coming from the judge himself who apparently, for whatever reason, wants to keep this case going for a while before he ultimately ends up allowing it to be dismissed.
UPDATE: Apparently Sullivan also said he may pursue a contempt or perjury charge against Flynn for abandoning his guilty plea:
A federal judge late Wednesday suggested he may pursue contempt or perjury charges against former national security adviser Micheal Flynn for abandoning an earlier guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI. The brief one-page order does not say why Flynn could be held in contempt for perjury. It is likely the contempt charge stems from declaring under oath at two different court proceedings that he was guilty of lying to the FBI. Flynn later reversed course in January and claimed he never lied. He had pled guilty in late 2017 and again in 2018 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the former Russian ambassador in the transition period before Mr. Trump took office.
Good grief. Talk about not wanting to let the case go.


therightscoop--2020-05-13--“He wants to play all sides of the equation” – Trump not happy with Fauci’s comments about reopening

“He wants to play all sides of the equation” – Trump not happy with Fauci’s comments about reopening schools

Trump voiced his displeasure today with Dr. Fauci ’ s comments in yesterday ’ s hearing where Fauci was very cautious about opening the economy and schools ( video is cued up to 12:35 ) : When asked about Fauci ’ s comments , Trump initially said Dr. Fauci “ wants to play all sides of the equation ” but didn ’ t elaborate further .
Trump was then asked why to clarify his comment and said : I was surprised by his answer , actually .
To me it ’ s not an acceptable answer especially when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be acceptable , as I said , is professors , teachers , etc .
over a certain age , I think they ought to take it easy for another few weeks , five weeks , four weeks , who knows , whatever it may be .
But I think they have to be careful because this is a disease that attacks age and it attacks health .
If you have a heart problem , if you have diabetes , if you ’ re a certain age , it ’ s certainly much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and students , just take a look at the statistics , it ’ s pretty amazing .
Trump seemed to really be focused on schools more than anything .
In another answer , perhaps the one right before this , Trump said that if the schools are opening then he doesn ’ t consider the country reopening .
As you heard yesterday in Fauci ’ s answer to Rand Paul , he was very cautious about reopening schools because , as he suggested , there are too many things we still don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect that ’ s the answer Trump was referring above that he didn ’ t like .
Clearly Trump doesn ’ t believe the disease is a big problem for children and wants to get the schools reopening once it ’ s safe for faculty members .

Trump voiced his displeasure today with Dr. Fauci’s comments in yesterday’s hearing where Fauci was very cautious about opening the economy and schools (video is cued up to 12:35):
When asked about Fauci’s comments, Trump initially said Dr. Fauci “wants to play all sides of the equation” but didn’t elaborate further.
Trump was then asked why to clarify his comment and said:
I was surprised by his answer, actually. To me it’s not an acceptable answer especially when it comes to schools. The only thing that would be acceptable, as I said, is professors, teachers, etc. over a certain age, I think they ought to take it easy for another few weeks, five weeks, four weeks, who knows, whatever it may be. But I think they have to be careful because this is a disease that attacks age and it attacks health. If you have a heart problem, if you have diabetes, if you’re a certain age, it’s certainly much more dangerous. But with young children and students, just take a look at the statistics, it’s pretty amazing.
Trump seemed to really be focused on schools more than anything. In another answer, perhaps the one right before this, Trump said that if the schools are opening then he doesn’t consider the country reopening.
As you heard yesterday in Fauci’s answer to Rand Paul, he was very cautious about reopening schools because, as he suggested, there are too many things we still don’t know about the virus. I suspect that’s the answer Trump was referring above that he didn’t like. Clearly Trump doesn’t believe the disease is a big problem for children and wants to get the schools reopening once it’s safe for faculty members.


therightscoop--2020-05-13--WATCH: Bill Hemmer grills DNC spox who claims unmasking of Flynn was justified due to Trump colludin

WATCH: Bill Hemmer grills DNC spox who claims unmasking of Flynn was justified due to Trump colluding with Russia

