Bill Barr re-emerges, spotlights total corruption of the Department of Justice

By Todd Gregory and Erik Gregory, AM THINKER

Six months after resigning as attorney general, William Barr recently re-entered the spotlight, reportedly telling friendly news correspondent Jonathan Karl that allegations of vote fraud during the 2020 election are bull.  Now that civilian Bill Barr has jumped back into the political fray, it is time to take unflinching stock of the degraded Department of Justice (DOJ) and how it became even further corrupted during Barr’s reign.

In reviewing the attorney general’s passivity during his tenure, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Barr’s inaction was born of anything other than profound fear of the progressive, hydra-headed agency he ostensibly led.  Indeed, during his nearly two years on the job, the nation’s top cop repeatedly gave interviews in which he alluded to criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration and senior leaders of Obama’s intelligence agencies, which spied on the Trump campaign and later sought to remove Trump from office on a variety of increasingly implausible and comically specious pretexts.  Yet, despite all of Barr’s talk, there was never any accountability for the malefactors.

Given the elastic timeframes and endless delays concluding the John Durham–led probe into the origins of the Russia hoax-cum-coup that crippled Trump’s presidency, it is worth asking whether Barr cravenly provided the president and the public with false assurances that he and Durham were indeed making a good-faith effort to root out the rampant corruption within the DOJ, coupled with false promises that the coup’s participants would be brought to justice.  Did Barr make a calculated decision to buy time, carrying water for the administrative state he so fears, while deliberately running out the clock on President Trump?  Did Barr bank his hopes on Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election so the entire five-year, government-wide effort to defenestrate Trump could be flushed away down the memory hole?

In reviewing nearly two years of the Barr-led DOJ, it is instructive to reflect on the two-tiered nature of justice at the DOJ.  Several mysterious deaths remain unexplained, among them the 2016 murder of Democrat operative Seth Rich and the “suicides” of the politically connected pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney.  What did these seemingly unrelated events have in common?  The suddenly deceased were all in a position to reveal enormously incriminating information about prominent Democrats.  It is not a “conspiracy theory” to observe that the DOJ seems to have no interest in investigating these highly suspicious deaths.

Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the DOJ, continues to sit idly on the information gleaned from Hunter Biden’s laptop over the past two years, likely in an effort to conceal the evident corruption of Democrat President Joe Biden.  Further, the DOJ seems unconcerned by the apparent immigration fraud and ballot-harvesting activities of prominent Democrats like Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.  Neither has the DOJ (nor the intelligence agencies) evinced much interest in infiltrating and bringing to justice criminal groups like Antifa, which deploy violent left-wing shock troops to wreak havoc on the nation’s streets.  And the DOJ, while searching frenetically under every bed in America for straw men to slay, whether Russian bots or white nationalists (WSEs, whatever those are), has no interest in prosecuting FBI agents who use taxpayer dollars to engage in prurient pursuits like child pornography while on the job.

Recall the case of John Huber, U.S. attorney and Obama appointee, who closed his nearly three-year “investigation” into connections between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One with no findings of any illegality whatsoever.  Fellow U.S. attorney John Durham appears scarcely different.  Nearly two years after his appointment to investigate the origins of the Russia hoax, Durham has secured one minor guilty plea (a false statement charge) from somebody named Kevin Clinesmith, more of an extra in a Greek chorus than a key player in the five-year (and counting) effort to destroy Trump.  Occasional leaks from the DOJ to the media indicate that the real key players, former president Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, are at no risk of being found culpable for any malfeasance.

It seems likely that Barr and Durham slow-walked their probe from the start, in fear of the demonstrated ruthless wrath of the DOJ.  The Potemkin village of an “investigation” into the origins of the Russia hoax will likely be formally disbanded soon, just as Jeffrey Epstein and others were conveniently disappeared.  Then Durham, like Barr, can safely return to private life, out of the crosshairs of the intelligence agencies; write self-serving memoirs; and complain about how he and his investigation were disrespected and obstructed by Trump every step of the way.

Years of stonewalling from Barr and Durham, redundant pleas for more time, and endless dissembling — and, yes, abject dereliction of duty — can all be rationalized away.  What (if anything) did the two vaunted lawmen accomplish over the past two years, and why do they refuse to release any meaningful findings to the public?

It is crystal-clear that the DOJ is beyond reform, staffed almost entirely by careerist vipers who failed up, pursuing their own progressive political agendas and enriching themselves at the nation’s expense.  Law-abiding conservative citizens are now subject to the tender mercies of a new attorney general, Merrick Garland, a warrior for the progressive cause who unambiguously serves at the pleasure of the hard left.

Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who essentially forfeited their lives to expose massive surveillance state abuses during the Obama era, never got the pardons they deserved.  But they still have their honor and their dignity.  The same cannot be said of Bill Barr.

July 7, 2021 | 5 Comments »

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. Here is the link in which the US Attorney that Barr ordered to not investigate the election fraud. It is a two page letter to Trump discussing the pre-election fraud, post election fraud, Barr’s order and his intent to run for Gov. of PA in 2022(I think Sen. Mastriano is going to win that but time will tell).

