Replies

Sorry my reply is composed of many other posts, links, but that information is necessary to respond because the issue is complex. I'll try to compose it into one post later. I think I'm missing a few posts - hopefully the general intent will still come through

Barr served President Trump well:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3916144/posts?page=26#26

Barr and Sessions served President Trump well:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3912082/posts?page=2108#2108

We didn’t find out the real reason behind Session’s recusal until 2 years or more after the fact. During that 2year+ lag, Sessions was falsely maligned as “doin’ nothing” or being a coward.

Sessions was forced to recuse with false accusations by Comey:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3891958/posts?page=562#562

Excerpt of Open Letter published by Jeff Sessions during his 2020 Senate run:

"As the world knows, the President disagreed with me on recusal, but I did what the law required me to do. I was a central figure in the campaign and was also a subject of and witness in the investigation and could obviously not legally be involved in investigating myself. If I had ignored and broken the law, the Democrats would have used that to severely damage the President.

Some have asked, why take the job as Attorney General if I knew I would have to recuse myself from the investigation? I knew no such thing. I wasn’t informed of Comey’s secret investigation until after I became Attorney General, and the investigation wasn’t publicly confirmed by the FBI until weeks after my recusal.”

Jeff Sessions entire open letter to the public while running for 2020 senator

I believe the FBI wanted Jeff to tell the President that he (Sessions) was under investigation. The Deep State wanted to use the fact that the AG was under (fake) investigation by the FBI to portray the US as having fallen into the hands of "dictator" Trump (claiming his "corrupt" AG would interfere with Mueller's report). If the DOJ was portrayed as "compromised" (national security threat) and under investigation, then Nancy Pelosi et. al. would use that farce to justify "intervention" by the UN to "save us all".

But Sessions didn't tell the public, and give the FBI/DS their talking point, so the FBI "released" some of it. But the public still thought it was limited to the content known prior to Sessions' appointment.

Note the FBI used a similar tactic with Flynn. They tried it with Trump (Mueller Report).

Now that Barr is resigning, the NYT takes up the cudgel again.

AG Bill Barr says CIA did NOT 'spy' on Donald Trump's campaign, slapping down president's claims - and says John Durham's probe is focusing on a 'small group' at the FBI

Why is the NYT portraying Barr as "helping" the CIA? Because they need to convince conservatives Barr is DS to invalidate the Mueller report and resume their attack on the POTUS to have him tried as a traitor.

So the NYT asks Barr a manipulative, "loaded" question (did CIA spy on Trump Campaign). The CIA was never accused of spying on the Trump campaign, the FBI was. Further, Obama created a poliocy in which employees in one agency could simulataneously work for another. Peter Strzok of the FBI spygate probe also worked for CIA. One more detail - at that time FVEY was 5 countries sharing intel to give their friends in the CIA intel.

Here's an excerpt from that linked NYT article.

Excerpt:

Bill Barr: “The Department of Justice was being used as a political weapon” by a “willful if small group of people,” who used the claim of collusion with Russia in an attempt to “topple an administration,” he says. “Someone had to make sure that the power of the department stopped being abused and that there was accountability for what had happened.” Mr. Barr largely succeeded, in the process filling a vacuum of political oversight, reimposing norms, and resisting partisan critics on both sides."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/william-barr-one-standard-of-justice-11608318832

The CIA was involved. Barr knows that but it's classifed and the content has not been publicly released. Had Barr admitted the CIA was involved, h would be expected to say why, if there was evidence the CIA was spying on Trump's campaign, the DOJ did "nothing" about it for 4 years.

If Barr admitted the CIA spied, and wanted to be candid, he would have to say something to address why we didn't see perp walks. Barr would have to say something like, "I couldn't move against the pervasive infiltration while America was still asleep; 70% of the gov was bought out by enemies; we had no borders; we had two "private" sovereign Chinese ports; Chinese/UN/other enemies on north and south borders; our military was gutted in terms of morale, infiltration, obsolete hardware and made with intentionally inferior steel ...from China. We would fail to defend ourselves when the Cabal made it's move if we didn't wait to restore America's defenses and erode the battle readiness of our enemies.

Barr says "yes" they spied = Barr either has to lay down all cards or say that the rule of law didn't matter to anyone, including the DOJ.

But note that Barr says the Russia hoax was politicized - he can say that because he publicly ended it.

Barr's statement re the CIA will be easily clarified later with Durham et. al.,

And one more excerpt:

The timing is interesting - the New York times “needed” to use Barr’s resignation “somehow.”

Barr’s answer will be used to portray him to conservatives as protecting the CIA, while telling the left that President Trump and other’s (Admiral Rogers) assertions of spying were lies. Once again, going after Trump to portray him as a traitor.

NYT and the rest of the Deep State media need Barr to be viewed as Deep State, so that when they try to flip the US to the Dark Side (coup, all black hats are declared white hats etc.), Barr’s knowledge of the Mueller Coup is invalidated, elevating Mueller, the Mueller Report’s claim that Trump committed treason, RR, Weisman, Strzok - all to “persecuted white hat status”.

So the NYT will now fan the “Barr is Deep State” pysop, but they had to trade something for that strategy. By answering as he did, Barr created a problem for the NYT because he underscored that Mueller’s investigation was a true coup attempt.

I imagine the left will delete/erase the part of that interview it didn’t like, and all the world will hear is “Trump never had any evidence! He lied! No one spied on his campaign! etc.”

I didn’t read past the paywall, but I’m curious what else lurks in the NYT article.