Because we're still silly enough to think that the FBI can do no wrong.

Maria Bartiromo tweets today:

sources tell me @GenFlynn will be completely exonerated this week. It was a total fraud. A Set up. More tomorrow

xxxxxxxxxxxx

would be great news IF true
We know it was a total fraud and a set up.
Will DoJ say so?

Maria Bartiromo talked more about Flynn today.

She said what the prosecutor reviewing the Flynn "investigation" (aka set up) found was:

notes from then FBI General Counsel James Baker said that Flynn was set up and Flynn never lied

https://theconservativetreehou...-set-up/#more-190150

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber.../1254858971950678021

UPDATE APRIL 27: Judge Sullivan orders DOJ to respond to the motion to dismiss by May 11, Flynn to respond to that by May 18

xxxxxxxxxxx

Judge Sullivan has been extremely disappointing

It appears the DoJ threatened Flynn's former legal team w FARA violations, and Flynn's former lawyers then gave Flynn very bad advice to save themselves

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Andy McCarthy jumps in

https://www.nationalreview.com...s-in-the-flynn-case/

Why was the FBI investigating General Flynn?”

That is a question I posed more than three years ago, in the days immediately after President Trump fired Michael Flynn — fleetingly, his first national-security adviser — in February 2017.

There was never a good answer to that question. That has always been a big problem for the current and former government officials whose actions in the blatantly politicized probes of the Trump campaign and its surrogates are currently under investigation by the Justice Department.

The question and the lack of a satisfactory answer are likewise at the root of stunning disclosures the Justice Department has just made to Flynn and his legal team.

Even when the government is doing the right thing, you can rest assured that Friday-afternoon information dumps (here, in the middle of a pandemic) are apt to contain news humiliating for the officials involved. So it was that last Friday night, the DOJ provided some so-called Brady material — i.e., exculpatory information that prosecutors are required by law to reveal to defendants they have charged with crimes — that Flynn’s lead lawyer, Sidney Powell, has been demanding for months.

The information is still not public because it has been produced under a court order that keeps it under wraps, at least for now. But we can glean its outlines from a motion Ms. Powell filed immediately afterward in federal court in the District of Columbia. That’s where she has been trying to convince Judge Emmet Sullivan to vacate Flynn’s guilty plea and throw out the case based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

In the motion, Powell argues that the new information “proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents.” She elaborates that the evidence that has finally been communicated to her

defeats any argument that the interview of Mr. Flynn on January 24, 2017, was material to any “investigation.” The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution — knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.

Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

As I’ve noted several times over the years, it has long been speculated that Flynn — though he did not believe he was guilty (and though the agents who interviewed him also did not believe he had intentionally misled them) — nevertheless pled guilty to false-statements charges because prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him. Specifically, Flynn is said to have been warned that, if he refused to plead guilty, prosecutors would charge his son with a felony for failing to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. Such a so-called FARA violation (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation, and it had dubious application to Flynn’s son (who worked for Flynn’s private-intelligence firm).

Well, Powell now contends that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors — she specifically cites Brandon Van Grack, who now runs Justice’s FARA unit — did indeed promise Flynn that they would not charge his son if Flynn pled guilty. Worse, Powell avers that the prosecutors coerced Flynn and his counsel to keep this agreement secret. That is, this was to be a side deal that would not be written into the plea agreement and therefore would be kept from the court and the public.

Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge. It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement. It would be a fraud on the court.

Of course, if a deal of the kind Powell is alleging had been disclosed, it would have illustrated the hardball that Mueller and his band of activist Democratic prosecutors were playing in an effort to nail President Trump. You’re stunned to hear it, I’m sure.

First, Sidney Powell had nothing to do with negotiating Flynn’s guilty plea. To the contrary, she has been intrepid in investigating whether that plea was induced by prosecutorial misconduct. Flynn was originally represented by the very politically connected Washington firm of Covington & Burling. The firm’s performance has already raised questions: They counseled Flynn on his FARA submissions, filing the FARA documents with the DOJ on his behalf; and they also represented him in his plea negotiations with Mueller’s staff, which involved the integrity of these same FARA filings. That’s a conflict of interest, and though the DOJ maintains that Flynn waived it, there is a question about whether such a conflict is waivable. Now comes the claim about a side deal not to prosecute Flynn’s son. Let’s stress that nothing has been proved at this point. But if Covington’s lawyers colluded with government lawyers to make such a deal and conceal it from the court, that would raise very serious legal and ethical issues.

