Mr. Sessions, Your ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ Are Here

By Roger L Simon

In March, Attorney General Sessions wrote to three Republican congressman, declining to appoint a special counsel in the matter of the FBI, CIA, Obama administration and… and…  frankly, I don’t know what to call it, since there is so much from the Clinton Foundation to the emails to the FISA court to who knows what…. because, the AG said, a special counsel necessitated “extraordinary circumstances.”

I sympathized somewhat with Sessions at the time.  Special counsels do not have the best track records. Often they are appointed for dubious politicized reasons. In the Valerie Plame case, a special counsel put Scooter Libby in jail for outing the insignificant Plame as a CIA agent when she was already easily identified in Who’s Who (not to mention that the never-indicted Richard Armitage, not Libby, did the initial public outing anyway).

[UPDATE: As several commenters have correctly noted, Libby was indicted for the ever-popular “lying to the FBI,” not for outing Plame.  I knew this and apologize for being so sloppy.  But it’s worth noting that is even worse, virtually, as someone said, a “set up.”]

Now we have the interminable Mueller “Russia Probe,” so named because it was supposed to be looking into Russian involvement in the 2016 election but seems to be investigating everything but.  Democrat pollster Mark Penn isn’t the only one of his party to realize this has been one elongated farce and actually damaging to the Dems with FBI officials dropping like flies either through quasi-firings or potential indictment. The public is somewhere between bored and nauseated.  That Republicans are suddenly leading in the generic polls is almost certainly related.


Now we have a situation that qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance” if anything does.  It is becoming increasingly clear that there was and is a plot at the highest levels of our government involving the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the Obama administration to block and then undermine the administration of Donald Trump.

On top of that, we now learn there were spies — plural.  Spies! (I don’t mean to “trigger” the children at the New York Times who chose to call them “informants.”)  Not just this Halper dude (aka “The Walrus” — how Le Carré is that!) in Cambridge, whose identity everyone is pretending to hide, but now former Trump advisor Michael Caputo reports he was approached by multiple individuals.

Think about that again. Spies — in action long before James Comey said the investigation began —  paid (large amounts in at least one case) to spy on the political opposition.  Are we a Banana Republic or the very Russia we are supposedly probing? I can’t imagine how my liberal and progressive friends justify this.  Hold their ears, I guess, but this is a loud explosion. (I’ve already seen how James Clapper does.  He lies.)

The reaction to Watergate proved the strength of our democratic republic.  Thus far this does exactly the opposite. It threatens it as never before since WWII.

So, as much as I do dislike the method, I think we really do need a special counsel this time. Immediately.  It’s certainly going to slow things down and maybe, just maybe, Atty. John Huber, whose presence working on the case in Utah was announced by Sessions in that same March letter, will do the necessary job.  (And to do that he would have to be ruthless, willing to put a number of our highest officials, perhaps friends, in orange suits. Otherwise this will be much ado about nada.)

But you’ll excuse me if I’m a Doubting Thomas.  Perhaps I’ve seen too many films like the Italian Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion or seen too many plays like Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle with its rascally judge Azdak to be sanguine about police and intelligence agencies investigating themselves.  These are bureaucracies whose overwhelming interest is almost always self-preservation.

The confused, ambushed look on Christopher Wray’s — the relatively new FBI new director — face through all this is an illustration of this.  The man doesn’t seem to know what to do, although most of on the outside would say “get rid of them!”  Clean the place out.  What’re you waiting for?  But just by being there he has become one of them.

Well, Jeff, your turn. You said you wanted “extraordinary circumstances.”  Voilá.


What Changed? The Same Media Who Excuse Bob Mueller Abused Ken Starr

By Bill D’Agostino

Today’s journalists routinely assert that it is “extreme,” “dangerous,” and possibly even criminal for the White House – or anyone else, for that matter – to criticize an investigation into the President. But twenty years ago, Independent Counsel Ken Starr was savaged by the same liberal media during his investigation of then-President Bill Clinton. At that time, Starr was harangued as a “partisan” and “inept prosecutor,” and a “peeping Tom.”

