Saudi Arabia has banned
international visitors from making the Islamic pilgrimage, or Hajj, this
year in a bid to control coronavirus.
Only a very limited number of people currently living in the kingdom may take part, an announcement on state media says.
An estimated two million people would otherwise have visited Mecca and Medina this summer for the annual gathering.
There had been fears the Hajj might be cancelled altogether.
In normal times the pilgrimage is one of the most significant moments in
the Muslim religious calendar. But only citizens from countries around
the world who are already resident in Saudi Arabia will be allowed to
attend this year.
The authorities say this is the only way they will be able to make plans for social distancing that will keep people safe.
Sit down. I have something to tell you. And it's going to make you sad.
But it's also an opportunity you must take. And immediately.
It's this: People you love and respect are actually relying on legacy media brands for news and information.
Entirely.
Here's what to do.
Do not engage in a frontal attack. Obviously, do not insult their intelligence - many of these people are in fact highly intelligent and accomplished.
They just literally do not know better. They are normal, trusting people. Americans like you and me.
Remember: It's not as if NYTimes, Washington Post, NBC News and CNN announced, "We aren't doing what we did when you grew any more. We don't corroborate reporting, we don't seek both sides of a story, we don't print corrections. We work for one side now."
Didn't happen.
So you have to gently, respectfully ask, regarding a given news item, what they think about "X" or "Y" fact or report or video which goes against the Narrative. Just very respectfully.
They will, of course, be unaware of this fact, because they rely on legacy media brands.
If they are at all respectful toward your thinking or input, offer to send them what you have in mind.
It can't be something from BreitbartNews or JamesOKeefeIII or any "Alternative News" source. You're trying to break very, very entrenched habits here.
The story is going to have to come from a media brand they trust and recognize that has just gone, likely for its own reasons, a teeny tiny bit outside the hive's Narrative lines.
Stories like this:
Remember, you're not proving anything substantive with a link like this. You're making them aware that there's something that really happened that is remarkable, newsworthy, interesting - and that is not reported, or is buried, in the "newspaper of record," the NYTimes, etc.
Here's another example of a story that was reported, but - believe it or not - smothered outside the extended circles of people reading these words right now:
That's ok. You still need to gently move them a degree or two away from the direction they're in now.
It's going to take a long time, but you need to keep a store of links to news reporting, video and other information from sources they already trust bookmarked for this.
This is really important to do, because every day you are moving among people who are completely digesting a version of the facts affecting our world, our society and our politics that is no more or less than propaganda.
They really can't even imagine this.
Most people in your office, for example, believe - in June of 2020 - that Trump actually "colluded" with Russia; that Mueller proved this; that newspapers got well-deserved Pulitzer prizes for helping reveal this; AND THAT HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR THIS!!
They don't really know exactly what the difference is between Ukraine and Russia, because when they grew up (as when I grew up), Ukraine was part of Russia.
They just know that the Democrats, who they know care about people, said this over and over, and also the papers did.
And they understand that the only reason Trump was not removed from office "after Mueller impeached him for Russia" was partisanship on the part of Republicans in the Senate, except for that hero Romney.
They have no idea what a travesty of a proceeding the impeachment was.
I am trying to get across nothing more than a fresh appreciation for the utter disconnection between the mental landscape of your perfectly fine friends and neighbors and people who actually follow current events.
They have been lied to repeatedly by institutions they trust.
If you don't do this, the loss will not only be theirs, and their votes and political support in coming elections.
The Left is engaged in a wholesale effort to rend this country apart in order to avoid the reelection of Donald Trump this year. Nothing is off the table.
Included in "nothing" (in fact, way up on the list) is separating people who, like you, understand what has happened and what is happening, from your friends, families and co-workers.
You are absolutely being targeted for this purpose. The goal is to make you a pariah.
If they can get you fired or get your clients or advertisers or employees or vendors to stop doing business with you by threatening their livelihoods or safety on the premise that you are a "racist" or a "fascist" or whatever next week's "ist" is, it will happen. It will.