Second, the Flynn case is so patently disturbing that, weeks back, Attorney General Bill Barr assigned a very well-regarded prosecutor, St. Louis’s U.S. attorney Jeff Jensen, to review it. The new disclosures are a result of Jensen’s investigation. The Justice Department’s disclosure to Ms. Powell indicates that more revelations are forthcoming.

Third, Powell’s litigation on Flynn’s behalf has always been uphill — which is why she is to be lauded for pursuing it. The remedy for being bullied into a guilty plea is for the defendant to be permitted to withdraw his plea and fight the charges. In Flynn’s case, that has been an illusory remedy. He must fear that if he voided his agreement and withdrew his plea, prosecutors would be free to charge his son (and to add any new charges they could conjure up against Flynn himself). Confronted by this dilemma, Powell has pressed a daring strategy: try to so enrage the court about the misconduct that the judge would throw the case out rather than merely vacate the guilty plea and leave Flynn fighting the case from square one.

I still do not think, as a matter of law, that a court is going to find that the conduct requires dismissing the indictment — tempted as I might be, if I were the judge. More likely, a good judge would vacate the plea and put the ball in the Justice Department’s court. Does the DOJ really think this case could be prosecuted — or, more to the point, that it should be prosecuted? That it should have been charged in the first place?


As I’ve said on other occasions, Flynn should never have been prosecuted, and President Trump should long ago have pardoned him. But that’s water under the bridge. For General Flynn, it would probably be best if the court vacated the plea and the Justice Department then dropped the charges.

This is a huge story that will probably not get covered very much at all.

Somewhere way back in this thread I speculated that Clinton Campaign law firm Perkins Coie had coordinated w Christopher Steele to make a lie seem to be true. Their oldest trick, and one they use often, is to stage multiple "sources" saying things that feed a common theme. Multiple lying sources that make a lie seem probable.

Perkins Coie did that with the Alfa bank fabrication. Perkins Coie planted the lie directly with then FBI General Counsel James Baker.

The lie was that the Russians were secretly communicating with Donald Trump through Russian Alfa bank servers tied right to Trump Tower.

It was a big deal and widely regurgitated throughout the news media.

Now we have testimony from Christopher Steele himself that it was coordinated and staged between Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/0...a-bank-perkins-coie/

Christopher Steele shed new light on his work for the Clinton campaign and DNC, revealing in testimony last month that he met with two lawyers for the Democrats as part of his investigation into Donald Trump.

Steele met with Perkins Coie partners Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias, he testified.

Steele said that Sussmann provided him with the now-debunked tip that a Russian bank had a secret communications channel with the Trump Organization.

A lawyer representing the DNC and Clinton campaign provided Christopher Steele with information in 2016 regarding an alleged secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, the former spy told a British court last month.

That now-debunked tip, from Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann, set off a chain of events that led to Steele publishing a Sept. 14, 2016 memo accusing the founders of the bank, Alfa Bank, of having “illicit” ties to Vladimir Putin, according to a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Michael Sussman - former DoJ


A week after Steele wrote that memo, he had another meeting with Sussmann’s colleague, Marc Elias, according to the transcript.

Steele disclosed the previously unreported meetings with Sussmann and Elias during testimony in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by the Alfa Bank founders, the transcript shows.

Steele’s testimony about Sussmann and Elias provides insight into how deeply involved the two lawyers were in the Trump investigation, and suggests they helped shape Steele’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Perkins Coie, Sussmann and Elias did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The IG report also dealt a fatal blow to the Alfa Bank theory peddled by Sussmann.

It said the FBI investigated whether there were “cyber links” between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization, the company owned by Donald Trump, “but had concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links.”

The three owners of Alfa Bank have sued Steele in the U.S. and U.K. over the Sept. 14, 2016 memo, which is referred to as “Company Intelligence Report 112” in the dossier.

Steele testified under oath in London on March 17 and 18.

He revealed that Sussmann, a former Justice Department official, told him during a meeting on July 29, 2016 about suspicious network traffic between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, according to the transcript.

“I’m very clear is that the first person that ever mentioned the Trump server issue, Alfa server issue, was Mr. Sussman [sic],” Steele told Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for the Alfa Bank owners, on March 17, the transcript shows.

Steele went on to say that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson instructed him at some point after the Sussmann meeting to write a report about Alfa Bank, according to the transcript.

“I was given the instruction sometime after that meeting by Mr. Simpson,” said Steele, adding that the instruction from Simpson “was absolutely, definitely linked to the server issue,” the transcript shows.