On Monday evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews shared his take on the Trump administration’s attitude towards Mueller while hosting Hardball: “President Trump is indicating today that he’s willing to go to extreme new lengths to discredit the Russia probe.”

“It seems extremely dangerous that you have investigators investigating the investigation,” intoned a deeply concerned Don Lemon. The CNN Tonight host continued, “You have a President who appears to be, by anyone’s standards, trying to manipulate the process.”

Chris Cuomo was similarly incensed on Tuesday, providing the following synopsis on CNN’s New Day: “The logic is clear. Attack the people who are attacking you, even if it’s just in perception. Bring down their credibility, and that will reduce the impact of anything they find…”

During a segment on ABC’s This Week, CNN Contributor and former Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter mounted a particularly tone-deaf defense of the Special Counsel. “One of the problems here is that Donald Trump has a strong PR machine giving his side of the story out, and the Department of Justice and the investigators do not,” she claimed – as if the media are not themselves a massive anti-Trump PR machine.

The liberal media-wide closing of ranks around the Mueller investigation has ramped up in recent days, but it is nothing new in the age of Trump. In March, MSNBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander suggested that a tweet in which the President had criticized Mueller somehow constituted a criminal act: “Does this effort to sort of undermine and discredit this investigation… does this only add to this obstruction of justice effort by Robert Mueller?”

Back in December of 2017, Lemon confessed on his show that he found conservative media criticism of Mueller “embarrassing,” and “shocking to watch.”

Journalists sang a very different tune when it was a Democratic President under scrutiny. Accusations of Ken Starr’s supposed partisan zeal and incompetence were commonplace throughout the investigation, and as the probe dragged on, the cacophony of dissenting voices only grew fiercer. MRC analysts combed the archives for the most egregious clips of pundits tearing into the Special Counsel, which can be viewed in the compilation video below.

For a list of the quotes contained in the video, click “expand” below:

“There is growing controversy tonight, about whether the newly named independent counsel in the Whitewater case is independent or a Republican partisan allied with a get-Clinton movement.”
– Dan Rather on the August 8 CBS Evening News, 1994.

“What the Judge said plays directly into what the White House’s allies have been saying, that this is an over-zealous prosecutor over-reaching in a bid to bring down the President.”
– ABC’s Jackie Judd ending a story on charges dismissed in the Hubbell tax evasion case, July 1 World News Tonight, 1998.

“…By pandering to Clinton-haters, Mr. Starr appears to be abandoning all pretenses of impartiality. He went into this job with a reputation as a fair-minded conservative. He now looks more like a political hit man desperately eager for a future Supreme Court appointment.”
– Al Hunt’s Outrage of the Week, October 5 Capital Gang, 1996.

“If Ken Starr is a credible prosecutor he will bring this to a conclusion and the Clintons will be exonerated.”
– Newsweek‘s Eleanor Clift on the February 10 McLaughlin Group, 1996.

“If he doesn’t come forward very soon with credible evidence of lawbreaking, he will go down in history as the Peeping Tom Prosecutor.”
– Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter on Kenneth Starr, April 1 The News with Brian Williams on MSNBC, 1998.

“I’m gonna call any witness I can to prove that Ken Starr is a partisan zealot who has had a chip on his shoulder…”
– Geraldo Rivera on what he’d advise if he were Clinton’s lawyer, November 11 Rivera Live on CNBC, 1998.

“Have you any doubt that Kenneth Starr and his deputies are pursuing an agenda that is purely political?”
– Some of Bryant Gumbel’s questions to former Clinton business partner and convicted felon Susan McDougal and her attorney, September 17 Today, 1996.

“Let’s not pretend for a moment that the Starr report is a balanced, judicious presentation. It’s not. It is a partisan prosecutor with some zealous aides who’s trying to make a case against a guy he despises.”
– Al Hunt, Executive Washington Editor of the Wall Street Journal, September 12 Capital Gang on CNN, 1998.

“Couldn’t this be just a witch hunt? Couldn’t the Democrats and President Clinton’s people who’ve been defending him all these months be right?”
– Good Morning America co-host Lisa McRee to humorist P.J. O’Rourke, September 10, 1998.