You must begin now, therefore, to open up a little bit, a tiny little bit, of daylight between the completely comprised sources of disinformation that are making this possible and the hearts and minds of your friends who have not yet been turned against you.
I said this would make you sad. It should. It's sad.
And these nice, trusting friends of yours are stuck in the middle. It's going to be much easier for them to just go with the flow, you know.
But look. Your company is already fearfully giving money to awful causes.
You are already being trained in groupthink and grouptalk. Your social media is already being vetted. If you are anonymous and have any influence, someone is working on unmasking you and ruining your life.
Your friends "normalizing" the awfulness of you is unacceptable.
And now it's quite official: Government, commerce, the professions, the media (of course) are absolutely worthless on this.
The police will abandon you to the mob. This is something your friends don't know, by the way. They should. Show them. It's very scary to nice people.
Government will not protect your rights to think and say what you believe.
Intellectuals will argue that it shouldn't.
Let's not get into the courts. They are not going to protect you or your friends, we all know that. At all.
Chances are the national or international umbrella for your religious denomination is not going to help, to put it mildly. It has probably already become a dedicated part of the side trying to eliminate what you thought were actually the tenets of your religion.
Nope.
I don't want to get beyond my original purpose: to encourage you to gently, respectfully and with a maximum of discretion expose the nice, normal people who still talk to you to suppressed facts and information, sourced from outlets they recognize to the extent possible, today.
It's something everyone can do, and it may not be too late to plant in them a seed of doubt about the Narrative - a reminder that they, too, once thought of themselves as people who thought for themselves...
That you're okay, just like them, and interested in the truth.
I can't say it's not too late, but it's worth the effort to try. Thinking about what we're facing, and the utter failure of every institution that was supposed to act as a buffer against instability and violence, I don't know what else most of us can do.
Start tonight.
Maybe Prager University could help us develop a course in how to do this
Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn penned a letter to Attorney General William Barr Monday urging the Department of Justice to conduct a thorough antitrust investigation into Google’s monopolistic power over the internet after the tech giant’s recent attack on The Federalist.
“As your antitrust investigation of Google intensified, I urge you to thoroughly scrutinize how the company’s anticompetitive practices could lead to the crippling of journalistic freedom,” Blackburn wrote. “I also ask that your probe examine abuses in both the online advertising and online search markets, and to take enforcement action swiftly before further economic harm results.”
The letter comes just less than a week after Google threatened to ban The Federalist from profiting on the search engine’s ad revenue based on an NBC report compiled with a foreign left-wing think tank charging Federalist reporting with violating Google’s terms of service. The reporting in question, while not publicly known, likely centers on a piece from Federalist Political Editor John Davidson exposing the legacy media’s dishonest coverage of recent riots engulfing the nation. NBC’s “Verification Unit,” in collusion with the United Kingdom’s “Center for Countering Digital Hate” claimed that Federalist journalism was racially insensitive.
Google later released a statement on the same day NBC News broke the story that The Federalist had been demonetized, clarifying that no action had been taken against the conservative website and instead merely threatened sanctions not for its published content but for information in its comment section which have since been temporarily disabled. Federalist executives have pledged however, that the comment section will come back. Meanwhile, Google-owned YouTube’s infamous comment sections well-known for nefarious content have continued to operate uncensored.
Blackburn, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Tech Task Force praised Barr’s move to ramp up DOJ efforts to curb liability protections to the Silicon Valley tech giants provided in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act in light of Google’s most recent episode of selective censorship but pushed the Justice Department to do more. A Daily Caller analysis of the Justice Department’s current probe into Google published Sunday shows that federal investigators appear to be ignoring bias claims in Google’s search algorithms even as its search engine dominates roughly 90 percent of the entire internet.
“They are not an infant business,” Blackburn said, arguing they no longer need broad government protections. “They are some of the biggest corporations in this country, and they should not be given protections that other businesses or private citizens are not given.”
Get a recap of NBC’s failed attempt to de-platform The Federalist on Google here.