It was not previously known whether Steele keyed in on Alfa Bank on his own initiative, or if someone else tasked him with investigating the bank.

Steele said that he directed his dossier source to collect information from Russia about the bank, the transcript shows.

The transcript also shows that Steele claimed that the source, who has not been identified, met with a “top level Russian government official,” who reported back on the Alfa Bank founders.

In Report 112, Steele wrote that the Russian official said that the three Alfa Bank founders had had “ups and down” with Vladimir Putin in the past, but were on “very good terms” with the Russian leader at the time. The source also alleged that the Alfa Bank founders had delivered “large amounts of cash” to Putin in the 1990s, when he served as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg.

The report also alleges that both sides held compromising information on the other, keeping everyone involved in check.

The Alfa Bank founders have vehemently denied Steele’s allegations.

Sussmann shopped the allegations about the Alfa Bank computer servers around to others besides Steele, including to journalists and the FBI’s top lawyer.

He shared the information with reporters from the New York Times and Slate, which ran a story on Oct. 31, 2016.

According to that story, Alfa Bank’s servers were communicating in a peculiar fashion with those of the Trump Organization. A team of computer experts who studied the traffic determined that the Alfa-Trump channel was being used for some sort of communication between the two sides, the story said.

That assessment, if true, would have fit into Steele’s theory that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Kremlin.

The Slate story appeared as rumors gained steam that the Trump campaign was somehow involved in the hack and release of emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign. On Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo! News published a story alleging that Trump campaign aide Carter Page met secretly with Kremlin insiders to discuss exchanging material on Hillary Clinton.


another Steele planted story

On the day the Slate story appeared, Mother Jones reporter David Corn published a report citing a “former Western intelligence officer” who claimed that the Russian government had compromising material on Trump.

It is now known that Steele was involved in one way or the other in all three of the stories. He has acknowledged in court proceedings to meeting with both reporters from Mother Jones and Yahoo, and had investigated the allegations central to the Slate story.

To further spread the Alfa Bank story, Sussmann contacted James Baker, his former DOJ colleague who then served as general counsel for the FBI. Baker told House investigators on Oct. 18, 2018 that Sussmann contacted him to share the information and that they met on Sept. 19, 2016.

That day was a busy one for the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team. The Justice Department IG report said that Steele provided six memos from his dossier to the FBI that same day.

The FBI began almost immediately drafting an application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page. The applications relied heavily on Steele’s dossier, which alleged that Page was a key link between the Trump team and Kremlin.

Notably, Steele did not provide the FBI with Report 112 from his dossier, according to the IG report. The FBI eventually obtained the memo on Nov. 6, 2016, when provided it to Baker.

It is unclear whether Sussmann and Steele’s outreach to the FBI on Sept. 19, 2016 was coordinated, or merely coincidental.

oh please

Three days later, Steele met with Elias at Perkins Coie’s offices in Washington, D.C., the ex-spy testified. Steele did not provide details of his discussions with Elias.

Perkins Coie has been reluctant to discuss its affiliation with Fusion GPS and Steele. Elias, the Perkins Coie partner, did not disclose his involvement in the matter when he attended a congressional deposition regarding the dossier along with his client, former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel has said that Elias misled him in 2017 when asked if Perkins Coie funded the dossier.

One mystery is where Sussmann obtained the information regarding an Alfa Bank connection to the Trump Organization. Steele testified that a group of cyber experts passed Sussmann the information in late July 2016.

The cyber experts, who go by the pseudonyms “Max” and “Tea Leaves,” have spoken to numerous reporters about their investigation, including at Slate, The New Yorker and The New York Times.

A cyber firm that Alfa Bank hired to investigate the server allegations determined that the computer records were likely fabricated by “threat actors” who wanted “to make it appear as though a connection existed” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

“If true, this would constitute a potential violation of various US federal laws,” Ankura, the cyber firm, wrote in a report released Friday.

^^^^^^^^
I hope Durham is on it.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
This is a huge story that will probably not get covered very much at all.

...

“I’m very clear is that the first person that ever mentioned the Trump server issue, Alfa server issue, was Mr. Sussman [sic],” Steele told Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for the Alfa Bank owners, on March 17, the transcript shows.

So this guy Sussmann is king rat #1, Michael Sussmann

Every .gov official who touched, even tangentially, the Flynn prosecution should be fired with no ability to ever return to .gov employment.

Those who fabricated or withheld evidence from Flynn's legal team should be prosecuted with the utmost vigor, with the .gov seeking only the maximum penalty.