The DNC spokeswoman , Xochitl Hinojosa , justified the unmasking of Flynn by Biden and others by arguing that it was due to Trump ’ s collusion with Russia to win the election .
But Hemmer wouldn ’ t let her off the hook with her claims , repeatedly asking her for evidence and getting none in return .
Of course Hinojosa took the stance that Republicans are playing politics and that it ’ s going to backfire , saying ( via DC Examiner ) : “ Frankly , this is going to backfire on Republicans because it just showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Russians .
So , Republicans can try to use this to play political football .
But in reality , this is going to backfire with them , ” she argued… Hmmer pressed her , asking if it was “ a crime to talk to other countries ” : Hinojosa responded , “ Well , whenever you are trying to interfere in an election or in any way try to go against the United States , I think that is something that is .
And so , I think right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice politicizing things .
This is just , time and time again , you continue to see this Justice Department politicize issues in order to help Donald Trump.
” Hemmer tried to get her to explain what evidence she has for saying “ Well , whenever you are trying to interfere in an election or in any way try to go against the United States… ” .
But of course she didn ’ t .
So Hemmer asked her again , saying “ the answer there was a suggestion of collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that .
Where ’ s yours ?
” She had no answer .
Ultimately , after Hemmer pressed her again , she replied “ I leave that to the investigators.
” Hemmer noted that it was 2020 , but that ’ s all she could say .
Before wrapping up that portion of the segment Hemmer said “ I was looking for a crime .
I haven ’ t heard it .
I was asking for collusion , I haven ’ t heard that yet either.
” She repeated the same thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hemmer simply replied “ It ’ s almost the summer of 2020 and there ’ s no evidence of it , ” before then moving on .
Kudos to Hemmer for not letting this hack spokeswoman to get away with lies about collusion and about Flynn .
Watch the video for more…

The DNC spokeswoman, Xochitl Hinojosa, justified the unmasking of Flynn by Biden and others by arguing that it was due to Trump’s collusion with Russia to win the election. But Hemmer wouldn’t let her off the hook with her claims, repeatedly asking her for evidence and getting none in return.
Watchz:
Of course Hinojosa took the stance that Republicans are playing politics and that it’s going to backfire, saying (via DC Examiner):
“Frankly, this is going to backfire on Republicans because it just showed how serious Flynn was and his conversations with the Russians. So, Republicans can try to use this to play political football. But in reality, this is going to backfire with them,” she argued…
Hmmer pressed her, asking if it was “a crime to talk to other countries”:
Hinojosa responded, “Well, whenever you are trying to interfere in an election or in any way try to go against the United States, I think that is something that is. And so, I think right now, when it comes to Flynn and the Department of Justice politicizing things. This is just, time and time again, you continue to see this Justice Department politicize issues in order to help Donald Trump.”
Hemmer tried to get her to explain what evidence she has for saying “Well, whenever you are trying to interfere in an election or in any way try to go against the United States…”. But of course she didn’t. So Hemmer asked her again, saying “the answer there was a suggestion of collusion. There’s been no proof of that. Where’s yours?”
She had no answer. Ultimately, after Hemmer pressed her again, she replied “I leave that to the investigators.”
Hemmer noted that it was 2020, but that’s all she could say. Before wrapping up that portion of the segment Hemmer said “I was looking for a crime. I haven’t heard it. I was asking for collusion, I haven’t heard that yet either.”
She repeated the same thing about leaving it to the investigators and Hemmer simply replied “It’s almost the summer of 2020 and there’s no evidence of it,” before then moving on.
Kudos to Hemmer for not letting this hack spokeswoman to get away with lies about collusion and about Flynn. Watch the video for more…


therightscoop--2020-05-13--Breaking: Democrat concedes to Mike Garcia in historic flip of U.S. House seat from California

Democrats are freaking out right now because they really thought they would be able to keep Katie Hill ’ s seat from California and instead Republican Mike Garcia swept in and snatched it away : Boom !
That ’ s the first time in DECADES that the Republicans have been able to flip a seat in California .
It ’ s a big deal .
I wouldn ’ t say that it ’ s a sign of a turning point necessarily though .
California is still commie red , and it definitely hurt the Democrats to have Katie Hill be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” controversy .
Further , they tossed a LOT of money to get Hill over the top in the first place , and this had been a conservative district for many decades before they flipped it .
Finally , he ’ s going to have run again for the seat in November !
On the other hand , Hillary Clinton did take the district by 6 percentage points .
At the very least , it ’ s a big loss when Democrats were really hoping to keep the seat .
And frankly I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ :

Democrats are freaking out right now because they really thought they would be able to keep Katie Hill’s seat from California and instead Republican Mike Garcia swept in and snatched it away:
All over in #CA25: Democrat Christy Smith has decided she's seen enough, and has conceded the race to now-Rep.-elect Mike Garcia, a Republican. BIG win for Republicans in a district Clinton carried in 2016 and one that wasn't particularly close in the midterms pic.twitter.com/cr68e8qvyx — Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) May 13, 2020
Boom! That’s the first time in DECADES that the Republicans have been able to flip a seat in California. It’s a big deal.
I wouldn’t say that it’s a sign of a turning point necessarily though. California is still commie red, and it definitely hurt the Democrats to have Katie Hill be taken down by a nasty “throuple” controversy. Further, they tossed a LOT of money to get Hill over the top in the first place, and this had been a conservative district for many decades before they flipped it. Finally, he’s going to have run again for the seat in November!
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton did take the district by 6 percentage points. At the very least, it’s a big loss when Democrats were really hoping to keep the seat. And frankly I enjoy anything that makes Cenk Uygur cry:
It pisses me off so much that Republicans outvote us when we have more people. We have to fix this dynamic. @ChristyforCA25 lost tonight despite Dems having the advantage in #CA25. We should unite around policy so we can unite electorally to send @MikeGarcia2020 home in November. — Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) May 13, 2020
LOL!


therightscoop--2020-05-13--WATCH: Rand Paul holds presser, says Joe Biden has been caught red-handed eavesdropping on a politic

WATCH: Rand Paul holds presser, says Joe Biden has been caught red-handed eavesdropping on a political opponent

Senator Rand Paul held a presser moments ago after the news broke of the declassified Obama officials , including Joe Biden , were in on the unmasking of General Flynn .
One thing I ’ d like to highlight from this is that Paul was asked what is the most likely scenario as to why these names are on the list .
Paul said the way he reads it is that “ it looks like each of the administration officials actually , individually , requested to listen in on this conversation.
” Paul said he believes each one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s conversation , as opposed to having one person listen in and pass a transcript around .
He then went on to say “ this is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the United States to go after a political opponent .
He ’ s caught red-handed here !
Vice President Joe Biden is caught red-handed eavesdropping on a political opponent ’ s phone calls .
That to me is alarming.
” Paul told reporters that each of them needs to ask Joe Biden “ what kind of person eavesdrops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a legitimate function of government , to eavesdrop on your opponents without a warrant , to illegally unmask them and listen to their private conversation ?
” There ’ s a lot more in the video above…

Senator Rand Paul held a presser moments ago after the news broke of the declassified Obama officials, including Joe Biden, were in on the unmasking of General Flynn.
Watch:
One thing I’d like to highlight from this is that Paul was asked what is the most likely scenario as to why these names are on the list. Paul said the way he reads it is that “it looks like each of the administration officials actually, individually, requested to listen in on this conversation.” Paul said he believes each one of the people on the list listened to Flynn’s conversation, as opposed to having one person listen in and pass a transcript around.
He then went on to say “this is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the United States to go after a political opponent. He’s caught red-handed here! Vice President Joe Biden is caught red-handed eavesdropping on a political opponent’s phone calls. That to me is alarming.”
Paul told reporters that each of them needs to ask Joe Biden “what kind of person eavesdrops? Is that something that we think is a legitimate function of government, to eavesdrop on your opponents without a warrant, to illegally unmask them and listen to their private conversation?”
There’s a lot more in the video above…


therightscoop--2020-05-13--BREAKING: DNI Grenell releases names of Obama officials who unmasked LTG Flynn and Joe Biden is on t

BREAKING: DNI Grenell releases names of Obama officials who unmasked LTG Flynn and Joe Biden is on the list!

Acting DNI Grenell has just released the names of those who were responsible for the unmasking of Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ among others , is on the list : Below are the documents Herridge attached to @ @ @ @ @ Fox News , Grenell sent this declassified list to GOP Senators and apparently it was @ @ @ @ @ : Per Fox News reporter Chad Pergram , a statement from Senators Grassley and Johnson @ @ @ @ @ information : UPDATE III : This wasn ’ t just a quick request , it @ @ @ @ @ NSA process to be approved :

