Posted on 05/24/2019 6:54:07 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Intelligence professionals warned Friday that President Donald Trump’s decision to give his loyal attorney general carte blanche to disclose still-secret material from the Russia investigation will let William Barr cherry-pick intelligence to paint a misleading picture about what started the probe.
The president claims his campaign was spied upon, though Trump administration officials have said they have no specific evidence that anything illegal was done when the campaign came under FBI surveillance that was approved by a court.
On Thursday, Trump gave Barr full authority to publicly disclose information about the origins of the investigation the president has repeatedly dismissed as a “hoax.”
“You have to get down to what happened because what happened is a tremendous blight on our country,” Trump said, adding that Barr is highly respected and will be impartial in reviewing documents.
But Trump’s critics are wary of leaving the decision of what intelligence to release — and what should remain hidden — in Barr’s hands. Barr is a staunch Trump defender who Democrats say spun special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in Trump’s favor, playing down aspects suggesting possible criminal conduct. Mueller has also complained to Barr about his handling of the release of the report. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
So any truth uncovered that is not the leftist narrative is perceived as a wrong.
Evil walks.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa
Why not release documents on Obama’ “most transparent administration evah!”
Awwwww. Welcome to hardball politics. Y'all made the pitch, time for President Trump to hit it out of the park!
this article is a completely fabricated hit piece: “Intelligence professionals” and “intelligence officials” could be a retired guy who used to be run the floor buffer at Langley.
“...will let William Barr cherry-pick intelligence to paint a misleading picture about what started the probe.”
“cherry pick” the new buzz phrase to add to “cover up”.
Yeah, sure, you cherry pick evidence that proves treason, but you don’t show that I petted a puppy once!
“Critics?” Please.
Certainly Eric Holder, Obama’s wingman, never would’ve considered doing such a thing.
>>>Trump is going to reveal the truth. Some may not like it, but the truth will set you free.<<<
Heh he, it might not actually set some of the Dems free . . .
Get this: “loyal” attorney general, for description of Barr. I really wish I could ring their necks. What is a disloyal attorney general? How about Holder. AP, nothing but a band of leftists under some pretend press first amendment protection. Frankly, IMO, when uorinologists inject commentary, they should not be covered by the first amendment. News is news and should be protected but when they get outright partisan slander it should be open to prosecution.
So true. Goes both ways. Remember the conservative freak out after the Parkland shooting when Trump talked about getting guns out of the hands of the crazies “then worry about the law” or words to that effect?
That was all designed to get the left into a bargaining position so that Trump could say, “well, that was just talk.”
Even Trump thought Sessions couldn’t possibly be that stupid/incompetent/compromised/evil. Take your pick.
Plus, per Steve Bannon, Trump was afraid that if he fired Sessions immediately after he had recused, the House would have moved to impeach immediately, and you’d have the first two years being nothing but an actual -— instead of virtual-—impeachment.
AP doing what their masters require.
Yes. Remember Trump’s comment to Rush Limbaugh shortly after he won as well: Trump told Rush he was shocked at how the DemoKKKrats had not accepted the results of the election three months later and were still in resist mode. He actually thought that they would abide by the election and begin working for the good of the country.
I think, as smart as Trump is, he never appreciated the difference between business and politics. In business, if you make a deal and come out on the losing end, it is nevertheless in your best interest to make the very best of that deal you can until your contract is out. Thus you work with your employer (if you’re a union) or whomever.
The DemoKKKrats believed in blowing up the building then worrying about how to rebuild.
I was disappointed in Sessions. When I saw him come to testify before Congress one time with a one page summary statement that had type on it with a huge font I became a little concerned. That concern at the time turned out to be true.
Actually a better scene would be the one from “al capone” where in Al goes up behind a disloyal gang member and beats him to a pulp with a baseball bat.
I spoke with him for a full hour in August 2016, mostly on the transition, where I gave him Reagan’s trasition strategy & plan (now a Harvard Business School case study!). But we talked a lot about Trump and trade and immigration.
He was passionate. I thought he would be a good AG. Then in his testimony, he said to Harris (I think) who was badgering him, “Senator, you’re making me nervous.” WHAT?? He should have said, “Senator, you may be NEXT!”
Steve Bannon told me Sessions was “scared.” I asked, “of what?” and he said, “I don’t know.” I have had second hand info that he was compromised but couldn’t find out with what. Everything from sexual stuff to threats. This via a source I trust who said his source was one of Sessions’ best friends, who couldn’t believe the change in him.
But if you look at the damage he caused, it was far more than the investigation: he didn’t prosecute the mayors of sanctuary cities; he didn’t actively prosecute civil rights violations of Antifa; he did not back Kris Kobach’s voter fraud investigation (by requiring Sec States to turn over the data or face prosecution.) In short, Sessions badly damaged ALL conservatives, not just Trump. He is probably directly responsible for the 2018 loss of several House seats by fraud and “ballot harvesting.”
Then why didn’t he just stay in the senate?
The media has no shame:
I recall a radio interview of Al Haig one time wherein the moderator was questioning him about there being assassination squads in central america killing nuns under his watch. Haig said that one is really troubling because my sister was a nun in El Savador at that time. I really do not think I would condone anyone trying to kill my sister. That was the end of that line of questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.