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/12/wow-it-was-mcswain-president-trump-releases-us-attorney-letter-notifying-him-of-bill-barr-efforts-to-block-investigation-of-election-fraud/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wow-it-was-mcswain-president-trump-releases-us-attorney-letter-notifying-him-of-bill-barr-efforts-to-block-investigation-of-election-fraud

  2. Very revealing discussion by Sundance on Barr and Durham and the PA US Attorney. The larger conclusions are revealed in the end of the article which can be found in the link below.

    During Speech President Trump Reveals Letter from Pennsylvania U.S Attorney Detailing Bill Barr Blocking Philadelphia Vote Fraud Investigation
    July 11, 2021 | sundance | 41 Comments

    This is interesting. In the middle of his CPAC speech President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell story about a Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney who was intending to investigate voter fraud in Philadelphia and was blocked by Attorney General Bill Barr. The excerpt is below, WATCH:[see link at bottom]

    There are three U.S. Attorney Divisions in Pennsylvania: Eastern (Philly), Middle (Wilkes-Barre) and Western (Pittsburgh/Erie). Given the nature of the story as told during the speech, it would most likely be the former USAO in the Philadelphia office; that was William M. McSwain who announced his resignation on January 14, 2021.

    In previous comments attributed to AG Bill Barr, he claimed to have seen no evidence of election fraud. The Atlantic Article cites Bill Barr stating to an AP journalist December 1st 2020: ” To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” and then the article covers the fallout with the White House from that AP interview.

    However, there’s a big difference between not seeing election fraud and purposefully blocking a United States Attorney Office from investigating allegations of fraud with an institutional motive not to discover or see it.

    REMINDER: On October 19, 2020, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham as special prosecutor under authorities provided by DOJ regulations [28 cfr 600]. However, AG Bill Barr did not tell the public at the time of the appointment. Within the original appointment, AG Barr notes the reason for doing this quietly [Page 2, Paragraph (e)]:

    “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(b), I have determined that the notification requirement … should be tolled until at least after the November 3, 2020 election because legitimate and investigative privacy concerns warrant confidentiality.“

    In essence, AG Bill Barr stated he did not want to impact the 2020 presidential election with a notification to congress or the public of this appointment. While the justification for this approach is clearly within the unspoken rules of the DOJ not wanting to give the impression of interference in political elections, we must also accept these unspoken DOJ rules only flow in one direction – when Democrat party politicians need to be protected.

    However, beyond the justification for not informing the public that U.S. Attorney John Durham was now empowered with special prosecutor authorities before the 2020 presidential election, there are much bigger issues that surface; and this must be accepted and discussed in its purposeful totality.

    ? Notification of the special prosecutor appointment did not surface until December 1, 2020, when AP journalist Michael Balsamo first wrote about it (SEE HERE).

    Based on a recent widely-viewed article published in the Atlantic, we now know Balsamo was summoned by AG Barr to Main Justice for an informal lunch were several issues were discussed: “Barr’s betrayal came on December 1, over lunch in the attorney general’s private dining room with Michael Balsamo, a Justice Department beat reporter at the Associated Press.” (link)

    The most recent headlines surround AG Bill Barr telling Mr. Balsamo: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” thus the current narrative du jour. However, in hindsight, we can now enhance the background of that Dec. 1st meeting between AG Bill Barr and AP journalist Michael Balsamo to include the attorney general informing the AP about the appointment of John Durham as a special prosecutor. Balsamo wrote about the Durham appointment on that exact date, December 1, 2020.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/11/during-speech-president-trump-reveals-letter-from-pennsylvania-u-s-attorney-detailing-bill-barr-blocking-philadelphia-vote-fraud-investigation/#more-213922

  3. The dems are still doing everything in their power to prevent verification of whether there was or wasn’t any massive organized election fraud.

  4. It was a tragic mistake and sad luck of courage on the part of Trump, that he did not partod Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

    However if Snowden as Pardoned and made it back to the US, he’d probably have been murdered, so maybe it is better this way after all.

  5. Perhaps, the author is correct that Barr was too meek and too timid to handle the task he was dealt. He did rid that institution of several members involved in the Russia hoax, though doing so with quieted resignations. The most prominent of these players retired into a sentence of private practice was Dana Boente who had been the Acting Attorney General in the first month of Trump’s term and later was the General Council to the FBI. It must be admitted that the crimes that these rogues committed would have served the nation better to be displayed before a court, but this presumes that the evidence could be made public or that a strong case actually existed, neither of which might be assumed as necessarily true.

    In any case, Barr did serve the nation well with regards to the election fraud. Had he acquiesced to the demands of Trump and others to pursue the election fraud, the ballots, machines and all inquiries would likely have been placed in some quiet investigation, denying access to the states, the people and any fair accounting of these crimes for several years or, more likely, forever. His statement to pursue civil litigation was not only prudent, but necessary should anyone hope to seek a responsible judgement on the matter, as the captured status of the FBI and DOJ can be accurately described as being a point of public record.