We noted previously that Joe diGenova had stated that the reason for the delay in OIG's release of its reporting was caused by the alarm among witnesses/targets by John Durham's aggressive investigation. The alarm was causing these persons to flock back to OIG to "get their stories straight."
Last night Catherine Herridge on Fox confirmed that this is indeed the reason for the delay, but she also pinpointed a specific reason for the alarm: the decision of Christopher Steele to cooperate with US authorities. This, Herridge reports, is the reason these witnesses are now seeking to "deconflict" their previous testimony.
The deconfliction process itself takes some time, but beyond that there is a further reason for the reporting delay. The deconfliction may have opened up new avenues for productive inquiry.
this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Briefly Noted: OIG Delay Is Good News
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You can't delay indefinitely just because the vastness of the criminality is overwhelmingly huge. If you delay too long, the window of opportunity closes next September, and there is a significant risk that a new Democrat Administration will kill the investigations. Rather, even a single low level indictment happening soon will unleash a flood of whistle-blowers that have been waiting in the wings to finally come forward with their evidence and testimony. When all is said and done, it will take an encyclopedia to document to full extent of these crimes.ReplyDelete
By now I think I could write your comments for you. I find your endlessly recycled comment utterly unpersuasive. If--and I say IF--the Barr/Durham lacks for "whistleblowers" at this point, "a single low level indictment" will NOT unleash "a flood of whistle-blowers." If witnesses haven't come forward voluntarily by this point they would require, not a "low level" indictment, but a high level indictment. As it is, Barr/Durham are progressing rapidly in working up the ladder toward the high level targets, and that's exactly why the previous witnesses--call them whistleblowers or call them cooperating witnesses--are "deconflicting" their stories. They see that serious action IS going to come and they see that it's pretty much right around the corner as these things go.Delete
The other aspect that you miss is that under the Speedy Trial Act requires the government to be ready for trial within 70 days of indictment. And that means laying out their evidence, which simply opens up opportunities for the major targets to square witnesses.
To emphasize, "a single low level indictment" will impress nobody. Unknown himself will be the first to decry that Barr is letting the big fish off.Delete
I couldn't agree more, both with the post and this response. First, while I'm sure we all agree a very real and important clock is indeed ticking, another month or two delay is not going to cross any threshold of "too late." Second, I take a backseat to no one in my cynicism of and low regard for our system of justice as generally applied to swamp creatures, but I can only see as positive the seeming flurry of activity behind the report's delays. It helps me feel something real and substantive may actually be happening and so at least there may be some hope. I'll wait a little longer for that, no problem at all.Delete
Brad, there's another factor that I mentioned last night. Trump himself has a say in how this all goes down. If, for example, he insisted on specific declassifications, it would happen. If he delays those declassifications based on Barr's prosecutorial judgment, that's Trump's decision. Timing is very much Trump's forte.Delete
More great points, and one more reason a tiny bit of faith has crept up in me recently. No small achievement, that.Delete
I'll make a wild guess.ReplyDelete
Somebody figured out that Durham, by questioning Steele, might have discovered Skripal's involvement in the concoction of the Dossier.
Such a "somebody" might be an official (or several officials?) in the US Intelligence Community.
If the poisoning of Skripal does turn out to be a part of this scandal, then Durham might need a lot more time.
Re the Skripal poisoning, since it took place on UK soil, Durham will need to pass on that. I mean, he could take note of it, but it's probably beyond anything he can do.Delete
However, re the more specific question of what could have motivated the persons who have already testified to come back and ask to be re-interviewed, that's rather intriguing.
The simple explanation is that they all lied, and now want to tell the truth. IMO, that may be too simple. Nunes has indicated that there's something else besides the "dossier" (Steele?) behind the FISA fraud--which is what Hororowitz is investigating. According to Nunes, he can't talk about it because it's still classified, but he does say that it's even more serious.
Again, in terms of the formal charges that could be brought, it's hard to imagine that that's more serious. It must, then, be something about the substance of what was done that makes it so serious. Of course, involvement of Skripal and the assault on him would qualify, but I wonder whether it could be something else. Presumably we'll find out eventually, when charges are brought.
It appears that it's something specifically related to Steele--so, again, Skripal would qualify. However, in line with my reasoning above, it should be something not that everyone lied about, but concerning which they want to deny prior knowledge, or knowledge at the time--IOW, they want to claim that they themselves learned about it only later. Again, that doesn't work against your theory.
Whatever it is, it's intriguing. Like you, I can only guess.
Here, I'll speculate on what Nunes can't reveal... Someone who signed off on the FISA application knew they were using false/fabricated/fictions arising from Steele (or something else? in the app), not merely (the non-disclosure) that Steele might have been tainted by a partisan agenda based on Fusion/DNC/Clinton paymaster.Delete
But Nunes seems to be saying it goes beyond that.Delete
Gotcha--other information (evidence alleged) included in the warrant app that are a willful intent to deceive--a fraud--and are under the blacked-out redactions. Let's hope Nunes is correct in his characterization such that it advances the prosecutions...Delete
In June 2019, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency published a pamphlet titled The War on Pineapple: Understanding Foreign Interference in 5 Steps.ReplyDelete
This official pamphlet illustrates the foreign-interference threat with the hypothetical issue of whether pineapple should be a pizza topping.
A hostile country (e.g. Russia) could use this pineapple-topping issue to cause a controversy among Americans who use the Internet. Such a controversy might cause the American population to lose its unity and its faith in Democracy.
America -- WAKE UP !!!!
I guess we would've considered it wildly far fetched--until the last few years--that the CIA/FBI/DoJ would suddenly reveal themselves as an alphabet soup Deep State trying to convince the American public that a celebrity real estate magnate and reality TV star was actually Putin's puppet. And that they should succeed with a wide swath of the public, helped by the prestige news outlets.Delete
At this point I'm more concerned about my freedoms being eroded by my own "government" than I am the Russians.
I'll take a pass on their cybersecurity document. They mention that "Americans engage in healthy debate on any number of topics."
Debate the wrong topic or hold the "wrong" view and you'll get a secret investigation sicced on you.
No thanks, when the government is here to help.
"Nunes has indicated that there's something else besides the "dossier" (Steele?) behind the FISA fraud"ReplyDelete
How about political espionage, using fraudulent FISA warrants and the Two Hop rule to surveil any politician (or group in toto), using an 2012 arrangement (memoramdum of understanding) and four FBI contractors given permanent access to NSA databases.
C'mon, it's not like Brennan lied about spying on Republican staffers. It's not like Eric Holder compiled databases on Americans based on IRS (and probably other) data. Be serious.
You've misunderstood what Nunes is talking about. What Nunes seems to be saying--it seems clear enough to me--is that in the process of obtaining the FISA warrants the FBI/DoJ included material in the application in addition to the "dossier" nonsense. Nunes says this material is "really bad," even as compared to the fraudulent "dossier" material. Obviously, whatever it is has been redacted from the applications that were released to the public. You're talking about what obtaining the FISA allows the government to do, but Nunes is talking about how the FISA is obtained--that's where the fraud occurs.Delete
Sources and methods.ReplyDelete
MI6 relayed to Brennan second-hand alleged intelligence information from a high level spy within the Russian Government that purported to incriminate Trump as the object of a sexual blackmail plot executed by the SVR. This lead proved to be as bogus as everything else and all the IC culprits involved in this debacle are hiding behind "sources and methods" secrecy in order to protect their behinds. This intelligence scoop originated in Estonia and can be traced back to the Clintons.
Whisteblowers ARE holding back and will not come forward until there is clear evidence that Barr is not a Manchurian AG. The Deep State plays for keeps. Just ask Seth Rich, the Skripals, and Jeffery Epstein. Even Mifsud recorded an affidavit with his attorney in 2016 in order to avoid being put on the Clinton Kill List.
Earlier today you claimed "a single low level indictment" would suffice to bring forth "a flood of whistleblowers." Now it'll require "clear evidence that Barr is not a Manchurian AG" to bring forth the whistleblowers? How does one prove that negative? And suppose that Barr is a Manchurian AG--if so, wouldn't it make sense to do some "low level indictment" to get the whistleblowers to show themselves? Then he could shut down the investigation and go after the would be whistleblowers.Delete