The beginning of the end? The end of the beginning? A ‘distraction’ from Epstein?
The media prefers the latter explanation for Pam Bondi’s move late yesterday to empanel a grand jury over allegations that Obama-era officials corruptly targeted Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election. The targets of the investigations into allegations of falsified intel and political manipulation probably prefer it, too. However, those insisting that crimes took place in Russiagate reaching all the way to the top of the Barack Obama administration have some reputational risk on the line too:
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into allegations that members of Democratic former President Barack Obama’s administration manufactured intelligence on Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.
The Justice Department said late last month it was forming a strike force to assess claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about “alleged weaponization of the U.S. intelligence community.” …
Fox News first reported that Bondi personally ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury, which could consider an indictment if the Justice Department pursued a criminal case. The report cited a letter from Bondi and a source. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.
Donald Trump certainly cheered this development:
What about the Protection Racket Media? The New York Times hasn’t even bothered to report this major development as of 10:15 am ET today. This is the same paper that obsessively reported every minute detail of the Russia-collusion allegations in 2017-18 and shared a Pulitzer with the Washington Post for that coverage. The Post did cover the development — as a conspiracy theory run amok:
Still, the development marked a significant escalation in the Justice Department’s push to relitigate one of President Donald Trump’s long-standing grievances and comes as critics have argued those efforts are an attempt by the White House to use the department to punish Trump’s political foes.
For years, Trump has sought to portray investigations into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 campaign as a “witch hunt” and a Democratic plot to undermine his first presidency. However, intelligence officials and multiple investigations, including the inquiry led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, have repeatedly concluded that Russia sought to interfere with the election to benefit Trump over his rival Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Mueller’s probe led to the convictions of several Trump allies, though it found no concrete proof of collusion between members of his campaign and Moscow.
Actually, what Mueller found was that there was no evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia, ‘concrete’ or otherwise. He found that the basis of the analysis was simply false. The convictions that Mueller got were either process crimes — lying to investigators, which may be relevant this time around too — or in the case of Paul Manafort, an old 2014 case unrelated to Russia-collusion allegations.
Nor does the Post mention that the newly declassified files and whistleblower reports demonstrate that several officials lied about the use of the Steele dossier in developing the finding that Trump may have colluded with Russia. They do note that Bondi has acknowledged criminal probes of then-FBI Director James Comey and then-CIA director John Brennan, but without mentioning that important detail about lying to investigators and Congress about the Steele dossier. The Post seems pretty impressed with convictions for those crimes in 2018, but oddly reluctant to discuss the possibility in this new grand jury investigation.
The move to a grand jury makes sense for both legal and political purposes. Even if Bondi can charge crimes directly, it would be a bad move to bypass a grand jury. First off, while grand juries are usually amenable to prosecutors, they won’t always indict if the case is a mess. It forces the DoJ to ensure that they have dotted their Is and crossed their Ts while laying out the evidence for an indictment.
Politically speaking, this works better too. If Bondi et al can get indictments from a grand jury, that will force everyone to take this more seriously rather than pretend it’s simply a political payback. You can bet that the targets of this probe are already taking it seriously — lawyering up, as former DNI James Clapper told CNN — and preparing for a long legal battle. The media won’t take it seriously until trials start, of course, but they will be forced to consider that their narratives of 2016-18 are about to get exposed as Democrat party propaganda, and at least a few of those might repent, at least a little.
Matt Taibbi doesn’t see any evidence of repentance at the NYT yet. He wrote an open letter to a former dean of the Columbia School of Journalism — keeper of the Pulitzer flame, such as it is these days — for praising a recent cover-your-ass effort by the Times:
Obviously, you’re a former Journalism School Dean and I’m not, but I wouldn’t have thought you could win a Pulitzer Prize writing a lede with no attributions in which all the new facts are wrong. The assertion that the young Trump aide Papadopoulos spoke of “dirt” or “thousands of emails” was eventually blown up by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat mentioned. From the report by Special Counsel John Durham, who noted that Downer said in interviews there was “no mention” of these headline details, and that Papadopoulos simply said “the Russians have information” …
All the juicy headline details from this and other big Times Trump-Russia stories have been wiped away by time. Take the worst story the Times wrote about this topic, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.” It wasn’t a Pulitzer entry, but it was “almost entirely wrong,” as Comey agreed in testimony that year. The Times was nonetheless so excited about its non-scoop that, as Gerth recounted, it hired a Showtime crew to film them faceplanting the editorial process for a documentary called The Fourth Estate. “Are we sure we’re not feeding a conspiracy,” reporter Mark Mazzetti asked, with “recurring themes of contacts?” No, and it was “the biggest story in years,” triumphant editor Dean Baquet chirped.
It was the biggest story in years, but because it was wrong and embarrassing, not the other reason.
It may be again the biggest story in years, perhaps as big or bigger than Watergate. The NY Times and the Washington Post will use every resource they have to avoid it or deny it, apparently.
A grand jury indictment may force them to change their calculus. Maybe. It would, however, make it abundantly clear that this is not a “conspiracy theory,” and that the true conspiracy theory is the one that won Pulitzers while being flogged by the Protection Racket Media. Let’s wait to see what the grand jury decides before leaping to assumptions.
Editor’s Note: The Trump administration is exposing Barack Obama and his administration’s Russian Collusion Hoax. And the independent media are exposing the Protection Racket Media’s complicity in that corrupt attempt to derail a presidency.
Help us continue to report on their blatant corruption and attacks on President Trump. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