Finally those who used the Flynn prosecution and the threats against the Flynn family should be sued for every penny they will ever earn, using the frauds perpetrated against Flynn, the Judicial Branch, and the American people as its basis (prevents discharging the debt owed in bankruptcy.

I know, it's a pipe dream.

The former Flynn defense team was from Covington & Burling LLP.

Eric Holder has been a partner at Covington since 2015. (just saying)

From Gen Flynn:

At one of my first meetings w Kelner and Anthony (Covington lawyers), they asked if I "had anything" on President Trump, as it would provide leverage w the govt.

I told them from the beginning that I was unaware of President Trump doing anything wrong

a reminder of how places like MSNBC beat the Alfa bank drum.

from Oct 2018 , MSNBC video at

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate.../1255326555225698304

"what more evidence do you need? It's very obvious. We have not been able to rule out that this was a covert communication channel two years after the fact"

"the fact that no one has a plausible explanation for why this was happening"

maybe because it wasn't actually happening


With Chris Hayes nodding in agreement.

Chuck Ross: Per the IG report, the FBI figured out by Feb 2017 that the Alfa bank story was a lie. But the FBI let the media keep feeding the public w lies.

Smug, know it all , lying propaganda pushers deceiving some of the American public

"what more evidence do you need?"

more on Gen Flynn

two items:

1.

Sidney Powell (today): While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even more appalling that the Friday production. We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.

2.

Catherine Herridge (today): #FLYNN DOJ official confirms @CBSNews US attorney will join Flynn Attorney @SidneyPowell1 calling for new records to be unsealed. AG Barr directed US attorney Jeffrey Jensen to scrutinize Flynn case. First batch docs small, including handwritten notes. But review delivering more

Unsealed FBI notes reveal the intent of the FBI’s 1/24/17 interview of Flynn:

“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute [Flynn] or get him fired?”

FBI Notes confirm it was all a pretext.



How they planned to get Flynn removed:

1) Get Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act”; or

2) Catch Flynn in a lie.

Their end goal was a referral to the DOJ - not to investigate Flynn's contacts with the Russians.



Did Mueller’s team have these newly disclosed documents all along?

“Note that the enclosed spreadsheet (DOJSCO-700023473 – DOJSCO700023475), which contains messages between and among various Bureau personnel, is an index and another detailed version of these messages is forthcoming.”

The evidence was marked DOJSCO-700023473 – DOJSCO700023475



https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...prosecute-get-fired/

Was Peter Strzok one of the FBI guys interviewing Flynn? Are those Strozks notes?

They were actually going after the Logan Act.

What a joke. What Flynn did in the phone call was perfectly normal for an incoming national security advisor.

Strzok was one of the interviewers.

Unclear whose handwritten notes those are. James Baker ?
post below says Bill Priestap



My interpretation of some of the hand written notes:

What's our goal ? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?

If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DoJ and have them decide

If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious

We have a case on Flynn and Russians
our goal is to resolve case
Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth about his relationship w Russians


reminder : Mike Flynn was under FBI counterintel investigation since 31 July 2016


Full 4 pages here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/459057200/doc-188

xxxxxxxxxxxx


The FBI "interview" w Flynn was on 24 Jan 2017.

The Logan Act BS was set up by a 12 Jan 2017 Wash Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...96534b31e_story.html

According to a senior U.S. government official , Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Who leaked to the Wash Post about the Flynn call ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

reminder: Sidney Powell says DoJ has released another 11 pages "even more appalling that the Friday production."

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Was Peter Strzok one of the FBI guys interviewing Flynn? Are those Strozks notes?

Multiple officials confirmed to Just the News that the author of the notes is William Priestap, the now-retired FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and the ultimate supervisor for fired agent Peter Strzok, who led the Russia probe.

https://justthenews.com/accoun...ch-flynn-lie-get-him

tweet from Gen Flynn:

https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/s.../1255645641105182722

xxxxxxxxxxx


pls watch : the video w James Comey

https://twitter.com/MarcusP624.../1255650157586243585

Getting discouraged that not a single person will ever see the inside of a prison cell or a gas chamber for these crimes.

Lady justice is dead in this country. You can plot to overthrow the country, ruin lives and try to throw an election and not a damned thing will happen to you.

in this interview

https://www.newsmax.com/newsma...020/04/27/id/964916/

Joe DiGenova claims that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is cooperating w the Durham investigation.

about 9'00" into the video


BTW - I completely agree w DiGenova comments about Judge Sullivan

more material has come out. still digesting

Crossfire Razor = Gen Flynn

Crossfire Typhoon = Geo Papadopoulos

D = Comey
DD = Andrew McCabe



https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog.../1255911184538185728


FBI Washington Field Office Report:

FBI and US Govt (CIA?) databases showed "no derogatory information" on Flynn.

