Report AG disagrees with IG on legitimacy of origins of Russia-Trump


Bill Barr

Update: The DOJ informed The Ingraham Angle before the show that the IG report represents the facts of the DOJ and people should wait for the report. WaPo is getting ahead of the report for their own agenda.

We weren’t going to report the WaPo article because they are far-left frauds. 


According to a new report, Attorney General William Barr disagrees with what is arguably the most important conclusion from the Justice Department inspector general’s investigation. That is the Inspector General’s conclusions regarding the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, reports that Barr has told associates that he does not believe that the FBI had enough information to justify opening the probe in July 2016.

If they didn’t have justification, it lends support to the suspicion that this was a soft coup by political operatives in the bureaucracy looking for any excuse. It also sets up a partisan battle.

Michael Horowitz


Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, reportedly determined that the bureau had a solid legal basis to launch the investigation. It initially focused on four Trump campaign associates, the Post reports. The associates would include Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort.

Frantic Trump hater Peter Strzok, the terminated FBI counterintelligence official, opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. This was after the FBI received information from the Australian government regarding an Australian diplomat’s — Ambassador Alexander Downer’s — May 10, 2016 meeting with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser.

Check these texts out as an example of why Strzok was fired:

As an aside, Papadopoulos met in only one group meeting with the President. He was an unpaid adviser.


The incident that launched the probe came from a prominent diplomat, a Hillary supporter, Alexander Downer. He just happened upon George Papadopoulos, drank with him, and was given superficial information about Clinton. The information was previously fed to Papadopoulos by a prominent professor. That professor — Joseph Mifsud — also came upon Papadopoulos by chance.  Joseph Mifsud is now in hiding, basically.

What are the chances? The NY Times called these men informants, but many of us see them as spies. They weren’t planted, says the Times, but many of us say the coincidences are without parallel.

The counterintelligence investigation initially looked at whether Papadopoulos and three other Trump campaign advisers — Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort — were conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

The purported need for the probe is the whole point. If there wasn’t a basis, this was a hoax perpetrated by the state’s bureaucrats. That is the question Americans need to have answered.


The attorney general has privately contended that Horowitz does not have enough information to reach the conclusion the FBI had enough details in hand at the time to justify opening such a probe. That’s according to fake news WaPo, Barr allegedly argues that other U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, may hold significant information that could alter Horo­witz’s conclusion on that point, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Barr has also praised the inspector general’s overall work on the matter, according to one person familiar with the matter.

The inspector general operates independently of Justice Department leadership, so Barr cannot order Horowitz to change his findings.

This disagreement with Horowitz puts Bill Barr in a very difficult position and in the middle of partisan politics. Anticipating such a situation, Democrats have demonized the Attorney General, falsely claiming he is acting as the President’s lawyer.


It is not unusual for an attorney general or the Justice Department to disagree with some of an inspector general’s findings, the Post reports. However, typically those disagreements occur because senior leaders at the department believe the inspector general has been too critical, according to the Post. In this case, Barr is saying the opposite, if this report is accurate.

The ‘too critical’ issue is from people who don’t want to be criticized. Can the DOJ/FBI investigate itself?

According to the newspaper’s sources, the draft report by Horowitz found that the investigation was opened on a solid legal and factual footing.

On another point, the findings of FISA abuse will be anti-climactic and will claim the dossier was not a big consideration.


The DOJ, at the Attorney General’s direction, is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the FBI’s probe, which is being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

The U.S. attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, is looking into how intelligence agencies pursued allegations of Russian election tampering in 2016.

Barr has traveled abroad to personally ask foreign officials to assist Durham in that work. Even as the inspector general’s review is ending, Durham’s investigation continues.

The Horowitz report is expected December 9 and he will testify before Congress on December 11.

Barr could include a letter with his objections or make a public statement about the IG report.

President Trump seemed to think the IG report will find his way and said it would be ‘historic,’ perhaps that stemmed from his lingering belief in the system or maybe he was thinking of the Durham report at the time. Maybe it will be. We will have to wait and see.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments