Sunday, March 31, 2019

The President's Lawyers Speak

With Team Mueller shut down and the Barr summary public, President Trump's lawyers have been speaking out: John Dowd, Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow (but not Emmett Flood, who I don't expect to speak publicly in the near future). John Dowd, Trump's first lawyer has spoken on a number of forums, perhaps most notably an hour long interview with Byron York.

Dowd's interview with York is a somewhat rambling affair, although it has its definite points of interest. Personally, I grew a bit impatient with Dowd's repeated protestations of respect for "Bob" (Mueller) and how "polite" and "considerate" everyone on Team Mueller was. I guess I know where Dowd is coming from, but I found it frankly tiresome--especially in view of some of what he revealed.

According to Dowd, Trump's first lawyer, the whole thing began with Rosenstein's announcement of the Special Counsel with no warning, no head's up. Sessions was actually speaking with Trump when the announcement came down, and Sessions immediately offered to resign. But, really, what was Trump supposed to do at that point? Dowd says that Rosenstein was a guy he "just didn't get."

Of course, the whole Russia Hoax was and is a political operation as much as--or maybe more than--a legal operation. From that standpoint, Dowd's strategy--approved by Trump at the time--of total cooperation and transparency can be said to have made sense. Dowd states that this strategy was based on discussions with "Bob" and the understanding that "Bob" would seek to wrap the whole thing up within a year. Right.

As it developed, by December, 2017, if not earlier, Dowd was completely convinced that Mueller had nothing on Trump, but "Bob" just kept working away. By early 2018 Dowd wrote a letter to Rosenstein asking for an explanation for why Team Mueller wasn't wrapping things up, given that there was no collusion. In response, says Dowd, Rosenstein simply "blew me off." At which point Dowd says he lost all respect for Rosenstein. But that, apparently, made no difference in Rosenstein's life, either.

Later, when "Bob" came to Dowd demanding that Trump submit to an interview or be subpoenaed, Dowd exploded. "Bob" acknowledged that Trump had "no exposure" (no prospect of criminal charges) but claimed he "needed to know what was in the president's mind". That told Dowd that it was really all about "obstruction." At that point he basically invited "Bob" to bring the subpoena on--the president's lawyers would welcome the opportunity to take it to court. "Bob" dropped it.

This episode, and the footdragging, really irked Dowd. He recounts that he repeatedly told "Bob" that the president needed to get this over with, because in negotiations with foreign leaders Trump would be asked: "But, Donald, will you still be here?" Somehow, considerations like that appear not to have impressed "Bob".

One other minor point. Dowd says there were two guys he "just didn't get." One, of course, was Rosenstein. The other was Comey. It's clear that Dowd regarded Comey as simply a very strange guy, possibly not fully in touch with reality. That would be one explanation. Another might be that Comey is a peculiarly malevolent and narcissistic personality.

Overall, and in hindsight, it's easy enough to see the possible benefits to Dowd's strategy, despite the obvious frustrations over the past years. Those benefits may become especially apparent when Barr releases the longer report, because Barr will probably find ways to emphasize the extreme cooperation and transparency of Trump to blunt the liberal PR offensive.

That said, however, you have to wonder whether it would have been better to have pursued a more legal and less political strategy. I've maintained for the past two years and more that there never was a basis for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation to start with--as Devin Nunes has recently stated. Andy McCarthy, NeverTrumper that he is, seems to agree. Would it not have been better--arguably--to have challenged the Special Counsel appointment in court for legal insufficiency, lack of authority, based on the clear lack of probable cause? That I think, is where the legal debate will go in the future.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Nellie Ohr's Story--Puzzlements

Reading Nellie Ohr's testimony to the House (October 19, 2018) is a bit of a frustrating experience. In the first place there's a significant amount of recurring legal wrangling over the scope of the spousal privilege that Nellie is claiming with regard to her husband, Bruce Ohr, who testified to the House on August 28, 2018. Beyond that, however, Nellie is, when compared to any of the previous witnesses, tight lipped. She volunteers virtually nothing, constantly asks for questions to be rephrased, and generally professes ignorance on most matters that she's questioned on. Nevertheless, there are possibly significant points in her testimony, so let's take a closer look.

Probably the biggest surprise in her testimony is her confirmation that Ukrainian legislator Serhiy Leshchenko was a "source" for Fusion GPS. One point of interest in this is the entire line of questioning--as of October 19, 2018, I don't think Serhiy Leshchenko was on any researchers' radar screens, but he was definitely on the House GOP's radar screen. Nellie herself states that she was quite familiar with Leshchenko as an "anti-corruption" activist in Ukraine--a George Soros connected angle that we recently explored in The Soros, Ukraine, FBI Connection and Do All Roads In The Russia Hoax Lead To Ukraine? The exchange regarding Leshchenko between Nellie and the Committee is a bit ambiguous toward the end, but there's no doubt that the questioners believe that Leshchenko was providing information about the travels of Trump family members--and area of research that Nellie was engaged in. As I say, it's somewhat unclear whether Nellie actually confirms that, although the probability is that she does--but suggests that there may have been more to Leshchenko's source information than simply Trump family travel. You decide (pp. 113-115):

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Declassification--At The Right Time

Last night in his lengthy interview with Sean Hannity, President Trump addressed the issue of declassification. Recall that the original declassification order was far broader than just the FISA warrants, although that's the part that gets the most attention, for obvious reasons.

Among other things, Trump explains why he waited on declassification--it was on legal advice and had to do with the whole "obstruction" issue. But most of all it had to do with timing, and I would certainly not want to question Trump's sense of timing:

HANNITY:  Mr. President, you have the ability to release the FISA applications.  There was the original applications, the three subsequent renewal applications.  We are told, Andrew McCabe said, no dossier, no FISA warrant.  That was a backdoor to your campaign before the election.  
The dossier also was leaked to The Washington Post, parts of it, and Isikoff and David Corn, to the American people, and, of course, never verified.  
Do you have plans to release those FISA applications, Gang of Eight information, the 302s of Bruce Ohr and others, and the five buckets are [sic] John Solomon and Sara Carter, as they call it?  
TRUMP:  I do, I have plans to declassify and release.  I have plans to absolutely release.  But I have some very talented people working for me, lawyers.  And they really didn't want me to do it early on.  
Devin Nunes, by the way, and [Mark] Meadows, you look at Jim Jordan, and all of the people, they worked so hard.  And a lot of people wanted me to do it a long time ago.  I’m glad I didn't do it.  We got a great result without having to do it but we will.  
One of the reasons that my lawyers didn't want me to do it is they said, if I do it, they [my opponents] will call it a form of obstruction, so they will say, oh, you released these documents so we would make all of this information transparent.  You know, and politics you always hear “transparency.”  It would make it transparent.  And then they call it obstruction, knowing the people we are dealing with.  
So, frankly, I thought it would be better if we held it to the end.  No, but at the right time, we will be absolutely releasing it.  I did the right thing by not doing it so far . . .

How Was Trump Able To Stiff Mueller?

In other words, how was Trump able to successfully resist submitting to an interview?

Obviously an aggressive public relations campaign, led not only by Trump himself but also by lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, was a key. Trump never backed down from his insistence that he was innocent of all wrongdoing and that the whole was nothing but a witchhunt. In other words, as Devin Nunes said yesterday in response to the question, When did Mueller know he had no case:

"Likely since [the moment] he walked in the door [took charge] of the phony investigation."

A correspondent has sent me a Reuters article that addresses the question of Trump's successful resistance to an interview. Unfortunately, the article--The Mueller interview that wasn't: how Trump's legal strategy paid off--is short on legal analysis. My view, which shouldn't come as any surprise, is that the lack of probable cause for a legitimate investigation was key.

Consider: Team Mueller was only authorized to investigate an alleged conspiracy to collaborate illegally with Russian intelligence operatives--an alleged conspiracy that was supposed to have been conducted by an "enterprise" group of "four Americans" (Page, Papadopoulos, Manafort, and Flynn) as a subset of the Trump campaign. That was Crossfire Hurricane, which Team Mueller was authorized to continue. That means that, just as James Comey three times stated to Trump, Trump was never actually the subject of the substantive investigation:

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

UPDATED: When Did Mueller Know He Had No Case?

I've been arguing forever that the FBI had no probable cause to open a Full Investigation--as opposed to a Preliminary Investigation--on the make believe Russia collusion "enterprise" inside the Trump campaign: Crossfire Hurricane. Nevertheless, at the end of July, 2016, they went ahead and opened the Full Investigation, despite the fact that the "four Americans" were either no longer part of the Trump campaign or, at best, loosely associated with it. This move, however, allowed them to charge full speed ahead and obtain a FISA warrant just before the election in November, 2016--using the same inadequate, make believe "evidence."

Fast forward 6 months to May, 2017. There have already been two renewals of the FISA warrant, despite the fact that the sole "evidence" supporting it is the same bogus "dossier" allegations that failed to provide probable cause for either the original FISA or the opening of Crossfire Hurricane in the first place. Now, in May--2017--Rod Rosenstein decides to take the irresponsible and truly drastic step of authorizing a Special Counsel to continue the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, with no additional evidence whatsoever. Did he conduct a de novo review of the FBI's claim of probable cause? We don't know, but we do know that the claimed probable cause was just as inadequate in May, 2017, as it was in July, 2016. The "dossier" was already widely discredited, and yet Rosenstein recklessly plunged the country into two years of Russia Hoax hysteria, fueled by a media feeding frenzy and non-stop demagoguing by hate filled Dems. Did Mueller examine that claim of probable cause on his own--as he had an ethical obligation to do, just as much as Rosenstein did?

Andy McCarthy has a useful article out, which points the very real political implications of Mueller's irresponsibly prolonged investigation: Did Mueller Know There Was No Trump-Russia Collusion Before The Midterms?

McCarthy begins by noting that there never was any evidence of "collusion"--a term that he calls "endlessly elastic": it describes no actual crime and can be expanded or contracted at will to fit virtually any narrative. That alone tips off the Russia Hoax as a political operation, not a true investigation as authorized for the FBI to conduct. And then McCarthy raises the pertinent question:

What Did Mueller Actually Investigate?

That's the question well known NeverTrump Holman Jenkins asks in his regular column at the WSJ: What Mueller Won’t Say: Did he investigate the Steele dossier? If not, he didn’t really investigate. This isn't really more than what I and others have been saying all along, but Jenkins says it extremely well and--after two years--without a single silly swipe at Trump.  And, while Jenkins doesn't mention the Kavanaugh nomination disgrace, you'll see how it all plays into the same degradation not only of our public life but also of our Constitutional order. So, for the benefit of those who are blocked by the subscriber wall, here's the essence of Jenkins' presentation:

[Mueller's] painstaking and comprehensive effort to find out if the widely promoted “collusion” suspicions against Donald Trump had any basis in fact was, in a true sense, a public service. But there was never evidence of this crime in the first place, and therefore no reason, if the Justice Department’s own rules mean anything, to appoint a special counsel.

[But please note: the requirement that there be some degree of credibility before allegations can be investigated beyond simple inquiries, and articulable and specific evidence before the full investigative powers of the federal government are deployed is more than just a DoJ rule. It's the very foundation of our Constitutional form of criminal justice.]

What’s more, by the time Mr. Mueller got his hands on the matter, it had already been the subject of a 10-month-long FBI counterintelligence investigation, using the full resources of the U.S. intelligence community, commanded at the highest level of the bureau. This investigation, in the words of Peter Strzok as he contemplated switching over to the Mueller task force, already seemed to indicate that there was “no big there there.”


How is it possible to investigate these “allegations” without holding the Steele dossier, the only real evidence ever offered by those accusing Mr. Trump, up to the light? Mr. Mueller, in investigating Mr. Trump’s associates, made ample use of his coercive powers, including the fact that it’s a crime to lie to the FBI. Did he use the same leverage to get to the bottom of the document that played a key role in originating his investigation? ...