Flynn determined to be "no longer a viable candidate" as part of the Crossfire Hurricane case.

Peter Strzok texts to the FBI Case Manager handling the Crossfire Razor (Flynn) case.

Strzok: "If you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet"

Strzok: "7th floor involved" (FBI Leadership)

(Possible use of Logan Act "violations" to keep investigation open

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Undercover Huber:

This is slam dunk evidence that the FBI’s own field office investigative team knew they had no basis to continue to investigate Flynn about Russia, and wanted to close the case on Jan 4, 2017. Strzok/HQ stopped them, to jam him up about the Kislyak call

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://justthenews.com/accoun....XqsVGqAfm5Y.twitter

Evidence withheld for years from Michael Flynn's defense team shows the FBI found "no derogatory" Russia evidence against the former Trump National Security Adviser and that counterintelligence agents had recommended closing down the case with a defensive briefing before the bureau's leadership intervened in January 2017 .

The recommendation to close the case came 16 days before President Trump took office with plans to have Flynn serve as his National Security Adviser, and after agents had found no incriminating evidence by sweeping counterintelligence files and talking to confidential human sources, the memos show.

Flynn was given a codename of "Crossfire Razor" during the probe, an apparent spinoff from the larger Russia collusion case known as Crossfire Hurricane.

"The absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources reduce the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. Per the direction of FBI management, Crossfire Razor was not interviewed as part of the case closing procedure. The FBI is closing this investigation," the agent wrote on Jan. 4, 2017.

The files show the plan was to provide Flynn with a defensive briefing so he could be aware of potential pitfalls with Russians as he started in his new job in the White House .

But then the lead agent in the larger Russia case, Peter Strzok, intervened to stop the case from being closed and pivoted the discussion toward seeking an interview with Flynn, FBI text messages show.

In the text messages to his team, Strzok specifically cited "the 7th floor" of FBI headquarters, where then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCane worked, as the reason he intervened.

"Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet," Strzok texted on Jan. 4, 2017.

"It is still open and I'm still listed as the case manager," his colleague texted back.

"Rgr, I couldn't raise earlier. Please keep it open for now," Strzok texted. Later he added, "7th floor involved."

The text messages show the discussion pivoted from closing the case to seeking an interview with Flynn, and suggest there was a dispute between McCabe and his top counterintelligence official, Assistant Director William Priestap, who appeared to be concerned the FBI was being unfair to Flynn.

"About Bill. He was pretty adamant about what Andy it said with regard to that," Strzok texted Lisa Page, then a lawyer working for McCabe. "And he mentioned on Saturday that he had several conversations with Andy. Bill sense with it and he wanted to know why he had to go aggressively doing these things, openly. I worry bill isn't getting the underlying distinction that I think is clear but maybe I'm wrong."

Strzok's followup text messages suggest Priestap went to Director Comey (referred to as D) because of his concerns about McCabe's approach.

"Bill just told [deleted) and me that he brought up again, this time in front of D - didn't know he was going to D on that," Strzok texted.

Page texted back that her boss, McCabe, appeared to be upset.

"Yeah, DD is frustrated. Going into meeting. Don't repeat," she texted back.

"I won't. Bill said D started going one way and DD cut him off," Strzok wrote. "I'd be frustrated too."

Handwritten notes that a federal court released Wednesday show Priestap harbored concerns that the FBI was "playing games" with the Flynn investigation and may have been trying to use the interview to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Just the News reported.

It was that late January 2017 interview conducted by Strzok and another agent that resulted in the former Trump national security adviser resigning and eventually pleading guilty to lying in the interview.

Flynn has since retained new counsel, Sidney Powell, and sought to vacate his conviction on grounds that the new evidence show an effort by the FBI to "frame" him for a crime he did not commit.

Wow! A whole lot of people are going to be charged with a lack of candor rather soon I bet!
Sorry SDY I appreciate you're diligence on posting these things. What do you really think is going to come from this? You've followed this as close as anyone.

I've lost some confidence in Barr considering his DOJ is still resisting many FOIA filings Judicial Watch has been suing for going back to Benghazi. Seems we just can't get real patriots in places that matter yet. I'm not confident he's going to be too anxious on sending out any indictments of real consequence on the big players.