Why is Huber being discussed now?
I started my "Huber Watch" postings several weeks ago, just to see what kind of press he's getting. There was a huge uptick in mentions of Huber in the press this week, as noted in this thread's Huber Watch post.
The comments of one of the prominent Republicans who sat in on the (closed door) Bruce Ohr hearings caused most of the news media discussion about him.
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told reporters after the hearing that he believed Ohr’s testimony needs to be referred to Huber.Once Ratcliffe said this it was fodder, and Hannity did a segment on it (that Q has already called out as wrong in his post #1987).“I would expect that his testimony and transcript today would be of interest to United States Attorney John Huber, who I understand has been tasked with investigating specifically whether or not the FISA process was abused as it related to obtaining a warrant on an American citizen named Carter Page,” Ratcliffe said.
What if the Texas Congressman wasn't supposed to drop his name?
Well then he screwed up. Who would be the person who tells Congressman what they are not supposed to say? Q implies that Ratcliffe wasn't supposed to drop Huber's name - which seems to imply that someone is telling Ratcliffe what not to talk about.
I assume there are rules on keeping closed door meetings confidential, but Ratcliffe didn't violate that rule. He just said "Huber should see this".
So, this question is difficult to answer with any certainty.
Why is Huber (all of a sudden) being grouped into the anti-Sessions remove, fire .... nothing being done?
On the FR threads there has been a steady murmur of "where is Huber", but he's been largely absent from mentions by the MSM.
Was the Ratcliff posting the cause of media interest in Huber, or a pretext to show interest in him? I haven't seen calls for Huber to be fired or removed (and I try to review everything I can find on him), but lots of people have been saying "where is Huber".