{"id":309278,"date":"2019-05-15T16:10:00","date_gmt":"2019-05-15T20:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=309278"},"modified":"2019-05-16T15:17:00","modified_gmt":"2019-05-16T19:17:00","slug":"coup-collaborators-turn-on-each-other","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2019\/05\/15\/coup-collaborators-turn-on-each-other\/","title":{"rendered":"Coup Collaborators Turn on Each Other"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Mr. Barr appointing Mr. Durham to go out there and look at the investigation, guess what\u2019s happening? All of these participants in the coup are beginning to accuse each other. This is so delicious. Comey\u2019s out there smearing Rosenstein. Rosenstein smears back<\/a>. Brennan and Comey are going at it over who first put the unverified dossier into the intelligence briefing. Folks, it\u2019s like rats scurrying amidst the ship to try to get off of it. They\u2019re all out there trying to say, “I didn\u2019t do it; you did it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

“I had nothing to do with it. You did,” and Brennan is out there talking about, “I think this is crazy. This is nothing more than a fishing competition.” Fishing competition? What do you think you were doing? Fishing expedition? This is not a fishing expedition. This is a search to confirm the truth of what we already know about what was a silent coup to get rid of the president of the United States. What you guys did, Mr. Brennan, was a witch hunt. What you did was… (chuckling)<\/p>\n

Trying to waste time looking at all of this… Frankly, it\u2019s great to see. These guys are out now trying to blame others, point fingers at each other. Brennan and Comey are actually in an argument over who put the Steele dossier into the intelligence briefing and then had it go up to the FISA court. So if these guys could be leveraged, they could then end up lying and ratting each other out. Now, I… By the way, the New York Times has a story today that I don\u2019t believe.<\/p>\n

The New York Times has a story saying that (paraphrased) “Mr. Durham, this is just an inquiry, it\u2019s not an investigation, and nobody has any reason to worry. They\u2019re just trying to see if there is any reason to investigate. This is…” But I have it on better authority that this is much farther along, much more advanced than the New York Times wants its readers to believe. I think this is fake news out of the New York Times and I\u2019m not gonna spend any more time on it than what I just did.<\/p>\n

I got an email note from a friend talking about all of the rats in this ship now starting to accuse each other, Comey\/Rosenstein, Rosenstein\/Comey, Brennan\/Comey. And he said to me, “The only question, Rush, is: How high up will they allow all this to go?” Meaning, how high up is it gonna go? Where are they gonna draw the line and not name people? We know Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, and Obama knew all about this coup. In fact, they green-lighted it.<\/p>\n

In the next couple of rounds down the road, will Sally Yates finger Loretta Lynch? Will Samantha Power finger Susan Rice? Will Rice and Lynch finger Obama? My own personal opinion is, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s gonna get to the level of Obama. Even if it goes there, I don\u2019t think Barr\u2019s gonna take it there, for the good of the country. They\u2019re not gonna go after a former president. That would roil the country too much. That\u2019s my thinking.<\/p>\n

I do hope, though, that they do not excuse and exonerate Hillary Clinton. She needs to be caught up in this, and I would love it if some of these people start fingering her and the DNC as being the real impetus for this. Real Clear Investigations<\/a>, by the way, points out that this Russiagate probe by Mr. Durham has been investigating for months now. The first evidence is traced back to an October 3rd House of Representatives hearing that James Baker (the executive in the FBI) was under investigation by Durham.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

John Durham\u2019s been working on the leak part of the puzzle for the last eight months. That\u2019s since October, maybe for some time before that. I\u2019ll have the details for you as the program unfolds. Keep in mind the New York Times says (paraphrased), “This is nothing. This is just an inquiry. They\u2019re just looking to see if there is even anything to investigate,” and yet many other sources say that Durham has been at this for quite a while and is way far down the road — further down the road than anybody knows.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: You\u2019re gonna love this. The White House has sent a letter to Jerry Nadler saying (summarized), “Hey, Jerry? Current and former White House employees, White House aides are not gonna go and testify before your committee. Hey, Jerry? You can subpoena us all you want, but nobody\u2019s showing up, Buddy.” (laughing) They\u2019re gonna stonewall — and now we\u2019re gonna hear all about “Constitutional crisis!” Why should they? They\u2019ve got nothing. There is nothing.<\/p>\n