“Would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?”
– Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s The Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jams Warren, August 18, 1998.

“…Ken Starr is like a deer caught in the headlights, he’s got big bug eyes, he’s gonna do anything. He’s so mad that his neck is going to blow up… This is about vindictiveness, that’s what this is. This is about spite. This is a hate crime. This is a hate crime!”
– Geraldo Rivera on CNBC’s Rivera Live, November 16, 1998.

“At any point have you suggested to Judge Starr that its time to shut the office down or that he may be pressing too hard?”
– Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer to Judge Robert Bork, 1998.

“Should Starr resign?”
– Bernard Shaw on CNN’s Inside Politics, Feb. 26, 1998.

“When is this going to be over?”
– Diane Sawyer to Starr, 20/20 interview, November 25, 1998.

“The citizenry want the investigation, the investigator, the experts, and the media to go away.”
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s The Big Show, August 19, 1998.

“What about the image and impression of Ken Starr as the sort of evil puppeteer behind this entire investigation?”
– John Hockenberry to Gwen Ifill on MSNBC’s InterNight, November 19, 1998.

“If this reminds you of George Orwell’s novel, 1984, it should. The government in that book poked and pried everywhere. Its slogan was, ‘Big Brother Is Watching You.’ And with the aid of the thought police, he was. Welcome to Orwell’s world.”
– CNN’s Bruce Morton on Late Edition, October 11, 1998.

“It finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmeler, including the glasses.”
Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s The Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jams Warren, August 18, 1998.

“Starr is regarded as an occupying army in Little Rock. It’s sort of like….like the French talk about the Germans.”
– Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, April 25, 1998.

“This has been called demented pornography, pornography for puritans.”
– Diane Sawyer to Starr, 20/20 interview, November 25, 1998.

“This guy is leaving as a pious prosecutor, an inept prosecutor, someone who engaged in partisan witch hunts for whatever the reasons…”
– Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt on CNNs Capital Gang, July 3, 1999.

“Twinkle, twinkle Kenneth Starr, now we see how crude you are.
Up above your jury high, like the judge up in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle little Starr, now we see how wrong you are.
When you drag the agents in, when you bully moms and kin.
Then you kiss the treacherous trip, twinkle, twinkle D.C. drip. 
Twinkle, twinkle little Starr, now we see how small you are.”
– Geraldo Rivera, CNBC Evening News July 21, 1998

Potty mouth and palling with Putin: The bizarre reasons Democrats want to impeach Trump

From dealing with Russia to insulting representatives, the list of Trump’s impeachable offences is running long for Democrats, and they are threatening action if they retake the House in November.

“There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment.” Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) swore on CSPANTuesday.

“Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment…I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it.”

Article Two of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that the President can be removed from office “on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

If White House Special Counsel Robert Mueller found any evidence that Trump obstructed justice or accepted foreign payments, there is a possibility that impeachment proceedings could start. Likewise, Democrats say that Trump’s order this week to have the Justice Department investigate the FBI’s alleged surveillance of his campaign could constitute an abuse of office and lead to his removal.

Green, however, has called for Trump’s impeachment no less than nine times, and often for far less serious offenses. His fellow Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters (California) has demanded impeachment dozens of times, for some equally ludicrous ‘crimes.’

While Democrats like Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Rep. John Yarmuth (Kentucky), as well as liberal hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, have all demanded impeachment at some point, Green and Waters have been the most prolific.

For saying NFL players should stand

After former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem last September to protest racism and police brutality, he kicked off a protest movement that spread through the NFL.

Trump called the kneeling “unacceptable” and said that the players involved should be fired. This was enough for Green to call for impeachment. He told Congress that Trump had “undermined the integrity of his office with impunity and…brought disrepute on the presidency with immunity,” but acknowledged that he had not actually committed any crime.

For being friends with Putin

Last October, as several investigations were still looking for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, Rep. Waters told CNN that the House Intelligence Committee simply had not “connected the dots.”

Trump, she argued, should be impeached for “being such good friends with Putin.” When asked for proof of this, Waters replied: “I know. And that’s why we have a special counsel.”

Eight months later, the House Intelligence Committee concluded that no collusion took place, and Mueller’s investigation has yet to turn up any evidence of collusion or obstruction.

For being unfunny and disrespectful

In March, Waters again took to TV to claim that it was “absolutely clear” that Trump had colluded with Russia, and to call the president “stupid,” “ignorant,” “racist,” and a “moron.”Waters then demanded that Trump be impeached for name-calling.

Several days beforehand, Trump had called Waters “a low IQ individual” at a rally in Pennsylvania.

For promoting ‘xenophobia’

Last November, Green promised House Democrats an early Christmas present: a vote on impeachment. Citing no concrete examples of crime or misdemeanor, Green announced that “before Christmas, there will be a vote on the ‘Chief Inciter’ of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism.”

As usual, Green’s anti-Trump tirade delivered no results.

For his potty mouth

In January, 66 House Democrats, led by Green, attempted to force a procedural vote to initiate the impeachment process after Trump allegedly referred to Haiti and some African countries as “s**tholes.” Green said that a comment like this was an attempt to “convert his bigoted statements into US policy,” and it demonstrated that Trump was “unfit to be president.”

The vote failed, with 355 votes against 66. Had it succeeded, the issue would have gone to the Senate, where a team of lawmakers would have tried the president. If two-thirds of the senators found the president guilty, he would have been removed from office.

Facing this fruitless struggle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California), a vehement opponent of Trump, tamped down talk of impeachment last month. She argued that frivolous calls for Trump’s removal were divisive, and could hurt Democrats in the upcoming midterms.

“I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment. I’ve been very clear right from the start,” she said in a press briefing. “On the political side I think it’s a gift to the Republicans.”

“Impeachment to me is a divisive issue unless there’s something so conclusive as we saw … in Watergate,” she said. “This election is not about what’s going on in the White House and the rest of that. It’s about our addressing the needs of the American people, and we cannot take our eye off that ball.”

Pelosi’s concerns have been echoed in the polls, where impeachment is looking like a losing position. Forty-seven percent of registered voters would vote against a candidate pushing impeachment, compared to 42 percent who would vote for such a candidate, according to an NPR/PBS poll taken last month.

Only three presidents have ever been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Andrew Johnson was impeached but acquitted in 1868, as was Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. Both stayed in office afterward. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid being impeached.


See the source image

The liberal media is in full panic, meltdown mode, exclaiming that Trump has “interfered” with the investigation…

Zero Hedge – MAY 21, 2018

Update: Just a few hours after President Trump “hereby demanded” that the DoJ investigate whether or not the “FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for Political Purposes,” Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports that Justice has confirmed a probe has begun. DoJ’s Sarah Isgur Flores:

“The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

As always, the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct.”

The Deputy Attorney General issued the following statement:

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action.

The liberal media is in full panic, meltdown mode, exclaiming that Trump has “interfered” with the investigation…


And The New York Times...”…in ordering up a new inquiry, Mr. Trump went beyond his usual tactics of suggesting wrongdoing and political bias by those investigating him, and crossed over into applying overt presidential pressure on the Justice Department to do his bidding, an extraordinary realm where past presidents have hesitated to tread…

Legal experts said such a presidential intervention had little precedent, and could force a clash between the sitting president and his Justice Department that is reminiscent of the one surrounding Richard M. Nixon during Watergate, when a string of top officials resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s order to fire a special prosecutor investigating him.

“I can’t think of a prior example of a sitting president ordering the Justice Department to conduct an investigation like this one,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“That’s little more than a transparent effort to undermine an ongoing investigation.”

And The Deep State is furious… (or worried they’re about to get busted)


Not everybody is so concerned…


*  *  *

President Trump is officially requesting that the Department of Justice investigate whether or not the “FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for Political Purposes,” as well as whether “any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama administration.” He will make this demand official on Monday.

On Saturday, Trump called for the DOJ to “release or review” a cache of documents that will allow Congressional investigators to get to the bottom of revelations that the FBI sent an informant to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Never missing a beat, the NYT’s Maggie Haberman was quick to ask rhetorically “and if the answer is no, will White House accept it?”

