Tuesday, August 27, 2019

UPDATED: A Marriage Made In Heaven

That's how Joe diGenova describes CNN's hiring of Andy McCabe.

DiGenova's interview from yesterday is well worth the listen: WMAL Interview - JOE DIGENOVA - 08-26-19.

The hosts presented a tweet from a listener asking whether John Durham is in possession of the missing 30,000 Hillary emails and the missing Strzok/Page texts. DiGenova gave the very obvious answer: NSA has it all. If Durham wants it, he has it. If I (Joe diGenova) were Durham, I would have it all. This is true. The legal justification is there, and diGenova concludes his response by saying that his operative assumption is that, yes, Durham has that stuff.

DiGenova also says that he can "categorically state" that Michael Horowitz and OIG have concluded that all four FISA applications on Carter Page were "illegal." Including the application--diGenova emphasizes this--signed by Rod Rosenstein. The report is done and it's being circulated. Everyone knew the applications were illegal, it was a no-brainer (as I've been saying).

DiGenova doesn't go into this, but what this most likely points to is that the underlying investigations can almost certainly be shown to be "illegal" as well, since they rest on the same bogus predication.

DiGenova confirms that there was in fact an initial FISA application on Carter Page that was denied. Further, diGenova states that the only new information contained in the applications that were approved was the dossier material. That's very big and also goes to the illegality, demonstrable, of everything touching on these FISAs--including Crossfire Hurricane.

Listen to it all. Especially the conclusion. The hosts summarize diGenova's expectations--fairly--as: Expect the truth, but not necessarily prosecutions. DiGenova says that the cases may not meet DoJ standards for prosecution and he states that he "would not put my money on" prosecution. But he does believe that the facts will be released to the public to make their own decisions.

I'll be satisfied with that, if it happens, as I stated recently in Red Meat For Unknown:

I'm sure it's been noticed that in the comments I've been getting some pushback to my narrative of optimism. Commenter Unknown is the most prominent, but there have been others.
I don't want to be accused of hiding the ball, so here's my baseline for success--for Barr as AG in the biggest political crisis America has ever faced: 

1) Truly significant prosecutions, i.e., prosecutions of major figures like Comey, Brennan, and players on a similar level at DoJ, in the White House, and in the Hillary campaign structure (Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, possibly lawyers); and/or (because I always try to be reasonable, 

2) Truly significant revelations of the complete shape of the coup plot via declassification. 
Less than this--one or the other will do, but preferably both--will constitute failure. For Barr, not necessarily for Trump. Success for Trump at this point is reelection. He has his own ways of getting the truth out. And I repeat what I've said recently: Trump gives every indication of being very pleased with Barr's performance thus far. I have to assume that that means Trump knows things we don't.

That doesn't mean I'll be happy. Quite the contrary. 

UPDATE: I need to clarify my criteria for success. As a practical matter, I strongly doubt that I could consider "significant revelations of the complete shape of the coup plot via declassification" to be a success for Barr. What I mean by "as a practical matter" is that, practically speaking, I don't believe that sort of significant revelation--the type the country needs and deserves--will be forthcoming without significant indictments. I was very disturbed by that part of diGenova's remarks.


  1. I know that Joe does a weekly, or at least semi-regular appearance on WMAL. Anyway, I was listening, and there is no video, only audio (fitting since this is radio) and thought the hosts were talking before they brought Joe.

    The conversation begins and I think the hosts are spoofing. They are saying it's okay to hire Andrew McCabe but not Sarah Sanders on Fox. McCabe "only lacked candor." He didn't lie to the American People on TV, ala Sanders."

    I eagerly awaited the punchline. Then I realized WMAL was playing a tape of CNN's Brian Stelzer and some female knucklehead and that they were serious.


  2. Regarding the possibility of no prosecutions - is DiGenova referring only to the OIG, or is he also talking about the Durham investigation? (I assume DiGenova doesn't know what Durham is discovering)

    1. That's a good point, and I'm not sure. When I first listened I took it to be a blanket statement for the Russia Hoax as a whole. It's possible that he was focused on the FISA investigation that OIG is concluding. However, even there, I find that disturbing because I regard the FISA app's reliance on the dossier as the clearest sign of criminal acts that should be provable. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

    2. My biggest fear in all of this, and you have brought it up yourself (I think), is that if there are no prosecutions, for whatever reasons, but there are truly significant revelations, then mainstream media will ignore the story, just as they have ignored the demise of the Russia collusion hoax.

      I was recently among some liberal friends. They know absolutely nothing about what went on at DOJ, NSA, CIA, FBI. And they read the NYTimes & listen daily to NPR (state radio). How, after all this time, can they be so in the dark?

      By extension, we are talking about (roughly) 50% of the populace. So, best case, indictments and exposure, I'm afraid nothing will change. I'd prefer to believe otherwise, but people are locked in.

      How will the media do it? By demonizing Barr as a Trump stooge, by calling him corrupt. In fact, they already tried in the Senate (that imbecile from Hawaii).

      I'm optimistic, like you, about Barr the man. I am far less optimistic about how his results will be absorbed, interpreted, and/or accepted by the people.

    3. I share your misgivings. There needs to be something to get people's attention.

  3. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems as though over the summer, Joe was confident about prosecutions. He said that Comey and Brennan should "lawyer up."

    If my memory is accurate, I am left to wonder what has changed. I am disturbed about this recent assertion form Joe that he is not sure about prosecution.

    This movie has so many plot twists.

    1. You're not wrong. The one thing that gives me pause is that Trump continues to be very pleased with Barr's performance as far as we can tell. He seems to go out of his way to praise him.

  4. I have read -- I don't remember where -- that at one meeting, McCabe said something like: "First we fuck Flynn, and then we fuck Trump."

    If McCabe indeed did say it in the presence of several other officials at a meeting, then he must be prosecuted. McCabe's malicious intent is blatant.

    If he did say it, then I assume the statement has been confirmed by Lisa Page, who would testify so.

    I recognize that this might be a false story.


    More than wanting prosecutions, I want revelations.

    1. I've heard/read that, too. And the version I've heard/read is that someone recorded McCabe's remarks on their phone and that investigators have that recording.

  5. --> "there was in fact an initial FISA application on Carter Page that was denied. Further, diGenova states that the only new information contained in the applications that were approved was the dossier material."

    This was my understanding from very early-on. ISTM, at a minimum, those need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    The foundation of our Bill of Rights is the integrity, honesty, forthrightness of those seeking warrants, and judges approving (or not) the same--whether by LEOs, in the national security context, but especially so at the FISC.

    The must be a serious penalty for this illegal conduct.

    1. I agree. The idea that they could get away with debasing the whole criminal justice and/or natsec structures is outrageous. It will only encourage further--and perhaps more clever--abuses.