Nokia to cut a third of jobs at French arm Alcatel-Lucent
The logo of Nokia is seen before the company's news conference in Espoo, Finland March 2, 2020.
June 22, 2020 By Mathieu Rosemain and Gwénaëlle Barzic
PARIS (Reuters) – Finnish telecoms equipment maker Nokia Oyj plans to cut 1,233 jobs at its French subsidiary Alcatel-Lucent International, equivalent to a third of the unit’s workforce, the group said on Monday, confirming an earlier Reuters report.
The announcement, just as Europe prepares for the deployment of the next generation of mobile internet, or 5G, has political resonance in France because Nokia bought the unit five years ago on condition it would keep jobs.
Nokia, which competes with Ericsson and Huawei [HWT.UL] for 5G networks, said in a statement the staff reduction was needed because of significant cost pressures.
Nokia said in April it aimed to cut costs by 500 million euros ($560.30 million) by the end of this year compared with full-year 2018, with 350 million euros targeted to come from operating expenses and 150 million from sales costs.
When Nokia bought Alcatel-Lucent International, it pledged to preserve jobs in France for two years and to expand research and development teams in the country to create a resource within the group for 5G technology.
The French research and development teams are particularly affected by the job cuts.
“Nokia must improve this job cuts plan really significantly,” an official at the French finance ministry official said on condition of anonymity.
Nokia became free from the commitments it made this month, a spokeswoman said, while the company’s president in France said Nokia would still be a big source of jobs.
“Nokia will continue to be a major employer in France with a strong foothold in R&D, sales and services, which will enable us to develop and execute our customers’ projects efficiently,” Thierry Boisnon, president of Nokia in France, said in written comments.
Nokia employs 5,138 people in France, of which 3,640 work for Alcatel-Lucent International.
The entity was part of the Alcatel-Lucent group before Nokia bought it in 2015 in an all-share deal that valued the French business at 15.6 billion euros.
The merger was scrutinised by the French government and its then economy minister Emmanuel Macron, who is now president.
“It’s just a low-cost strategy that is being implemented, contrary to all the commitments made by Nokia in France. Nokia is laughing at everyone, first and foremost the French government,” the CFE-CGC union at Nokia said on its website.
(Reporting by Mathieu Rosemain and Gwenalle Barzic; additional reporting by Anne Kauranen in Helsinki; editing by Richard Lough, Mark Potter and Barbara Lewis)
Don't Forget to Recommendand Follow us at our W3P Homepage
U.S. Dept of Justice Attorney General Bill Barr appeared on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo for an extensive interview on current events. [Two part video below]
Part 1 – Racism, policing and police reform:
Part 2 – The 2020 Election; Durham probe; John Bolton book:
Watch Ms. Bartiromo’s glasses after she asked about Mifsud (at 11:38)
The outline IS HERE, and in the interests of my own time I’m going to be selfish and not re-re-duplicate it all again. However, the bottom line is this: Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud was activated by compartmented Israeli intelligence allies of President Obama.
Walid Phares recently exposed and admitted he was targeted by the Mueller probe as the fifth [redacted] name in the August 2, 2017, authorizing the scope memo provided by former DAG Rod Rosenstein.
Rod Rosenstein recently admitted he signed the scope memo as it was presented to him by the special counsel team without asking any questions about it. Whatever the Mueller team asked for, Rosenstein granted without any interference. That was his testimony.
If you go back to the original assembly of candidate Trump’s 2016 foreign policy advisors, the recent releases now show that all five key team members were targeted by President Obama through the use of the intelligence apparatus; due to an overarching need by the former administration to retain previous foreign policy outcomes; including the Iran deal.
Paul Manafort = Ukraine/Russia
Carter Page = Russia/Ukraine
Michael Flynn = Turkey/Iran
Walid Phares = Egypt/Iran
George Papadopolous = Israel/Iran
Take that broad overview and apply it to all the current information about what took place and everything reconciles. This Big Picture approach does not conflict with reporting by Lee Smith, John Solomon and other solid researchers of the Obama foreign policy motive; instead it frames their individual assemblies as absolutely correct.
