AG Bill Barr Announces Durham Probe is Now a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Sean Hannity opened his show on Thursday tonight with breaking news —  Attorney General Bill Barr says Prosecutor John Durham’s investigation is now a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!

** The Change in Status Gives Investigators Ability to Subpoena Witnesses, Use Grand Jury

 

Shannon Bream

✔ @ShannonBream

BREAKING: NYT Reports that DOJ Durham probe has “shifted” from an administrative review of the Russia investigation “to a criminal inquiry.” We’re digging. More at 11p @FoxNews @FoxNewsNight

3,531

8:23 PM – Oct 24, 2019

** NYT Reports that DOJ Durham probe has “shifted” from an administrative review of the Russia investigation “to a criminal inquiry.”

More from The New York Times, via Conservative Treehouse:

For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

…] The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.

It was not clear what potential crime Mr. Durham is investigating, nor when the criminal investigation was prompted. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
[…] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Nominee Violated Hannity’s Attorney-Client Privilege

Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield

 

Remind me of what exactly Michael Cohen’s work for Sean Hannity might have to do with Russian collusion? Zero. Nothing. Not a damn thing.

But Clinton and Obama political allies are using their old opposition research lie to conduct a free-floating witch hunt against any and all Trump supporters. And so we have this ridiculous police state farce.

Cohen had asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order to stop federal prosecutors in Manhattan from viewing the information seized by the FBI until an independent third party, called a “special master,” be allowed to sort out what is protected by attorney-client privilege.

Similarly, Trump’s own legal representation in this case, Joanna Hendon, filed a letter on Sunday night asking the judge to give Cohen’s team first-access to the material.

U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood denied the requests and ruled that prosecutors will get first access to the information, followed by Cohen’s defense team ten days later. Wood noted that she has not yet decided whether she will appoint a special master in the case at all.

On Friday, Judge Wood asked Cohen’s attorneys how they could argue that “thousands” of seized documents could be privileged while they refused to provide a list of Cohen’s clients to the court.

Those clients, it has now been revealed, include Trump, Republican fundraiser Elliot Broidy, and Fox News host Sean Hannity, who had asked not to be named. Cohen’s team claimed in the Monday filing that Hannity’s identity was protected under attorney-client privilege, but the U.S. Attorney’s office disagreed, alleging that Cohen’s team was simply employing a delaying tactic.

Guess whom Kimba sided with?

 

Cohen attorney Steve Ryan argued that the third client—Hannity—is a “publicly prominent individual,” who did not want his name released.

“I’m simply trying to protect the privacy of that individual,” he added.

After much discussion, Wood ruled that the name must be publicly disclosed immediately.

“The client’s name is Sean Hannity,” replied Todd Harrison, Cohen’s attorney. The room erupted in laughter.

Of course it must.

Hannity CONFIRMS Obama Court Order & WIRETAPPING Donald Trump Tower | Hannity 3/8/17 | Fox News

Hannity Defends Birthers Blames Obama – 10/17/11

Not only will Obama eligibility lies be exposed, so will the media who protected him

CFP

By Dr. Laurie Roth

Like most of you,  I realize you can’t agree with every TV or radio talk show host on every issue.  However,  we see the push and necessity to support our own and lift the banner of conservative common sense high, especially with this radical regime in the White House.

As a national radio talk show host therothshow.com ,  I realize all too much the sound bite theatre,  ratings pressure and competition,  even jealousy among radio and TV hosts.  I am a growing host and have done national radio and TV for years…I understand ego.  At the very least hosts want to keep their jobs, grow big and make lots of money during their careers.  With all that in mind I find it growingly unforgivable that who I would expect to be leaders in my field,  media and entertainment, continue to marginalize,  minimize and insult those daring to question Barack Obama’s eligibility.

Not all the big hosts have thrown the ‘questioning’ crowd under the bus including Sean Hannity,  Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs.  I have heard them on various occasions question Obama’s eligibility.  Rush even has called Obama an imposter.  Yet it is still far from enough pressure and depth.

Rino Rampage

CFP

Quick, pass the tranquilizer darts, the RINOs are spooked.  Karl Rove stomped and pawed the ground in a menacing way with Sean Hannity after Christine O’Donnell’s primary win in Delaware.  RINO hunting season is in full swing.

