You have to wonder how dishonest the media can get. The media now twist what Attorney General William Barr is actually investigating with respect to the 2016 election and feign shock that there may be crimes involved.
As you can see in the videos below, Barr told Congress he would review all the investigations into the American intelligence agencies being used to spy on the Trump campaign and determine if there was a legit predicate for it. Later, he told Senators that he’d opened “multiple” criminals investigations into damaging leaks. But now, the media report that the review has morphed into a criminal investigation because, shockingly, there apparently wasn’t a legit predicate for spying on Trump.
Only the media are surprised, dazed and confused. To wit:
Yesterday the @NYT ‘reported’ the leak that:
“Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation”
Not exactly, NYT. … as if the Obama and Trump Justice Departments are the same. Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, and many others have been dumped or demoted. I don’t call that being the ‘same’ department.
Here’s how the Lyin’ Ted Lieu characterized the probe, which was slavishly transcribed in all caps by Newsweek:
“CRIMINAL INQUIRY INTO MUELLER’S RUSSIA PROBE IS ‘DEEPLY TROUBLING,’ SAYS DEMOCRATIC REP. TED LIEU”
Maybe the probe is looking into the Mueller investigation. Barr wants to know the predicate of why Obama spied on Trump using Hillary’s phony Russian (and, now we learn, Ukrainian) fake news; whether the FISA court was duped, willingly or not, to issue multiple wiretaps to spy on Trump aparatchiks. If Mueller’s investigation didn’t look into those things, and he didn’t, then that’s something that needs to nailed down.
Vanity Fair issues an all caps scare headline and sub headline explicitly saying the Barr investigation is a political vendetta:
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OPENS CRIMINAL PROBE INTO ITS RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.
William Barr is essentially doing Trump’s bidding by investigating the investigators—now with subpoena power.
Who was carrying out a political vendetta again? And are they really investigating the investigation? Maybe. Seem there were a lot of corners cut in the Mueller probe. But if this is doing “Trump’s bidding,” then it stands to reason that the initial spying was done at Obama’s bidding.
Shockingly, CNN does best with framing the actual investigation:
“Origins of Russia probe now a criminal investigation”
That’s right. The origins, the underpinnings, the predicate, of the Russia hoax are being looked at; not necessarily, or only, the Mueller probe.
The New York Times headline invites you to mock this farcical bit of fancy as an “Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation,” like a dog chasing his own tail.
Here’s part of what Barr said when asked by Senators about the scope of his investigations and why he was conducting it:
“I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016…I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.”
And now the New York Times trumpets that this has miraculously morphed into a criminal investigation. But last May, Barr told Senate Intelligence Committee member, and former chairman, Charles Grassley, that there were criminal investigations – multiple – going on:
We have multiple criminal leak investigations underway.
Not much of a mystery here, folks, except to the media.
The media are now circling the wagons around their tribe, the Democrats, and former Obama Administration officials. Flak is being released to distract the public, the smoke grenade that is the ‘impeachment inquiry’ is allowing wisps of anti-Trump ‘testimony’ to escape their secret panic room, and the Obama acolytes who weaponized multiple government agencies against one man – Trump – have now elevated their concern to Defcon 1.
The hypocrisy of the “justice” system in Multnomah County continues to amaze even a long time observer like me.
Take note of the latest example of the duplicity with which prosecutors treat leftist defendants versus defendants such as Michael Strickland: Christopher Joseph Gourneau.
As you know by now, I’ve taken up Strickland’s defense not because we’re besties or agree on all issues. I’m sure he’d say the same about me.
But one thing we agree on is the right of free speech, something that was denied Strickland as he attempted to cover the Black Lives Matter/Don’t Shoot PDX event July 7, 2016.
When a marauding bunch of masked thugs and a 300-400 lb assailant came rushing him again, Strickland exercised his second amendment rights and drew his legally possessed gun and back off the mob. This was after several attempts to keep them at bay with verbal commands, hand up, and monopod as a defensive tool.