When the Obama-era U.S. intelligence apparatus proactively activated; and that includes pre-emptive action by CIA Director John Brennan; the potential for Trump foreign policy conflict triggered the deployment of intelligence units that were both foreign & domestic.
Fusion GPS and Chris Steele enhanced the fraudulent CIA and FBI investigations of Manafort, Flynn and Page. Notice George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Steele Dossier. Why? Because that was outside his lane of responsibility.
All of the Trump foreign policy people were sub-divided research targets. Each target was assessed and investigated based on their footprint of interest. Allied intelligence interests were activated to assist the Obama-era intelligence actors.
However, because Russia is technically not a U.S. allied intelligence interest, the Russians couldn’t play a similar role as other nations; hence, Fusion/Steele were needed. But for George Papadopoulos, the Obama apparatus had an intelligence community they could lean on to assist. That’s where Israel comes into the picture.
Compartmented Israeli intelligence units; those Israeli elements that were/are anti-Benjamin Netanyahu; activated an operation on behalf of President Obama’s U.S. intelligence needs. It was that Israeli operation that targeted Papadopoulos.
Once you accept that cornerstone, then everything in the background story of George Papadopoulos makes sense. Everything factually reconciles.
If my analysis is accurate then the redacted portion on Walid Phares would state:
•Allegations that Walid Phares
º Committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Egypt;
ETC.
This compartmented targeting explains why Israeli asset Charles Tawil was activated to give the $10,000 cash to George Papadopolous in July 2017 shortly before the Mueller team asked for the expanded scope memo (as above) on August 2nd.
#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.
[A “laundering” charge applies if the money is illegally obtained. The FARA violation would be the *illegal* aspect making the treasury charges heavier. Note: the use of the airport baggage-check avoids the need for a search warrant (the agents didn’t have one).]
Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (special counsel 951/FARA expert) were conducting an entrapment scheme that would have ended up with three violations of law: (1) Treasury violation; (2) FARA violation; (3) Money laundering…. All they needed was Papadopoulos to carry the undeclared cash into the U.S.
The key aspect is the FARA violation. As we have seen in the EDVA case against Flynn’s partner Bijan Rafiekian, the DOJ-NSD bizarre interpretation of FARA laws create a violation from any unregistered purposeful business contact with a foreign entity.
What Weissmann wanted for Papadopoulos was to create the same FARA scenario that previously trapped Manafort, Flynn and Rafiekian. They intercepted Papadopoulos in Washington DC because it was the customs port of entry. Papadopoulos was ticketed to Chicago with a transfer flight at Dulles.
However, because Papadopoulos suspected something, and left the money in Greece with his lawyers, upon arrival at the DC airport the sting operation collapsed in reverse.
No money means no treasury violation, no laundering and no evidence of the consultancy agreement; which would have been repurposed in the DOJ filing to mean lobbying for Israel via Mr. Tawil (FARA 951 violation) and Tawil would have become a confidential informant and witness (though Tawil would likely never be used to testi-lie because the special counsel would force a plea).
That operational collapse is why the FBI agents were “scrambling” at the airport and why they had no pre-existing criminal complaint. The DOJ couldn’t get a warrant because they couldn’t tell a judge their suspect was traveling with $10k from Israel because the judge would ask how they knew that.
The entrapment’s success was contingent upon the cash as a pre-existing condition; and arriving at a Federal airport means they didn’t need a search warrant.
Note how even if Papadopoulos didn’t have the full $10k, the DOJ-NSD would only have lost the treasury violation…. they could still have used any substantial amount of money to charge the FARA part of the business arrangement by questioning Papadopoulos about where he gained the cash from. [Full Backstory Here]
It’s an interesting comparison to note. The ideological interests behind the 2010 “Arab Spring” uprising are the exact same ideological interests behind the 2020 “Black Lives Matter” protests/uprising. Not merely similar people, but the exact same people.