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The Soros, Ukraine, FBI Connection

John Solomon has a detailed and important article out regarding the ways in which the Obama administration exerted influence on its post-coup client regime in Ukraine: US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election. The influence was exerted on behalf of George Soros and Soros supported groups, and the FBI's pursuit of Paul Manafort was part of this activity. The groups supported by Soros fronted as "anti-corruption" organizations--a strange characterization for groups that appear to be proxies for the world's largest Superpower and the world's most politically active Moneyman. And those Soros supported groups even petitioned the US Government to lean on Ukraine to provide them with funds derived from asset forfeitures. That's how "anti-corruption" works.

Here's how far that US influence extended:

Lutsenko [Ukraine's prosecutor general] told me he was stunned when the [US] ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting. 
It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine.

The result was a symbiotic relationship between Soros and the US Government, in which Soros was able to call upon Democratic forces within the US--all the way up to President Obama--to assist in his plans for shaping the New World Order. In return, of course, Democrats received large cash infusions for their US projects. And Ukraine is only one country where Soros is active.

William Barr Has Made This a Win for Moscow

I laughed out loud at this title. Really.

But, seriously, anyone who thinks this is sincere--even if addled--needs a reality check. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself: Whom does he think he's kidding? And this was actually published in the leading newspaper of our nation's capital.

William Barr Has Made This a Win for Moscow
RealClearPolitics - Homepage by Dana Milbank , Washington Post

Barr's summary squandered Mueller's heroic efforts to investigate election interference.

On the other hand, Kevin Brock, a retired former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, has an article out that speaks to me. Sadly. I would have pitched it much stronger, because I don't for a moment belief that the FBI was somehow fooled by Russian "active measures."

Mueller has exposed James Comey
The summarized results of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation have been released and you have a right to be angry, America. 
The dossier was blinking “Russian active measures” in bright neon lights. But an FBI director and deputy director chose to ignore the obvious and instead use this Russian farce to open an investigation into a presidential candidate and his campaign. It was a staggering abuse of the FBI’s legitimate authorities.
Such a move never would have been considered by experienced FBI counterintelligence agents operating in field offices. They would’ve immediately recognized the dossier for what it was.  

UPDATED: George Papadopoulos: Deep State Target

George Papadopoulos is out of prison--he served 14 days back in November, a sort of joke consolation sentence for Team Mueller--and putting his time to good use. He has a book out all about his experiences with the Deep State and how he was framed as part of the attempted coup against Trump: Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.

Fox News spoke to him, and he has some interesting things to say about his interrogation. Bear in mind that Joseph Mifsud--the "professor" he refers to--is almost certainly an FBI asset, as commenter Mike Sylwester has convincingly argued. Probably works for CIA and MI6, as well. While the "official" accounts say that Mifsud is "missing," the truth is almost certainly (see previous link, if you haven't already) that the three named intel agencies told him he needed to adopt a new identity that they would provide for him and to relocate. The point being that the Deep State--to include the British relations--didn't want Mifsud being questioned by people like HPSCI or OIG or John Huber. What? You thought it was to protect him from the Russians? LOL!

Anyway, here's the interesting part of what Papadopoulos had to tell Fox. It illustrates how the whole Team Mueller extension of the Russia Hoax worked. Recall that yesterday I quoted Mark Penn to that effect:

It’s an abuse of power without precedent. The Mueller investigation systematically went after everyone named in the Steele dossier, using the toughest possible tactics. Rather than investigate the crime, they investigated the people, finding unrelated crimes to use as leverage to squeeze out any potential drops of evidence related to collusion.

