Nobody's really sure what this is about, but Sue Gordon--whom the Deep State was pushing to succeed Dan Coats as DNI--has resigned, effective August 15, 2019, same day Coats is leaving. They say Trump wasn't expecting this, but definitely wasn't going to make Gordon Acting DNI in any case. Seems like a victory for Trump, even though he had to give up Ratcliffe. He'll be appointing a new acting DNI. h/t GP.
Jonathan Swan [Axios]
@jonathanvswan
On Sue Gordon, per sources familiar, She was never in the Oval. Did drop off a resignation letter. POTUS wasn’t expecting the letter, though he wasn’t ever going to pick her as acting DNI. POTUS statement likely coming shortly.
5:18 PM - Aug 8, 2019
I think she was basically fired via a demotion she wasn't willing to accept.
ReplyDeleteYes. Trump musta made it clear in the wake of the Ratcliffe withdrawal that not only would Gordon not be the DNI but she wouldn't even be acting DNI. That's what caused her to resign. Win for Trump, I think. He'll appoint an acting and the acting will stay as long as it takes to get a DNI that Trump wants. Looks like hardball--hopefully it is.
DeleteI see McCabe filed his lawsuit, too. I take this as a hopeful sign- I don't think either McCabe or Strzok would have been filing lawsuits unless they have been served search warrants of various kinds, or unless witnesses close to both have been giving testimony to a grand jury. The lawsuits look like they were filed so that each could claim retaliation if and when they are indicted.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what to think. How do you claim that a GJ retaliated against you? Yes, I know the reality is that the GJ almost always indicts whomever the prosecutor tells them to, but the fiction is important for legal purposes. A claim of retaliation will go exactly nowhere.
DeleteThe media will carry their narrative- it will something like this as a headline in the NYTimes if either is indicted:
Delete"Trump Administration Retaliates Against McCabe"
The story will quote unnamed sources about how Durham was pressured to indict because of the lawsuits. McCabe and Strzok will appear on 60 Minutes lamenting how attempts to enforce their free speech rights got them indicted improperly. Both will immediately appeal to whatever judge they get in DC Circuit for their lawsuits to quash the indictments.
It won't matter. And the DC Circuit won't accept their cases--the GJ will have spoken and only the DoJ can do anything about that.
DeleteThe claim in McCabe's court filing is that "normal procedures" were accelerated (purportedly at the behest of the POTUS) in order to process his firing the day before his benefits were assured.
DeleteI imagine the FBI will respond that, if procedures were accelerated, it was due to the need to resolve the situation of such a highly placed individual to insure normal organizational functioning. Or something like that. Or maybe they'll claim that normal procedures were initially delayed.
DeleteEmployment law is quite complicated, and especially at the DoJ and FBI.
Further, on Gordon- it does look like Trump is looking for someone who won't resist Barr's criminal probes. When that choice is finally made, expect the Democrats to immediately file a lawsuit in the DC Circuit to stop the acting head from taking the reins. Such a lawsuit would be ridiculous, but the law apparently no longer really matters.
ReplyDeleteSuccession is pretty much written in stone. I don't think there could be any basis for such a lawsuit--it would be thrown out. Recall, they didn't even try that with Matt Whitaker as Acting AG. They talked, but didn't do anything.
DeleteI suspect something like this happened. Trump told the Turtle, OK, you get to satisfy Susie Collins re Ratcliffe, but now I'm going exert myself. Like it or lump it. I'm Chief Exec.
That's my point- the law won't matter. In the case of Whittaker, it was pretty clear that Barr would be confirmed- so nothing was gained by getting an injunction against Whittaker. In the case of ODNI, though, it appears that there might be 3 Republican senators willing to go to the mat to stop Trump getting an DNI that won't stonewall Barr. The stakes are high here, and I expect nothing but scorched earth policies to be employed.
DeleteAgain, it won't matter. The rules on succession are written in stone. If Trump said he'd never make Gordon even acting, count on it--the rules for ODNI allow him to do that and Congress has no say whatsoever. As for the three GOPers, they know they need Trump for favors in their states, and they've seen how he's treated legislators who bucked him. They had what they thought was a victory re Ratcliffe, but they'll do a deal now.
DeleteI have come to think that the Skripal poisoning in the United Kingdom in March 2018 is part of the RussiaGate scandal. I think further that the CIA's London station was informed about it and that the CIA is determined to cover this up. This is why the nomination of Ratcliffe to the DNI position had to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteI find Michael Antony's explanation of the poisoning to be quite plausible.
I summarize Antony's explanation as follows.
Sergey Skripal wanted to return to Russia in order to spend the remainder of his life with his family. Skripal had helped to write Christopher Steele's Dossier, and Skripal was willing to tell publicly what he knew about it if Russia allowed him to return.
His daughter, Yulia Skripal, traveled from Russia to the UK to discuss such an arrangement with her father. She was followed a few days later by three Russian Intelligence agents who would deliver to Skripal a false passport so that he could return secretly.
One of the three agents remained in London, and the other two traveled to Salisbury, where they put the passport into a dead drop.
The plan was that Skripal would fetch the passport and travel to London, where he would board an airline flight with those two agents. Skripal would board the flight with the passport of the third agent.
British Intelligence learned that Skripal intended to return to Russia and to talk publicly about the Dossier.
To prevent Skripal from doing so, British Intelligence mailed a perfume bottle -- filled with nerve poison -- to Yulia at Skripal's Salisbury home. The mailing appeared to be a birthday gift from her boyfriend in Russia. When Yulia opened the bottle, she and her father would die instantly, and Russian Intelligence would be blamed.
