Sir no substantive wrongdoing sir
The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.
Oh gosh darn it, they were so looking forward to punishing Obama for something.
The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.
Maybe next time. Cheer up, little guy.
The department — [under both] Barr and Trump’s previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions — has repeatedly turned to U.S. Attorneys across the country to investigate matters of Republican concern, distressing current and former Justice Department officials, who fear department leaders are repeatedly caving to Trump’s pressure to benefit his allies and target those he perceives as political enemies.
Which isn’t how the Justice Department is supposed to carry out its work.
Trump is also furious that the Durham investigation won’t be making headlines before the election. That was the whole point!
Barr recently told some Republican lawmakers that no report of Durham’s investigation would be released before the November election, though unlike Bash’s review, Durham’s work seems to be ongoing, people familiar with the matter said. Trump has in recent days called the delay in the Durham case “a disgrace,” and asserted that his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, should be jailed. He was previously critical of another prosecutor specially tapped by then-Attorney General Sessions to investigate matters related to Clinton, but whose case ended with no public report or allegations of wrongdoing.
If they don’t find anything they make something up – is that so hard to understand??
The point, as I see it, isn’t to secure any kind of conviction; he really doesn’t care about that. The point is to make headlines and keep him in the news. This result has deprived him of headlines, and that is why he’ll be pissed off.
Surely, no matter who did it, upsetting the POTUS has to be a serious Federal offence, attracting a long stretch of porridge in a serious federal prison. No mucking round.
If not, what is the world coming to?
But not if that POTUS was Barack Obama.
Incidentally, I see that the NY Post ran Rudy Guiliani’s dirty tricks bait, some nonsense about a “smoking gun” email from Hunter Biden that is nothing of the kind. I suppose we should be grateful that the NY Times editors were smart enough not to be duped this time around, although NYT reporter Maggie Haberman was gullible enough (or desperate enough to curry favor with Trump) to promote the Post story.
I saw that, and the fury at Haberman on Twitter. What the hell?!
The plot thickens — the “reporter” on that Post story is Emma-Jo Morris. She’s been “Deputy Politics Editor” there for seven months, only bylined on three stories, all published today. What did she do before this? Well, she was a summer intern at the Washington Free Beacon (conservative rag), worked for CPAC, and then spent 3+ years as a producer on the Sean Hannity Show.
Strange for an editor to get a solo byline on a “news” piece, isn’t it? Especially on what purports to be a big scoop? My assumption is that not even the hacks at the NY Post wanted to put their names on this piece of crap, so the Murdoch family turned to one of their pet hacks in the editorial department.
Jeeeeeeeeeez