Meanwhile, another rhetorical question came from across the ideological aisle, when Nick Short mused that “Maybe it’s time some “reporters” start asking Obama what he knew & when he knew it? After all, former FBI Director Comey briefed National Security Council Principal’s about Carter Page in This was a counterintelligence investigation, not criminal, Obama knew.” “late Spring 2016.”


We look forward to the answers.

As a reminder, the informant, identified as 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a U.S. citizen living in London who approached four campaign aides during the 2016 US election for purposes of espionage on behalf of the FBI, according to reports last week in the New York Times and Washington Post.



  1. the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.
    synonyms: spying, infiltration;

Halper – a longtime FBI and CIA asset whose former father-in-law was former Deputy CIA Director Ray Cline, notably got caught spying on the Carter administration during the 1980 election, “reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush,” according to The Intercept.

The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering. –The Intercept

How did we get to Stefan Halper again?

August 22, 2017, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson told Congressional investigators that former MI6 spy Christopher Steele said the FBI had corroborated parts of the salacious and unverified “Trump-Russia’ dossier with “a human source from inside the Trump organization.

March 25 of this yearthe Daily Caller exclusively reported that Cambridge professor Stefan Halper had met with Trump aide George Papadopoulos and “two other campaign advisers,” including Carter Page. In September 2016, Halper contacted Papadopoulos and lured him to London for work on a foreign policy paper for the sum of $3,000. Halper reportedly asked “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” The Trump aide reportedly told Halper he didn’t know anything about them, and the topic was dropped.

May 8, a fierce battle between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) and the DOJ’s Rod Rosenstein over the cache of documents detailing the “human source” came to a headafter The Washington Post reported that Nunes had been denied access to the intelligence – which had already been seen by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The White House agreed with the DOJ that the materials were too hot to give Congress – and “could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI.”

May 9the DOJ reversed course, allowing Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to receive a classified briefing on the documents (not the documents themselves, as Trump referred top in his tweet).

May 10, journalist Kimberly Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, penned an op-ed in the WSJ in which she said she knew who the informant was.

May 11, journalist Paul Sperry noted an entry in Stefan Halper’s Wikipedia page that read “He has been exposed as a CIA and M-16 spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation” – which was quickly taken down.



Sperry also tweeted “In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets.”


May 15, the Daily Caller reported that Congressional investigators were reviewing Glenn Simpson’s August 2017 testimony regarding the “human source from within the Trump organization.”

May 16, the New York Times revealed that “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.” The Wednesday report also disclosed the existence of Operation Crossfire Hurricane – the FBI’s code name for their early Trump-Russia investigation, which they say originated after the Australian diplomat Alexander Downer told authorities that the Trump aide bragged in May 2016 that he knew the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails.


Given Sperry’s tweet above, it strongly suggests that then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI agent Peter Strzok and Secretary of State John Kerry were working with the informant (Halper) to set “Russian espionage traps” for members of Trump’s campaign as part of Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Finally, on Friday, May 18, the Washington Post and New York Times published reports which don’t mention the informant’s name, but included enough detail to easily identify him as Halper even without the Daily Caller‘s article from March.

For example, The New York Times describes the informant as “an American academic who teaches in Britain,” who “made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.” While The Post reports “For years, the professor has provided information to the FBI and the CIA.”

These descriptions corroborate the March report ofrom the Daily Caller which described Halper as a “Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA” who contacted Papadopoulos “Two months before the 2016 election.”

Halper has ostensibly been a spook for decades – enlisted by the FBI in the summer of 2016 to spy on members of the Trump campaign. As such, he was probably sweating bullets on November 9, 2016 – the day Hillary was supposed to have won the election.

Meanwhile, the MSM seems to be splitting hairs over the definition of “spy” and “informant,” as they are trying to sell the FBI/DOJ spy operation as simply “helping” Trump by looking out for pesky Russian moles his campaign.


At the end of the day, according to all accounts – the US Intelligence community was categorically, by definition, spying on the Trump campaign no matter how hard the MSM tries to spin things.


And now we wait to see if the DOJ will hand over those documents…