The RINOs are prepared to defend their long held turf by way of eating their own.  There are, we’re told, issues about O’Donnell’s past about which we are to be concerned.

NOW they’re worried about a candidate’s past?  Barack Obama has a far more troubling past than O’Donnell’s real or imagined one and the Republican let that go with nary a snort.

O’Donnell won.  In fact, she won by a healthy margin.  You know, will of the people and all that.  This RINO versus conservative turf battle is actually healthy.  Survival requires periodically thinning the herd.

Source:

Michelle Bachmann suggest Nancy Pelosi should be Impeached

News Busters

The latest maneuvering by congressional Democrats to make their brand of health care reform a reality has a lot of Washington, D.C. insiders scratching their heads and unable to forecast what is around the bend when it comes to this legislation.

But have the media completely dropped the ball and that is allowing those in power to circumvent constitutional process? According to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., they have. She had some harsh words for the fourth estate on conservative talker Sean Hannity’s March 16 radio show. (h/t Kevin Eder)

“Well yeah and the other thing is treason media,” Bachmann said. “Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story – that the Speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on?”

According to Bachmann, this is such an egregious maneuver by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, to force through health care reform using the Slaughter Rule, as known as deem and pass, that it warrants her impeachment from the post.

“That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this,” Bachmann continued. “That’s how bad this is. I mean, trust me – Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it.”

But if anything, Bachmann contended this could be a teachable moment in civics for the country. She explained this is what happens when a one-party dominant rule occurs – an abuse of power and the trampling of the United States Constitution.

“And that’s why this is a very useful example to all of us about growing up and being serious and knowing how valuable and important our country is and the value of election,” Bachmann said. “That’s what we’ve learned about the value of this last election with one-party dominance and rule. And this is how they view our most precious, sacred document – the Constitution? They’re going to ignore it? No.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/17/bachmann-rips-media-not-covering-deem-and-pass-suggests-pelosi-impeachmen#ixzz0iY625P1w

Deep in the Heart of Texas

While listening to Sean Hannity on the radio the other day, a lady from the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area called in to let Sean know what she saw while driving.

In the Dallas -Ft. Worth Area there is a business called, Cornish-Burton Septic Service. Nothing special you say? Well under the company logo it reads, Carrying Political Promises.

Nice Job Guys and keep up the good work.

1Dragon

Arguing With “Global Warming” Idiots

Canada Free Press

By Jim O’Neill  Sunday, December 13, 2009

“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration [scam] in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.”— Al Gore

“As public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.” —Sarah Palin

GeoCraft posted a simple ten-question test online, concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  If you familiarize yourself with the correct answers to this quiz, then you will have the “ammo” to deal with the deceitful criminals behind the global warming racket.

It’s your money—don’t let them continue to steal it.

For the sake of those who don’t have the time, or inclination, to take the quiz, I have supplied an abbreviated version of the test questions and answers below.

(1) Question True or False.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.

Answer True.  “Global warming” is a real phenomenon: Earth’s temperature is increasing.  From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an “interglacial phase,” or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.  If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying!  It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age.

(2) Question True or false.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real and contributes to global warming.

Answer True.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is real.  The “greenhouse effect” helps to moderate temperatures—especially nighttime temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C (around zero degrees Fahrenheit).

(3) Question Multiple choice.  The main cause of Global Warming is:

Answer Orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.  Global Warming occurs in cycles caused mainly by changes in the sun’s energy output, and the sun’s relative position to the earth.  [NOT industrial pollution, automobiles, airplanes, and CO2].

(4) Question Multiple choice:  The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:

Answer Water vapor.  The world’s natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.  [That’s worth re-reading].

(5) Question Multiple choice.  Which most accurately describes the effects of Global Warming in the United States over the last 100 years?

Answer Temperatures have risen less then 1° C during the past 100 years.  During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1980 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930’s.  Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain—maybe 1/3° C

(6) Question Multiple choice.  How much carbon dioxide (CO2) is in Earth’s atmosphere today?

Answer Less than 1/10th of 1%.  Most CO2 comes from natural terrestrial and ocean biologic activity, and compared to former geologic times, Earth’s atmosphere today is arguably “CO2 impoverished.”  There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.

(7) Question True or false.  Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants damages forests.

Answer False.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require.  Carbon dioxide is invisible.  The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.

