When we first heard--just a week ago--that Robert Mueller would be testifying before a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th, my initial reaction was twofold:
1. This was probably prompted by the realization that Barr and Durham are focusing very strongly on the Intelligence Community Assessment that John Brennan manufactured in order to support the Russia Hoax narrative, and the need to offer some sort of support for that narrative, weak as it was shown to be by the Mueller Dossier itself; and
2. The decision to drag Mueller out before the public eye once again--after his widely panned no-questions press conference--was an expression of Dem desperation in the face of the Barr DoJ's new found effectiveness.
In my view, Adam Schiff gave the game away with his tweet announcing the development:
Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before Congress pursuant to subpoena.
Russia attacked our democracy to help Trump win. Trump welcomed and used that help. As Mueller said, that should concern every American.
And now, every American will get to hear directly from Mueller.
Sheer desperation. Mueller's appearance will be staged to defend the ICA narrative of the Russia Hoax, to stave off the looming disaster just a bit longer. But this isn't going to stop Barr and Durham. Mueller better mind how he goes.
1. There really is very little he can do to support the Russia Hoax/ICA narrative, given that the Mueller Dossier had nothing on offer in that regard; and
2. Weissmann will need to be cautious with regard to the obstruction issue because he is vulnerable to the question of why he sought no expert opinion on the issue from DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--after all, he had two years to do so and Barr has expressly raised that question!
1. The first is that the public has long since discounted those insinuendos and moved on.
2. Secondly, the insinuated support in the Mueller Dossier for the Russia Hoax narrative is based on "facts" that were debunked long before the Dossier was even made public--largely with regard to George Papadopoulos. Felten really shines in deconstructing that aspect of Weissmann's underhanded technique.
3. This is an area in which new documentation is highly likely to be made public. Devin Nunes and others have stated openly that there are recordings of Papadopoulos' interactions with CIA/FBI/MI6 assets which are "highly exculpatory." Therefore, Weissmann will probably want to be very careful with regard to anything to do with Papadopoulos. If he should ever be challenged in a non-privileged setting regarding anything he says, he could find himself in real trouble.
“Separation-of-Powers Principles Support the Conclusion that Congress May Validly Prohibit Corrupt Obstructive Acts Carried Out Through the President’s Official Powers.”
If he walks like a counterintelligence agent; acts like a counterintelligence agent; sounds like a counterintelligence agent; hangs out with other counterintelligence agents; has admitted to engagements on behalf of intelligence agencies; trained U.S. FBI agents in conducting counterintelligence operations and generally has a history of counterintelligence agent behavior, well, he ain’t just a Maltese professor. Just sayin’.
So what’s up? Why is the Washington Post all out-front of Joseph Mifsud all of a sudden?
Likely it’s because someone in the background (Barr via Durham) is peeking at the connective tissue between John Brennan’s instructions in 2015 and 2016; and John Brennan’s “electronic communication’ results to the FBI in July 2016 that kicked off the counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump known as Crossfire Hurricane.
If the ICA narrative can hold, then maybe, just maybe, the whole Steele dossier and Crossfire Hurricane can be sold to the public as possibly off base but justifiable in the big picture of Russian "meddling." But if the ICA is shown to be what we all know it is--no more than a cover story to justify the Deep State's assault on our political system--then the conspirators are facing serious legal jeopardy and the Dems are facing serious public and electoral consequences.
Roughly four weeks for draft assembly and referencer check; two to four weeks for administrative review; another two weeks for principal review/feedback; another week or so for IG counter-points and additional reference citations; and then AG review of final report before release.
If Ratcliffe is accurate; and considering we don’t know when the investigative phase actually concluded; the most likely public release date (just an estimate based on historical IG reporting) would be the end of August or early September.
If previous reports of Christopher Steele being willing to speak to U.S. authorities about his dossier work in 2016 are accurate; and if Horowitz has completed his investigative work; then it’s likely Horowitz has already interviewed Steele.