Posted on 05/25/2019 1:50:48 PM PDT by libstripper
WASHINGTON — President Trump tried somewhat clumsily last year to revoke the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director who played a role in opening the Russia investigation. He then wanted to release classified documents to prove he was the target of a “witch hunt.”
Both attempts petered out, hampered by aides who slow-rolled the president and Justice Department officials who fought Mr. Trump, warning he was jeopardizing national security.
But this week, Attorney General William P. Barr engineered a new approach. At Mr. Barr’s urging, Mr. Trump granted him new authorities to examine the start of the Russia investigation, demonstrating a new level of sophistication for an old line of attack. Unlike Mr. Trump’s hollow threats and name-calling, Mr. Barr’s examination of how the intelligence community investigated the Trump campaign could offer a more effective blueprint for the president to take aim at his perceived political enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Didn’t these agencies target The President?
I am glad to see Barr is determined and effective.
Crush seditionists...hang traitors. Hopefully, appropriate Justice will be experienced.
I wonder if Michael and Julian are going to be fitted for orange jumpsuits. I believe bribing agents to leak information is not covered by Freedom of the Press.
Oh really? Then, by the "logic" of the NYT would I be a "perceived" arsonist after burning down their corporate headquarters?
Perceived political enemies? That exposes the article's bias right there.
Barr will no doubt be finding out more about unauthorized leaks to the NYT through his investigation. I can't wait to see that information published.
“Jeopardizing national security”
They mis-spelled exposing felonious conduct on the part of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
I seem to recall SCOTUS ruling that publishing the “Pentagon Papers” was totally cool, so what’s the problem?
...by the “logic” of the NYT would I be a “perceived” arsonist after burning down their corporate headquarters?
_______________________
Depends on your political, citizen and victim status. On one side of the scale, you might “seem to have” or “be alleged to have” done something.
On the other side, you would definitely be a domestic terrorist.
Clumsily? How did "actually revoking with the stroke of a pen" after careful deliberation turn into "tried" and "clumsily?" For shame, NYT!
Brennan "played a role in an investigation" that should have had some there" there, even as a counter-intelligence operation, but it didn't. Then, when Rosenstein named a Special Counsel, the requirement was for evidence of a crime. But nobody had one. What he will claim on that score is a wholly inadequate "obstruction" charge. It's likely Rosenstein will feel some real sting there.
Such a thing shouldn't have happened for any American citizen, but with the obvious added reason of investigating a competing presidential political campaign, the question of, "Was it a coup?" veritably screams with evidence of "Yes!".
The only “harder edge” I want to hear about, when talking about all these commie scum, is the sound a guillotine makes when it hits the block...
These two are taking bits and pieces and totally speculating. In other words, they really know sh**.
“...for the president to take aim at his perceived political enemies.”
The Democrat talking point du jour.
Trump taking action against “political enemies” rather than persons who potentially broke the law.
The article is worse than communist propaganda. I’d say straight out nazism.
Not one minute in jail yet.
Not one indictment.
Wait and see.
On obstruction, his purity depends on who is defining "obstruction", but most of the country is going to look at this and say there can be no obstruction if there was no collusion.
And the coming storm will make that issue fade into insignificance compared to the very real crimes about to be exposed.
Schmidt & Barnes wrote this in bed together. First with crayons, then poop and finally with a pencil
“Trump’s Targeting of Intelligence Agencies” should give CNN and MSNBC a flood of additional material to discuss so that they can continue to bore their few remaining viewers to the point of causing an even further collapse in their ratings.
The Mueller Report and then the Democrats’ post-Mueller efforts to deny the findings of the Mueller Report are not interesting topics to the average viewer, especially when viewers must stare at people like Jerrold Nadler for long periods of time and listen to their inane comments.
So, certainly listening to intricate discussions about FBI and intelligence issues will further drive CNN and MSNBC viewers away. Good: the weaker the liberal propaganda networks become, the better for Republicans.
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.