The exact same group of U.S. people who were promoting the mid-east Arab Spring in 2010 are the same people now promoting the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. The same politicians; the same media voices; the same newspapers; the same social media activists. Almost every participant, and their support for the uprising ’10 -vs- ’20 is identical.
In the background of the Arab Spring, the root control organization was The Muslim Brotherhood. Considering all of the connective similarities; and considering the U.S. advocates for the brotherhood are the same voices advocating for BLM; does it not stand to reason the BLM movement is an extension of the same overarching ideology.
It is not an esoteric intellectual exercise to compare the two movements because we’re not only talking about a similar level of protest, we’re seeing an identical set of actions in both groups. Not only are the advocates the same voices; but their purposeful action, the behavior to remove and destroy common cultural connection/heritage is the same.
The Brotherhood is essentially the umbrella organization for a multitude of Islamic factions. In essence, the Muslim Brotherhood represents political Islam. Similarly if you look at the structure of Black Lives Matter they too represent an umbrella-type structure for a network of individual political grievance groups. Both groups represent a cultural revolution by the results of their activity.
In 2010 the Brotherhood had al-Qaeda and militant factions within ISIS. In 2020 BLM has New Black Panthers and militant factions within Antifa.
In 2010 the Brotherhood tore down statues and symbols they identified as culturally oppressive to their political views. In 2020 BLM tears down statues and symbols they identify as oppressive to their political views.
In 2010 the Brotherhood burned books, destroyed history and removed their cultural opposition by force. In 2020 BLM promotes burning books, destroying history and cancelling their cultural opposition by force.
In 2010 the Brotherhood used social media to organize their political activity and Big Tech facilitated even by setting up local networks for protest. In 2020 BLM uses social media to organize their political media and Big Tech facilitates by deploying all local networks to assist.
In 2010 the Brotherhood attacked the police and framed their Islamist movement as oppressed by law enforcement. In 2020 BLM attacks the police and frames their movement as oppressed by law enforcement.
In 2010 the Brotherhood destroyed the notions of secularism and viciously attacked any form of Christianity. In 2020 BLM advocates against secularism and viciously attacks Christianity, while conspicuously never criticizing any element of Islam.
In 2010 the Brotherhood was very strategic as they hoodwinked moderate Islamic supporters into voting them into power. Once in power they removed all of the institutional systems, government offices, judges, constitutional balances, local elections, and anything that would impede their ultimate stranglehold on power. Sharia Law replaced common legislative law. As a result, the ordinary population was brutalized, property was taken by force; businesses were taken by force and the Islamic regime now controlled every element of their lives.
In 2020 the approach of the BLM movement appears very strategic as they hoodwink a multitude of supporters by defining their victim class and role. Much like the 2010 Brotherhood approach grievances are made personal. Bonds between families and friends are severed by force and demands to adhere to the movement’s ideology.
It will be interesting to see if BLM supporters recognize the deception in 2020; because the Brotherhood supporters in 2010 did not recognize it until it was too late.
Nadler Says: Impeaching Bill Barr Would Be a “Waste of Time”
“Instead Will Do What We Have to Do”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler appears with for an interview by furrowed brow to discuss his upcoming use of former DOJ lawyers John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky as designated “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr this week.
Zelinsky and Elias are being brought in to testify about their recommendation(s) for a nine-year prison sentence for Roger Stone & AG Bill Barr reducing that recommendation. The purpose of the Zelinsky/Elias move was specifically to get the AG to intervene. It was all a set up from the start; purposeful Lawfare. A resistance strategy, executed.
Within the interview Nadler outlines his hope that recently dismissed USAO Geoffrey Berman would join the crew of DOJ resistance members who would align against the current AG. However, Nadler retreats from any position that would actually target Bill Barr for impeachment proceedings. The reason is transparently obvious, Nadler recognizes any impeachment effort would serve as a mechanism for Barr to point out the gross level of corrupt political agendas within the former employees. WATCH:
By using his committee to attack Bill Barr, chairman Nadler positions himself to impugn the Attorney General as a defensive strategy against any sunlight from the ongoing “outside” USAO investigations, which includes John Durham. However, Nadler doesn’t want to provide a platform where Barr can use those attacks to trigger his releases.
