By Jon Dougherty
On his program Thursday, talk radio legend Rush Limbaugh went through a litany of responses from the “mainstream” media and Democrats to Attorney General William Barr’s claim during Senate testimony a day ago that he believes President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was “spied on.”
In announcing that he planned to look into how the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign began in the first place following special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions last month that there was “no collusion” between it and Russia, Barr said: “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” adding that he wanted to look into both “the genesis and the conduct” of the FBI’s probe and the Justice Department’s role in it.
“I think spying did occur,” Barr said. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. But I need to explore that.”
That sent the Washington media into a tizzy.
“Barr obliterates honest broker persona with ‘spying’ comment,” CNN‘s Stephen Collinson declared.
“Barr says spying on Trump campaign ‘did occur,’ but provides no evidence,” the network’s Laura Jarrett and Evan Perez huffed.
“William Barr goes full Trump,” the discredited New Yorker noted.
It also triggered Democrats.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer whined that Barr “destroyed the scintilla of credibility he had left” with his testimony.
“I just felt he would just want to protect his reputation for integrity and would want to show that he was independent … and he has now repeatedly acted in ways that have called all of that into question,” sniffed CNN contributor and #nevertrumper David Gergen, a onetime “adviser” to RINOs and Dems alike.
“Let me just say how very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails, yesterday and today,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said with a straight, but pained, face.
“He is the attorney general of the United States of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she added.
Like Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder were the attorneys general of Barack Obama, Nancy?
And let’s not forget former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a serial liar and likely co-conspirator in all of this. He said Barr’s use of the word “spying” was “both stunning and scary.”
Mind you, everyone in Washington knows the Trump campaign was ‘spied on.’ The fact that the FBI obtained multiple FISA court warrants to “surveil” a campaign adviser, Carter Page, is prima facie evidence that, yes, spying did occur. How is this even arguable?
— The New York Times published a story in January 2017 a few weeks before POTUS was inaugurated documenting the fact that his campaign was spied on:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
“Intercepted communications” equals “spying.”
The original online report contained this sentence in the next paragraph (it has since been changed/eliminated):
“One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications have been provided to the White House.”
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
During a March 2017 press conference in which members of the media were badgering then-Press Secretary Sean Spicer to give them evidence ‘proving’ Trump’s tweet (above):
Spicer read verbatim from four stories by the New York Times, as well as stories from CIRCA, Fox News, Heat Street and National Review. He also mentioned reporting by the BBC, the Guardian and McClatchy.
So the media knew. They still know that the spying took place. And they know why: To get rid of POTUS Trump.
As Roger Simon at PJ Media notes, Barr may just be the one ‘establishment’ figure they never counted on to ‘betray’ them, caring more about preserving the integrity of his beloved Justice Department and the rule of law in America than being invited to the next dinner party:
Though they were excruciatingly obnoxious to William Barr at Tuesday’s House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Democrats would be well-advised to lay off the attorney general, maybe even treat him with kid gloves, because he holds a good deal of the future of their party in his hands. In fact, he is positioned to make that party bleed as perhaps no one in history. And it only makes it worse that he is clearly such a straight shooter. …
The big story was the affirmative answer he gave to a question about whether he was planning to investigate the provenance of the Russia probe itself. That would, of course, include the FISA court scandal and the Steele dossier, not to mention strange–let’s call them spooky– occurrences in the UK well before the election. Barr noted he also would look at the eight criminal referrals of DOJ personnel and others coming from Devin Nunes. He further noted we could expect the inspector general’s report on these matters in May or June. He was filled with such news, much of it spontaneously given. Perhaps even John Huber will surface.
Democrats, the Spygate co-conspirators, and the media are in full panic mode that William Barr is not only going to fully expose what they did to POTUS Trump but perhaps even see to it that some of them, at least, are indicted for their roles.
As other highly qualified ‘establishment’ types run, not walk, away from serving in the Trump White House, Democrats ought to be asking themselves why Barr, a well-respected member of that same class of public servant, willingly took the helm of this president’s Justice Department.
It certainly wasn’t because he needed the money or something to do on weekends.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10