Acting DNI Grenell has just released the names of those who were responsible for the unmasking of Flynn’s name and Joe Biden, among others, is on the list:
NEW: ODNI identifies Dennis McDonough, Samantha Power, James Comey, John Brennan, and Joseph R. Biden, among others, as individuals who were potentially involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. — Sean Langille (@SeanLangille) May 13, 2020
Catherine Herridge got the scoop:
SCOOP @CBSNews obtains @RichardGrenell notification to congress declassified “unmasking list” Flynn between late 2016 and January 2017 – Read 3 pages provided by NSA here pic.twitter.com/NozVpQlRn2 — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 13, 2020
Below are the documents Herridge attached to her tweet:
According to Fox News, Grenell sent this declassified list to GOP Senators and apparently it was released from there.
UPDATE: Per Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, a statement from Senators Grassley and Johnson on the release of this information:
1) Sens Grassley/Johnson: Today we received a list of individuals who requested the unmasking of Lt. General Michael Flynn and others who received access to that information. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
2) Grassley/Johnson: The officials listed should confirm whether they reviewed this information, why they asked for it and what they did with it, and answer many other questions that have been raised by recent revelations. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
3) Grassley/Johnson: We are making this public because the American people have a right to know what happened. We commend Acting DNI Grenell and Attorney General Barr for their transparency and responsiveness. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
4) Grassley/Johnson: Our investigation of these matters has been ongoing for years, and as information finally comes to light, our focus on these issues is even more important now. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
5) Grassley/Johnson: The records are one step forward in an important effort to get to the bottom of what the Obama administration did during the Russia investigation and to Lt. General Flynn. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
6) Grassley/Johnson: The information identifies Dennis McDonough, Samantha Power, James Comey, John Brennan, and Joseph R. Biden, among others, as individuals who were potentially involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn. — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 13, 2020
UPDATE II: Rand Paul responds:
Yesterday I wrote to DNI @RichardGrenell requesting the names of those who were involved in Gen Flynn’s unmasking. Today I received the shocking reply that @JoeBiden and many others knew! What did President Obama know? I am inviting DNI Grenell to testify next week in the Senate pic.twitter.com/IHpGjeVWwM — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 13, 2020
UPDATE III: This wasn’t just a quick request, it had to go through a NSA process to be approved:
As our story notes, an accompanying memo to Grenell, signed by National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone, notes that each person was “an authorized recipient” and that the unmasking was approved through the agency’s normal process.https://t.co/y9BhxNUsvl — Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) May 13, 2020


therightscoop--2020-05-13--WATCH: Andrew McCarthy explains why Judge Sullivan delaying Flynn dismissal is so bizarre

Andrew McCarthy was on Fox News this morning to discuss Judge Sullivan ’ s delaying of Flynn ’ s dismissal @ @ @ @ @ so bizarre : McCarthy says Judge Sullivan delaying the Flynn dismissal for the purpose of @ @ @ @ @ because judges don ’ t normally entertain amicus briefs in a criminal case , because @ @ @ @ @ state or government against an individual .
But with Judge Sullivan , who McCarthy says @ @ @ @ @ the Flynn case , he ’ s decided to entertain these amicus briefs for what @ @ @ @ @ therapy session ’ , giving groups like the anti-Trump Watergate Prosecutors a chance to voice @ @ @ @ @ dropping the case .
Even though , as McCarthy points out , it won ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will just prolong this part of the process before Sullivan accepts the dismissal @ @ @ @

Andrew McCarthy was on Fox News this morning to discuss Judge Sullivan’s delaying of Flynn’s dismissal and why it’s so bizarre:
McCarthy says Judge Sullivan delaying the Flynn dismissal for the purpose of accepting amicus briefs is bizarre because judges don’t normally entertain amicus briefs in a criminal case, because it’s simply the state or government against an individual.
But with Judge Sullivan, who McCarthy says has been fairly unhinged with the Flynn case, he’s decided to entertain these amicus briefs for what he calls an ‘anti-Trump therapy session’, giving groups like the anti-Trump Watergate Prosecutors a chance to voice their displeasure at the DOJ dropping the case.
Even though, as McCarthy points out, it won’t matter in the end. It will just prolong this part of the process before Sullivan accepts the dismissal from the DOJ.
Watch the video for more…


therightscoop--2020-05-13--WATCH: Schumer condescendingly suggests it’s time to move on from Tara Reade because she’s been “lis

WATCH: Schumer condescendingly suggests it’s time to move on from Tara Reade because she’s been “listened to” and he believes Joe Biden

Yesterday Schmucky Schumer came out and declared Tara Reade has been listened to and that Joe Biden ’ s explanation refuting the sexual assault allegations against him is sufficient and that he believes Joe Biden .
Before the # metoo movement , women were not listened to who were telling what had happened to them .
Since # metoo , women are listened to .
Now I ’ ve heard Joe Biden ’ s explanation and I think it ’ s sufficient .
I think he will be a great candidate .
I think he will be a great president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us take back the Senate .
So it ’ s enough for women just to be listened to ?
Geez Chuck , that sounds rather condescending don ’ t ya think ?
Shouldn ’ t accusations from people like Tara Reade be investigated for the truth instead of just ‘ listening ’ to them ?
Also , since when has Tara Reade actually been listened to ?
It seems to me that nearly everyone on the left is just dismissing her accusation because a ) Joe Biden says they weren ’ t true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hope of defeating Trump .
Reade ’ s accusation of rape has far more credibility that did Christine Blasey Ford ’ s accusation against Kavanaugh .
Not to mention Kavanaugh was only a teen in Ford ’ s baloney accusation , where Biden was a sitting US Senator and Reade was his staffer .
People like Schumer and Pelosi are beclowning themselves with their hypocritical dismissals of Reade ’ s accusations , as are so many on the left who refuse to even give Tara Reade the time of day because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so .
And the media is going right along with it .
It ’ s just another prime example of the garbage media and how they are in the tank for Democrats .