(8) Question Multiple choice.  Which answer below provides the best explanation for the temperature record [over the past 1,000 years]?

Answer Natural variations in global temperatures may occur in roughly 500-year cycles.  The primary cause of variations in global temperature is due to the cycles of the sun and Earth’s orbit about the sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 500-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:

• 21,000 year cycle: Elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun
• 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth’s orbit
• 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit

(9) Question Multiple choice.  Which of the following is not true about an increasing greenhouse effect?

Answer The idea that most scientists think that “global warming” warrants drastic action—is false.  President Clinton and others [e.g. Al Gore—see above] cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers are: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.

Over 17,000 [real] scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

(10) Question Which temperature measuring method most accurately measures global warming?

Answer Orbiting weather satellites provide the most accurate temperature measurements.  The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperatures in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up.  Interestingly, in the 5 years leading up to 2007, the temperature of the mid troposphere actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures ceased warming—even as CO2 concentrations continued to increase. This should not have happened if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.

So there you have it.  You are now armed with sufficient knowledge to insulate yourself from The Big Lie, and defend yourself against its vociferous, duplicitous proponents.

Don’t expect them to back off, simply because intelligent, sane people prefer the truth to their b.s.  They will continue to lie—more stridently than ever—and their propaganda arm, the liberal press, will continue to trumpet their falsehoods.

But we are hip to the con.  Time to start suing yet?

Sean Hannity says Obama should show real Birth Certificate

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Hannity’s comments mark a new level in the information war between FOX and the White House, as insiders await Obama’s response to Nathan Deal

(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.

His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to “prove” anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real mcoy.

Hannity’s actual comments were quoted by World Net Daily, in an article published nearly 4 hours ago:

“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ … We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate. So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’? … It was not asked by the mainstream media. It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate. … I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.”

Hannity’s Comments are revealing

Hannity’s comments are not just significant, because of his exposure as a television personality, but revealing because of what they say and do not say. The Post & Email will therefore comment on them in turn:

“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ …”

Evidently, this is made in the context of a reporter who has been consistently told by his editors not to mention the topic, and badgered by colleagues who disdain its discussion.  It reflects a work environment which is nothing like one in which freedom of speech and the freedom of the press flourish.

It also reflects a professional environment where political correctness has replaced ethical standards and the common sense notions of duty and loyalty to the nation, first and foremost.

“We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate.“

Evidently, Hannity admits that he recognized from the beginning the difference between the claim made by the image of the online COLB, published by Obama’s campaign, and the actual document.

Obama’s supporters, however, seem politically obligated or at least mentally afflicted, to such an extent as to deny this distinction.

“So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’?”

There is, however, a fundamental error or erroneous concept of the issue, presented here — promoted by World Net Daily too — that the birth certificate alone will resolve the controversy.  If the birth certificate proved that his father was another person — say Frank Marshall Davis — a known U.S. citizen, then it would; but as Obama claimed a British subject as his father, if original vital records, whose authenticity were established in court, confirmed this, even if they did also confirm his birth in U.S. territory, then Obama would still be ineligible to hold and exercise the office of President, because he would not be a natural born citizen.

“It was not asked by the mainstream media.”

The understatement of the year.

“It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate.”

Here is the only time Hannity comes close to indicating that he is thinking of the natural born citizen issue, because the Constitution no where requires that a candidate for President be a U.S. citizen, rather it requires that he be a natural born U.S. citizen.

“I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.”

People are only afraid if they:

1) Stand to lose something by asking,

2) Are threatened with adverse action against them if they asked.

3) Or both, such as in the termination of their contract as media personality, or journalist,etc..

One commentator at Free Republic mentioned that in a subsequent interview with Mark Levin, Hannity danced around the issue.  Another mentioned that the Main Stream Media have gone into full disinformation mode, by emphasizing the doubts that Trig is the natural son of Sarah Palin.

There is one documented and official reason why Obama won’t show his original birth certificate:  he ain’t got one.  This was affirmed by Dr. Fukino of the Hawaiian Department of Health in late July of this year, when she stated that the Vital Records office of the State has on file “original vital records”; a detailed analysis of Hawaiian laws shows that only where there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the original filing, or in the case of an adoption or amendment, do there exist more than one original vital record.  Why Obama has more than one, lies at the heart of the reason why he won’t reveal them.