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.