AG Barr brought in five+ outside U.S. attorney’s to review all of the Mueller cases as an outcome of the FISA court order to conduct a sequestration review of any/all evidence that might have been used as an outcome of the fraudulently obtained Carter Page FISA warrant.
As CTH noted at the time…. “If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.”
There’s no direct evidence the recent DOJ moves are connected to the sequestration review, but with USAO John Durham looking deeply into the background of DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the effort to target candidate Trump, and later President Trump, there could be a possibility that several lanes are merging.
Obviously, AG Barr feels very confident to make the moves and subsequent recommendations to President Trump for replacements.
All of the exit moves and incoming replacements are coming to a head at the same time; early July. The current SDNY move is effective July 3rd, which is the same time that FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente is leaving his position. Both Boente (FBI) and Jeffrey Berman (DOJ-SDNY) appear to be resigning by Bill Barr’s request; essentially being told to leave.
Other activity last week that may hold deeper connection:
♦On Monday June 15th, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)
♦On Tuesday June 16th, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept effective “early July”. (LINK) Mr. Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)
♦On Wednesday June 17th, the DOJ announced that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)
♦And on Friday June 19th, Geoffrey Berman is removed and replaced at the SDNY office; and his exit is also timed for July 3rd. (LINK)
In addition to an identical exit time, one thing all of these departures have in common, including FBI legal counsel Dana Boente’s exit, is their connection to former AG Jeff Sessions (appointments) and DAG Rod Rosenstein (oversight); and ultimately each of these individuals is connected to the larger Robert Mueller special counsel activity.
Their previous work in the DOJ and FBI during the soft-coup insurance phase; which specifically involved the use of the special counsel appointment; in conjunction with the ongoing –and expanded– internal investigation by John Durham; which now includes seven or eight outside U.S. attorneys offices; just seems too coincidental.
The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the January FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary. This is a big shield that AG Barr is likely keeping in his back pocket until after Nadler launches his attack.
The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the fraudulent FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest carried by any prosecutor that used corrupt evidence.
How is AG Bill Barr ever going to bring the background DOJ material to the forefront?
How does the AG present material to the public when he knows the resistance agenda is going to be to frame him as being politically motivated?
AG Barr knows the motive of Nadler is to diffuse the damning material from the DOJ investigation by shouting that Bill Barr is doing the bidding of President Trump.
Traditional approaches will not work in this highly partisan era. Even the most stunning evidence of prior DOJ/FBI politicization and misconduct will be obfuscated by media around the Nadler narrative. Taking the initiative to hold a press conference, to release investigative findings, will not work.
AG Barr needs a mechanism to bring the material to the public square.
AG Barr needs the initiative to originate within the opposition; that’s where Chairman Nadler’s attacks become purposeful.
The Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested July 2017 renewal of the FISA warrant two months after the special counsel team was assembled.
If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of the renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).
Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.
Overlay USAO John Durham doing a deeper and more lengthy investigation that touches the edges of the underlying warrant, and, well, that’s quite a lot of review ongoing.
Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. The media ignore in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely well more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.
There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.
Imagine that?
(Washington Post Link) […] Shortly after the McCabe announcement on Friday, officials said that Barr had assigned Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review and “assist” prosecutors currently handling the case of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is still awaiting sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The Jensen appointment marks the latest iteration of an unusual trend inside the Justice Department of tasking outside U.S. attorneys with reviewing, managing, or reinvestigating work that would otherwise not be in their portfolio. Much of the effort seems aimed at re-examining the work of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign infuriated the president, or at targeting the president’s foes. (read more)
Like I said, the Washington Post (above) and the New York Times (LINK) have both written pearl-clutching articles about Barr using DOJ “outsiders”; yet never once have they noted the FISA Court order that preceded all of these outside USAO’s entering the picture and receiving instructions from Bill Barr. In order for media ideologues to continue advancing their political narrative they have to pretend not to know things…