Yesterday Schmucky Schumer came out and declared Tara Reade has been listened to and that Joe Biden’s explanation refuting the sexual assault allegations against him is sufficient and that he believes Joe Biden.
Watch:
Below are Schmucky’s full comments:
Before the #metoo movement, women were not listened to who were telling what had happened to them. Since #metoo, women are listened to. Now I’ve heard Joe Biden’s explanation and I think it’s sufficient. I think he will be a great candidate. I think he will be a great president and I think he’ll help us take back the Senate.
So it’s enough for women just to be listened to? Geez Chuck, that sounds rather condescending don’t ya think? Shouldn’t accusations from people like Tara Reade be investigated for the truth instead of just ‘listening’ to them?
Also, since when has Tara Reade actually been listened to? It seems to me that nearly everyone on the left is just dismissing her accusation because a) Joe Biden says they weren’t true and b) because Joe is their only hope of defeating Trump. Reade’s accusation of rape has far more credibility that did Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. Not to mention Kavanaugh was only a teen in Ford’s baloney accusation, where Biden was a sitting US Senator and Reade was his staffer.
People like Schumer and Pelosi are beclowning themselves with their hypocritical dismissals of Reade’s accusations, as are so many on the left who refuse to even give Tara Reade the time of day because it’s not politically advantageous for them to do so. And the media is going right along with it. It’s just another prime example of the garbage media and how they are in the tank for Democrats.


therightscoop--2020-05-13--UH OH: DNI Grenell declassifying evidence that John Brennan buried intel that Russia really wanted H

UH OH: DNI Grenell declassifying evidence that John Brennan buried intel that Russia really wanted Hillary to win

Ed Henry reported last night that DNI Richard Grenell is declassifying evidence that Obama ’ s dirtbag CIA Chief John Brennan buried evidence that Russia really wanted Hillary to win in January of 2017 , when the intelligence community put out a statement saying Russia wanted Trump to win : Henry reports that there was evidence in the intel community that Russia wanted Hillary to win as well as evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win .
But John Brennan put his thumb on the scales and suppressed the evidence that Russia wanted Hillary to win in their January 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who wrote about this last month for Fox News when the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report claiming that Russia did want Trump to win : The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that “ all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence ” and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they “ were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.
” House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite .
They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia ’ s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton ’ s election .
They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts .
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers , they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win , House Intelligence Committee staff revealed .
They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed , substandard information in the assessment .
According to Fleitz , the higher quality evidence showed that Putin and Russia really wanted Hillary to win because she was known quantity and ‘ malleable ’ .
But Brennan suppressed that information and went with the lower quality evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one of the ‘ four of five ’ other batches of intelligence that Grenell is declassifying .

Ed Henry reported last night that DNI Richard Grenell is declassifying evidence that Obama’s dirtbag CIA Chief John Brennan buried evidence that Russia really wanted Hillary to win in January of 2017, when the intelligence community put out a statement saying Russia wanted Trump to win:
Fox News's Ed Henry reported Trump spy chief Richard Grenell is declassifying info that shows ex-CIA Director John Brennan "suppressed" intel on Russia wanting Clinton to win in2016. Says insiders dismiss it's "hype" and there's more coming – https://t.co/pZS0qri1eO @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/RPcAkPdx9b — Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) May 13, 2020
Henry reports that there was evidence in the intel community that Russia wanted Hillary to win as well as evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win. But John Brennan put his thumb on the scales and suppressed the evidence that Russia wanted Hillary to win in their January 2017 assessment.
He refers to Fred Fleitz, who wrote about this last month for Fox News when the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report claiming that Russia did want Trump to win:
The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that “all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence” and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they “were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.” House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election. More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts. House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election. Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
According to Fleitz, the higher quality evidence showed that Putin and Russia really wanted Hillary to win because she was known quantity and ‘malleable’. But Brennan suppressed that information and went with the lower quality evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win.
As Henry reports, this is only one of the ‘four of five’ other batches of intelligence that Grenell is declassifying.