Sergey Skripal told his daughter not to open the bottle. He took the bottle and threw it into a garbage bin.
British Intelligence then resorted to an alternate plan. The Skripals were poisoned an opiate that did not kill them, but disabled them. Since then, the Skripals have been shut up.
The attack on the Skripals was blamed falsely on Russian Intelligence.
Whether or not the CIA actually was aware of this British plot, the CIA would be subjected to a disastrous investigation, which might implicate the London Station chief or other Station members. The former Station Chief Gina Haspel is now the CIA Director.
That's why the appointment of Ratcliff to DNI had to be stopped. If Senate hearings about his appointment had taken place, the smear operation would have been even worse than the smear operation against Kavanaugh.
Mike, I don't know enough about the Skripal case to comment intelligently. However I will say that, from what I've read, nothing about the "official" account--that's a word the FBI uses in their "conspiracy theory as domestic terror threat" paper--makes sense.
DeleteI don't think you need a passport to leave England on a private plane or boat arranged by KGB. The story of Skirpal being trapped by MI6 seems too movie-like. But, who knows?
DeletePlease forgive my ignorance but why would British Intelligence want to do this?
DeleteMcCabe filed his lawsuit on the eighth day of the eighth month. Coincidence?
ReplyDeleteWhoa!
Delete... and he once owned an Oldsmobile *and* took piano lessons. It's obvious whats going on here! -MR
DeleteJoining Some Dots on the Skripal Case, written by Rob Slane, who characterizes himself as follows:
ReplyDelete[quote]
... Having been intensely hostile to Christianity until his late 20s, he finally gave up the pretence and admitted that it had been right and he had been wrong all along. Since then that initial realisation has been confirmed over and over again as it has become clear what a nasty, nihilistic, intolerant quagmire secularism has led us all into. So he picked up five smooth stones and set about playing his own small part in defying the secularist Goliaths in their bleak, hopeless and cheerless landscape.
Thus is he the author of The God Reality: A Critique of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, The Universe & Everything.
Thus has he written monthly worldview articles for the American health sharing company, Samaritan Ministries, and has regularly contributed to The Conservative Woman and the Canadian magazine, Reformed Perspective. ....
[end quote]
Slane's article about the Skripal case is superb. I understood from the article that he lives near the location of the poisoning and therefore has studied the event since it occurred.
Slane argues that the Skripals were poisoned because of his involvement in writing Christopher Steele's Dossier.
Slane's article is 24 pages long, but it is written very clearly. This is the best article I have read on the subject.
Mike, I'm drawing on recollection which is fuzzy, but it's my understanding that Steele had a definite connection to persons surrounding the recruitment of Skripal. I wrote about some of that based on your refs:
Deletehttps://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/01/whats-so-special-about-that-relationship.html#more
I'll just add that the almost hysterical opposition of the Brits to declass is suggestive of deeper involvement than most of us suspect. Which is what Giuliani appeared to be saying last night.
On his blog, Slane has published 55 articles about the Skripal poisoning.
DeleteThat 24-page article was published in the summer of 2018. Since then, he has published more articles based on more recent information.
Oh my! Is there a synthesis one of a manageable length?
DeleteAbout Theblogmire
DeleteSeems similar to your own blog
If you read that 24-page article, you will be glad that you did so.
ReplyDeleteI'll be looking at it. I've been spinning my wheels today. I thought I'd write more about the FBI's ideas on "Conspiracy Theory"--which are themselves somewhat conspiratorial--but ultimately decided it wasn't worth it.
DeleteAfter you read the 24-page article, I recommend a later blog article, Summing up the Official Claims in the Salisbury Poisonings: Weighed in the Balances and Found Wanting, which Slane published in January 2019.
ReplyDeleteInitial paragraphs:
I was bound to be interested in this case from the off, since it took place in the city where I reside, just a few hundred yards from my home. But what really sparked my interest into writing about the case for so long, was the response of the British Government. Within 48 hours of the incident, before the investigation had properly begun, and before any of the facts of the matter had been established, certain Government ministers were already pointing the finger of blame at the Russian state. Too quick. Something’s up.
Then on 12th and 14th March, little more than a week after the incident, and still with almost no facts of what actually happened having been established by investigators, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, not only formally accused the Russian Government in the House of Commons, but also announced a series of responsive measures. Much too quick. Something’s definitely up.
So quick were the accusations and verdict, that anyone interested in understanding the truth of what happened, rather than making blithe, fact-free assumptions, could not fail to have had their suspicions aroused.
Mike, I'm about half way through, and finding it quite interesting. However, one thing that caught my attention, which illustrates the need to be cautious. The article quotes an economist Paul Gregory who claims that the Dossier itself was compiled by a Russian “trained in the KGB tradition”. Gregory knows this because the last names in the dossier are capitalized in the authentic KGB manner. However, if you look at the Ohr 302s, you'll see that that's how the FBI does it, too: Bruce OHR. I looked it up just to be sure my memory wasn't playing tricks on me.
DeleteHe doesn't spell it out, but what he clearly wants his readers to understand is ...
DeleteSkripal was involved in producing the dossier.
By March, 2018, he decided he could make some considerable money by selling his story on the dossier.
So he gave the IC the opportunity to buy his silence--since they still had hopes that Team Mueller, Rosenstein, and Wray would be able to keep the dossier caper under wraps.
They responded to Skripal's attempted blackmail by poisoning him, just to let him know they didn't like being blackmailed.