Monday, March 25, 2019

A Bit More On "Obstruction"

Interest in Bill Barr's summary of the "Mueller report" has quickly shifted--quite properly--to calls for investigation. Real investigation, this time, of the real crimes. But it's still worthwhile to reflect a bit more on what the Mueller/Weissmann team tried to pull off. For that CTH offers an excellent starting point at the end of its summary blog: A Review of the Barr “Principal Conclusion” Notification, Overlaying Three Years of Background Research…

First, sundance offers a general theme:

What we find in the Barr letter about the Obstruction investigation is blood boiling. Here Team Mueller intentionally politicize their non-finding in an attempt to open the door for Nancy Pelsoi and Jerry Nadler to exploit an impeachment angle.

We all expected that, of course, but it's worth the reminder. But then sundance moves on to what's really good news:

Team Mueller intentionally tells AG Barr they cannot make a determination of obstruction, and thereby force Barr to make the decision; and make it look political. 
In my opinion it’s almost certain AG Barr saw this coming, which is why he forced DAG Rod Weaselstein to stick around, share in the decision and deflect the politics.

Sundance has an excellent point here, and it includes the very good news that we have an AG in Bill Barr who is shrewd and deft in dealing with underhanded legal tactics. If clownish conmen like Nadler and Schiff think Barr will be an easy mark for them, they need to rethink that--or, better, maybe their too deluded to do the necessary rethinking.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

UPDATED: Bill Barr's Summary Of Team Mueller: Short And Sweet

As expected, Barr delivered a summary report to Congress. Four pages. He summarized the Team Mueller effort as it bears on Trump and the Trump campaign under two headings: "Collusion" and "Obstruction".


There wasn't any. Not by the Trump campaign and not by anyone associated with it. This confirms, by its wording, what I said yesterday: Mueller's mandate was to continue the investigation of the four Americans who were the subject of Crossfire Hurricane. Trump was never a subject. There is no reference to Donald J. Trump in the collusion section. That's it.

Just to make this totally clear. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was about "four Americans," none of whom were Trump. Rosenstein told Mueller: Complete the investigation. That means that to reach Trump on "collusion" Mueller needed to go throught the "four Americans": Page, Papadopoulos, Manafort, and Flynn. Four dry holes. Mueller never laid a glove on Trump.


This section is all about Donald J. Trump, and has nothing whatsoever to do with James Comey and his firing. Mueller thinks that there are "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether Trump obstructed his (Team Mueller's) investigation. Mueller doesn't "conclude that the president committed a crime," but "doesn't exonerate him." Because of the "difficult issues" Mueller decided against ... any decision at all, leaving it to Barr to decide.

In making his decision Barr says two things. The first aspect requires a bit of reading between the lines. Barr states that many of the president's actions that bothered Mueller were conducted "in public view." I take it from that that, basically, Mueller didn't like being criticized by Trump. That in his (Mueller's) view, subjects of a witchhunt are supposed to shut up, to grin and bear it. Barr--and Rosenstein--after consulting with top DoJ officials had a very different view and simply state: the evidence is insufficient to support such a charge and, specifically, that decision has nothing to do with the constitutional status of the president. However, beyond that, Barr (and Rosenstein, presumably) then go on to state that they reviewed the actions that Mueller objected to and conclude that "the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct." In other words, they basically reject Mueller's theory of obstruction out of hand.

Here are two key sections re obstruction (all emphases mine):

Trust Me On This

Ya gotta read Matt Taibbi: It's Official - 'Russiagate' Is This Generation's WMD. I'm only halfway through, but it's even better than the title.

In addition to his attacks on the press, I like his argument that this whole Russia Hoax started long before the "official opening" of Crossfire Hurricane. That, I think, is where research is needed--was there US government involvement in that prestory, and if so who was involved?

Saturday, March 23, 2019

What Does The Mueller Report Actually Say?

Well, that should be easy, right? The report will summarize the investigation. But here's the tricky question: Exactly what was Mueller's investigation all about? If we can't answer that question, we're totally in the dark as to what to expect.

This is something I examined in some detail in Mueller's Enterprise Witchhunt. According to Rod Rosenstein--who should know, since he appointed Mueller and set the scope for Mueller's investigation--the Mueller investigation was no more than a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane (CH). Don't believe me? Here are Rosenstein's exact words:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump; ...

What are we to make of this? I make out three points of interest:

  • First, Mueller is not starting up a new investigation--he's taking over an already existing investigation, the same one that was confirmed by Comey two months earlier. 
  • Second, and very importantly, Mueller's investigation is not authorized as a general investigation into Russian "active measures" (i.e., interference, meddling) in the 2016 campaign but instead is rather narrowly focused on "coordination between people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russians."
  • Third, unlike what probably most people think, this investigation is not necessarily about Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

Don't believe me on that last point? Well then, would you believe James Comey? After all, he should know. He was Director of the FBI at the time and he told President Trump no less than three times that he (Trump) was not under investigation. I for one believe Comey--at least technically. Of course I believe the Russia Hoax was all about "getting" Trump. Ousting him. But while I wouldn't buy a used car from Comey, I do believe he's far too smart and careful to blunder into outright perjury quite so easily. Here's how I summarized Comey's testimony, under oath (link above), regarding the FBI investigation that was initiated in July, 2016:

UPDATED: Mark Meadows Swings, It's Way Back, It's ... Gone!

Yep, it's a home run for Mark Meadows--of course. Isn't this what we've talking about here for two years? Isn't this what the Russia Hoax has always been all about? The key documentation is the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Without CH, there's no Carter Page FISA but, more importantly, there's no Team Mueller. Why? Because, according to Rod Rosenstein, Team Mueller is simply a continuation of the "Enterprise Witchhunt" that was CH. Now that Team Mueller is done, there are all sorts of things that may come out. Including documentation on exactly what CH was all about.

And that raises some very interesting questions about what the Mueller Report actually says. I'll get into that a little later, because I want to put some ideas out before Barr speaks for the record. Hey, at this point, why not go out on a limb. Hint: I'll be relying on Rod Rosenstein's letter to Chuck Grassley. In the meantime, idle speculation is welcome!

But, one final word below the tweet.

I find it interesting that my Democrat colleagues immediately demand the full release of the entire Mueller report, yet they spent 2 years blocking the public from seeing the underlying documents that “justified” the investigation in the first place. Why not release all of it?

Why not release all of it? I think CTH is right about that. Releasing ALL of it should be a non-starter of an idea, and I don't expect Barr to fall for that--it's nothing but a distraction tactic. CTH:

With the investigation spanning 22 months, over multiple continents, that full investigative file would be like a massive grand jury library of evidence.  Likely millions of pages of documents, multiple reports, interviews etc. 
Keep in mind this file also would include wiretaps, electronic intercepts and physical/electronic surveillance.  Most of that file would be innuendo, supposition, suspicion and investigative lines of inquiry.   That file would hold the seeds for weaponizing unfounded accusations etc; that’s why Pelosi and Schumer would want it. 
Also keep in mind Mueller’s team is almost guaranteed to have been telling their allies about all of the juicy accusations they were investigating. 
It’s highly likely Pelosi, Schumer and the Lawfare community already know, in summary, what is deep inside the Mueller Team’s investigative file.  The majority of that file is unfounded speculation that was researched; but it would be the holy grail of opposition research for weaponization; including the possibility of wiretaps inside the White House.

UPDATE: Undercover Huber gets it, too:

I think Mueller feared getting shut down before he even got started, as the original predicate for the investigation was going to unravel as soon as those FISAs and related docs were turned over If Muller ever testifies to Congress this is a crucial time period to explore /ENDS

Friday, March 22, 2019

UPDATED: Bill Barr Notifies Congress: Special Counsel Report Has Landed On His Desk

Short and sweet. Barr has received the report and he so informs Congress, providing the information specified in the regulations. The report explains "the prosecution or declination decisions." There are no proposed actions that Barr regards as "so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued." Barr will consult with Rosenstein and Mueller to determine whether more information from the report can be released to "Congress and the public," "consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department's long-standing practices and policies." Further, Barr states that he remains "committed to as much transparency as possible."

The reference to "Congress and the public," to me, indicates that Barr isn't about to go down the road of non-public briefings to Congress. That, he believes, would not serve the public weal.


... Laura Jarrett (daughter of Valerie Jarrett) delivered the bad news to her colleagues on CNN.  After she spoke directly with a DOJ Official, and asked them if there was any possibility of sealed indictments existing/remaining. Alas, the answer was: “no, it’s over; everything is over; it’s done.“

If you follow the link to CTH there's a CNN video featuring the usual talking head suspects. It's, like, CONTENT FREE. Simply seven minutes plus of handwringing and clutching at straws. It's pretty funny, but one can only take so much.

And credit where it's due. Mueller was funded through August, he and Weissmann wanted to continue leaning on Flynn. Barr shut them down.

Dershowitz States The Principle Re FISA Fraud Really Well

I don't have a transcript, so I'll link to the video. Alan Dershowitz states the principles behind the fraud that the FBI perpetrated on the FISA Court (FISC) very clearly. It's really important to have this clear in your minds. As he says, the FISA proceedings are ex parte: the target of the warrant or order doesn't get to present an opposing view to the FISC--they aren't even aware of the proceedings. That means that the FISC is relying on the integrity and crediblity of the FBI. The FISC has to be able to trust the FBI to make a full, unbiased presentation--even while advocating their position--and not to omit relevant facts. That clearly didn't happen in the Carter Page case, and there need to be consequences for all those involved.

Rosenstein's Letter To Grassley: No Uncharged Allegations

Last night Paul Sperry tweeted out a core Bill Barr quote, which I believe is from Barr's confirmation testimony before taking office as Attorney General. Barr is addressing the politically motivated demands of Dem senators that the much anticipated "Mueller Report" be made public. Few things are that easy, as Barr notes: a special counsel report is explicitly supposed to be "confidential" (for sound and principled legal reasons of long standing) and it is the Attorney General--not the special counsel--who reports to Congress regarding the conclusion of any investigation. The reason should be obvious to anyone concerned for fairness: a special counsel is a prosecutor and as such works for the Executive Branch, nor for Congress. As Barr made clear in his testimony, he favors transparency but will not sacrifice fairness and legality to satisfy partisan demands. Anyway, here's the tweet of Barr's remark:

AG Barr: "Under current rules, that [Mueller] report is supposed to be confidential and the attorney general would report to Congress about the conclusion of the investigation. There may be discretion there about what the attorney general can put in that report [to Congress]."

The tweet itself was, I assume, prompted by an ABC News article: Letter from deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offers potential road map to special counsel Robert Mueller's probe: Sources familiar with the probe believe there are no more indictments expected.

The letter in question was written on June 27, 2018, by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein--acting as the supervisor of Team Mueller in place of the recused Jeff Sessions--in response to a request by Chuck Grassley for information regarding the status of the Special Counsel. Grassley was, at the time, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is quite lengthy but also quite informative. And it has a direct bearing on what we can expect from the Mueller Report--or, for that matter, the Barr Report. Rosenstein, as he expresses himself in the letter, is very much in agreement with the views that Barr expressed in his confirmation testimony. Here are three highlights.

Andy McCabe And Lisa Page Texted!

They emailed, too, and spoke with each other on their phones, but up till now we've only seen some of the Strzok/Page texts. It appears that that's about to change. Interesting as those texts have been, I suspect the McCabe/Page communications will have plenty to tell us--and none of it will redound to the credit of the major Russia Hoax players.

To set the stage for the Fox News article that discusses some of those communications, here are some entries from a Paul Sperry twitter thread re McCabe:

With all that in mind, would you trust McCabe to run a fair and impartial investigation of anything involving the Clintons? Recusal for McCabe from the Hillary email case would seem to a no brainer, yet McCabe fought furiously to remain involved. Apparently it was only the determination of James Baker, Comey's counsel, that succeeded in forcing McCabe to step aside. And, of course, we also know from Baker's testimony that the top level of FBI executives were fully aware that the Russia Hoax was totally driven by Clinton campaign operatives, such as Michael Sussman and Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS. But McCabe was a key to pushing the Clinton Russia Hoax operation within the FBI.