The real news of this is the investigation of the investigators — and here is a story. John Yoo. John Yoo was a deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush. He was on Fox News, and he said that Barr appointing a U.S. attorney to this is all the indication anybody needs that indictments are coming. Cybercast News Service reported that John Yoo said<\/a>, “If I were the Democrats I would be quite worried…<\/p>\n

“And the reason why is, by appointing a U.S. attorney, Attorney General Barr is essentially signaling that he thinks it\u2019s possible that criminal violations occurred in the start of the whole investigation into any kind of Trump-Russian collusion. … [Y]ou wouldn\u2019t go with a U.S. Attorney like Durham, someone of his stature, unless the attorney general thinks actually something criminal might have happened, that someone might have violated the law…”<\/p>\n

You wouldn\u2019t hire this guy to do an inquiry. You wouldn\u2019t hire this guy to do a toothless, faceless examination. You wouldn\u2019t hire this guy unless you plan on there being a grand jury and there being indictments — and if there is a grand jury, if the grand jury is impaneled, then you can expect indictments. That\u2019s what John Yoo thinks. “So if you are a Democrat, I think you would be really worried to see the appointment of a career prosecutor like this.”<\/p>\n

From Real Clear Investigations<\/a>: “John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to investigate how Trump-Russia allegations … has already been looking into whether the FBI\u2019s former top lawyer, James Baker, illegally leaked to reporters. In fact, [Durham] the U.S. attorney from Connecticut appears to have begun that work more than seven months ago, to judge from an underreported transcript of an October congressional interview with Baker.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>“The Baker interview, at which Durham was not present, suggests that the prosecutor nevertheless has some people very worried. Baker,” and again, he is the top lawyer at the FBI when all this was going on. He “testified about the Trump-Russia affair on Oct. 3 before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In that session, [Baker] admitted that versions and variations of Christopher Steele\u2019s dossier were being turned in to the bureau from the strangest of places.”<\/p>\n

He heard about the Steele dossier. He knew it was made up. “Baker said he had even heard about it from David Corn, Washington bureau chief of… Mother Jones.” You know how they know each other? James Baker (top lawyer FBI) and David Corn, their kids carpool. They\u2019re buddies. So Baker is testified (paraphrased), “Yeah, David Corn, my old buddy at Mother Jones, told me about the Steele dossier. Yeah.” This is the result of somebody reviewing transcripts of interviews before committees.<\/p>\n

So I think this has been going on a lot longer than people want to know or admit.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: The plethora of news stories today signaling that the special prosecutor, the lawyer, U.S. attorney that Barr has hired to investigate the investigation, John Durham, had been at this apparently for longer than people believe. Paul Sperry just tweeted that sources are telling him that Mr. Durham is going to be looking into the CIA\u2019s role in this. That would be John Brennan.<\/p>\n

Now, all of this… We\u2019ve got two or three different well-sourced stories that tell us Durham is doing this, that he\u2019s been hired to do it by Barr. He\u2019s looking into the investigation seriously, and there may even be indictments. John Yoo, the former deputy AG for the George W. Bush administration, said (summarized), “Look, this guy is not somebody just conducting an inquiry. You can expect indictments if Barr has hired somebody like this.”<\/p>\n

So here comes the New York Times today: “Scrutiny of Russia Investigation Said to Be a Review, Not a Criminal Inquiry.<\/a>” This is a typical New York Times story with three bylines. “The federal prosecutor tapped to scrutinize the origins of the Russia investigation is conducting only a review for now and has not opened any criminal inquiry, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

“The prosecutor, John H. Durham, the United States attorney for Connecticut, is broadly examining the government\u2019s collection of intelligence involving the Trump campaign\u2019s interactions with Russians, the person said. … While Mr. Durham has conducted criminal investigations into allegations of high-level wrongdoing by law enforcement and national security officials” in the past, “his new review does not rise to that level, the person said,” again, unnamed. We don\u2019t know who this source is.<\/p>\n

The New York Times assures us, “The distinction means that Mr. Durham for now will not wield the sort of law enforcement powers that come with an open criminal investigation…” Well… (chuckles) They\u2019ve got this, again, backwards. They\u2019re trying to make themselves feel better, and I think somebody is aware that the New York Times is susceptible to leaks of a certain ideological tilt, and the New York Times and its readers would love to believe that there\u2019s really not much to this.<\/p>\n

So somebody leaks to them, “Hey, this is nothing serious. Don\u2019t believe all this garbage out there. This is just an inquiry. There\u2019s nothing serious here yet. This is no criminal inquiry,” and yet Mr. Yoo said, “You don\u2019t appoint somebody like this to do an inquiry.” Inquiry is essentially what inspectors general do. But Mr. Durham will have the power to indict. He\u2019ll have the power to convene a grand jury if he wants to do so.<\/p>\n

Trump for his part is saying he is so proud of the attorney general for his efforts to conduct this investigation into the origins of the silent coup waged against him. CNN is reporting that Barr is working closely with the CIA to review the origins of the Trump-Russia witch hunt. CNN claims that John Huber is no longer investigating Russian issues. (That\u2019s the guy that Sessions appointed, seemingly eons ago.) CNN claims that Huber has been in a holding pattern until Horowitz, the inspector general, finishes his investigation — which, if that\u2019s true, that\u2019s maddening.<\/p>\n

But now with Durham on the case, we\u2019ll just have to wait. I know a lot of you are still not believing any of this. I understand that you don\u2019t care what the news stories are, you don\u2019t care what Huber or Durham\u2019s resume is. Until there\u2019s actual action on these people, you\u2019re not gonna fall for it because you\u2019re sick and tired of being set up, your expectations raised, and then nothing happens. I understand that. John Brennan says that Barr is fishing for something in the FISA warrant to misrepresent as a deep-state plot against Trump.<\/p>\n

\"\"So John Brennan of the CIA, who was instrumental in the effort to get rid of Trump and was tweeting all over the place for years and was guesting on CNN and MSNBC as often as they would have him predicting Trump\u2019s demise… He was instrumental. So many people, it turns out, have been utilizing the Steele dossier. So Brennan is coming along here saying (paraphrased), “You know what? I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything to this. I think this is just a fishing expedition. They\u2019re looking for something that they can say the FISA warrant got wrong, but they\u2019re not gonna find anything.”<\/p>\n

Fishing? To call this a fishing expedition is fascinating because that\u2019s essentially what the investigation into Trump was. Let\u2019s start here with audio sound bite number 2. This is John Brennan last night on MSNBC, and Nicolle Wallace said, “What are they gonna find? Three examinations of the origins of the Russia investigation, what was the concern? What was going on? What are they gonna find when they do this?”<\/p>\n

BRENNAN: I think they\u2019re just trying to, uh, you know, demonstrate that there was problems with what the Obama administration did as far as pursue this investigation. But it went through a rigorous due process within the Department of Justice, the FBI. It was approved by the FISA court. It went through all of those steps. Now, if they look back at it in 2020, are they going to find that there was something that should have been said differently, whatever? They might. But I think that\u2019s what they\u2019re trying to do is to uncover something that they will misrepresent as being part of this deep-state effort to try to undermine Donald Trump\u2019s, uh, election.<\/p>\n

RUSH: “[T]hey\u2019re trying to cover something they will misrepresent as being part of this deep-state effort to undermine Donald Trump\u2019s election.” Not just his election, but his presidency. And it is purposely… John Solomon with another story today indicating that the FBI knew well in advance that the Steele dossier was uncorroborated, unverified, that there was nothing true in it, and yet they used it to get the FISA warrant to spy to Carter Page. Here\u2019s Andy McCarthy reacting to Brennan<\/a> and his suggestion that Barr is out to misrepresent something.<\/p>\n

MCCARTHY: Sometimes they abuse their powers. I think that not only should the activities of the Justice Department and the FBI — the presentation of the warrants — be looked at. I actually think they ought to be looking at what on earth the FISA court was thinking about when it issued some of these warrants. But this is an oversight exercise, and if what director Brennan is saying is true, then what\u2019s he worried about? But to hear them talk about, like, it\u2019s a fishing expedition? After we just had a two-year investigation of the administration under circumstances where the Justice Department didn\u2019t articulate a crime that it was actually looking at? We spent two years on a fishing expedition under the guise of collusion. They\u2019re now gonna complain about oversight of the intelligence and the Justice Department and the FBI? That seems ridiculous to me.<\/p>\n