In short, Strickland used his second amendment rights to exercise his first amendment rights. For that ‘offense,’ Strickland faces years in prison after being found guilty of 21 counts, ten of which are felonies related to this incident.
The very people who had minutes before assaulted him, laid hands on him, and attempted to drag him out of the crowd to stop covering the event with the tools of his journalistic trade — a camera — now became ‘victims’ in the case.
They must laugh themselves silly thinking that they managed to ruin a man’s life by assaulting and then blaming him for defending himself. Prosecutors undoubtedly with the same leftist beliefs decided to use Strickland as a whipping boy to demonstrate what would happen to any Portlander who dares to defend himself legally.
The prosecution of Michael Strickland is nothing more than political persecution writ large.
Take for example the latest case of a man who actually threw a bomb into a crowd of protesters who just received PROBATION and COUNSELING for his offense.
The Oregonian reports that man, who’s also one of the protesters, for some reason, threw his molotov cocktail bomb into the crowd:
A 27-year-old man who in November inexplicably threw a Molotov cocktail at a crowd during a downtown Trump protest was sentenced Monday to three years of probation — and anger management counseling.
While it appeared from initial news reports that Christopher Joseph Gourneau might have been taking part in the Nov. 11 protest of the presidential election of Donald Trump, it became clear during his sentencing hearing that he had actually targeted protesters.
Let’s take a pit stop for a second and take a look at the last sentence in the above ‘graf:
“it became clear during his sentencing hearing that he had actually targeted protesters.”
This appears to be an attempt to mollify the protesters into thinking the perpetrator might have been with another political camp, but read it more closely:
“he had actually targeted protesters.”
Of course he “actually targeted protesters.” We don’t know why, but he did.
He threw a bomb at them. You can catch fire from the lit gasoline or other accelerant used in a Molotov Cocktail. By the way, the bomb is named for Vyacheslav Molotov who was a “professional revolutionary” during the Bolshivek Revolution and years after and was a protege of the murderous tyrant Josef Stalin.
Back to the Molotov Cocktail guy now.
Here’s what a prosecutor said of his actions:
Deputy District Attorney Steve O’Hagan said Gourneau’s act of throwing the burning cocktail at the crowd could have had “horrific” results, and it’s luck that it didn’t.
“Luck that it didn’t.” Would they have used the same rationale following the Strickland incident to guide their prosecutorial inclinations.
Here’s what Molotov Cocktail dude got for his sentence:
As part of a plea agreement, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Adrienne Nelson sentenced him to a list of conditions — under the supervision of his probation officer — including anger management counseling, “emotional management treatment” and drug and alcohol treatment.
He will start out the first part of his three years of probation in the Multnomah County Justice Reinvestment Program. The program is designed to keep defendants out of jail or prison and connect them with drug treatment, housing and other necessities that could help stabilize their lives.
I’m pretty sure we know what political side this guy was on based on his sentence alone.
Then check out the punishment for the 120 people arrested during the protests against Donald Trump in November:
Gourneau was one of 120 people arrested during six consecutive nights of protests immediately after Trump’s election in November. Most criminal charges were dropped, and the district attorney’s office said it was focusing on the most violent or disruptive of those arrested.
According to The Portland Mercury, this is the disbursement of “justice” to the 171 people arrested, as they put it, “in the Trump era”:
According to an analysis of the 171 protest-related arrests in Portland since post-election demonstrations began in November, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office has rejected more than half—a whopping 99 cases.
Of the 72 defendants who remained, 45 had their cases reduced to traffic violations, 13 are awaiting trial for misdemeanors (with one already found guilty), 12 are awaiting trial for felonies (mostly from November demonstrations), one juvenile case was referred to Washington County, and another case was dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
Lesson: Defend yourself and risk prison. Offensively throw a bomb at protesters, violently vandalize and deprive people of their speech, security in their businesses and homes and freedom of movement, and you get a ’traffic ticket’ or counseling. Got it.
And here are the previous posts I’ve done on the Strickland case: