Tuesday, August 20, 2019

UPDATED: John Solomon's Declassification Wish List

This evening John Solomon speculates regarding the most likely upcoming reveals on the Russia Hoax--ten of them: 10 declassified Russia collusion revelations that could rock Washington this fall. Since Solomon appears to be the go-to guy for new revelations from OIG and DoJ, it warrants paying attention to what he says. Follow the link for the full list, but below are the items that interest me the most. Obviously, most of us need no convincing about most of this stuff, but the important thing is that these documents provide documentary evidence for use in prosecutions. Also bear in mind that Barr and Durham have seen all of this:

Behind the scenes, some major events were set in motion last autumn that could soon change the tenor in Washington, at least as it relates to the debunked Russia collusion narrative that distracted America for nearly three years. 
It was in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe. 
About the same time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), voted unanimously to send 53 nonpublic transcripts of witnesses in its Russia review to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for declassification. The transcripts were officially delivered in November. 
Now, nearly a year later, neither release has happened. 
To put that into perspective, it took just a couple of months in 2004 to declassify the final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks after a presidential commission finished its work, which contained some of the nation’s most secretive intelligence revelations. 
But the long wait for transparency may soon end. 
The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly. That’s particularly true if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff, such as former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the current ambassador to the Netherlands, or longtime national security expert Fred Fleitz. 
Likewise, the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away. 
Here are the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
2.)   The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I’m told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA. 
3.)   The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources. We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.

This will have great shock value, of course. Beyond that, it will likely document that Trump was always the real target. That the fiction that Crossfire Hurricane was investigating only associates of the campaign was exactly that--a fiction.

4.)   The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions. 

In other words, it will document who knew what, when, regarding the FISA fraud.

9.)   The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I’m told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.

This will go a long way--I'm sure it already has--to securing Rod Rosenstein's complete cooperation.

10.)  Records of allies’ assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence. My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.”

UPDATE: John Solomon was on with Hannity tonight and he dropped some information that cleared up something that I've always wondered about. Under the FISA law, to get a renewal of a FISA warrant/order, you have to show that the existing FISA has contributed to progress in the investigation. In other words, you have to show that the FISA has allowed you to obtain NEW INFORMATION that is relevant to the investigation. With regard to #9, above, Solomon stated that he has heard that in the FISA renewal application that Rod Rosenstein signed after Team Mueller was started up, OLD information was presented as NEW information. Once again, in other words, in order to satisfy the requirement that they show progress and that new information was being obtained, the FBI fraudulently recycled old information!

What this explains to me is how the application could have been approved by the FISA court, when we've all known for over a year at least that there simply couldn't have been new information. How could the FISA court have approved a renewal without any sign of progress? After all, even Peter Strzok said that there was "no big there, there." If Solomon is right that investigators have document this, then the FISA court was deceived and lied to. That explains what happened. This is direct and deliberate fraud on the FISA court, and people will go to jail for that.


  1. Let's take some Windex to the FBI and DOJ and see what they're hiding behind.

  2. None of these thrilling documents is worth spit.
    Only an indictment or plea-deal is worth anything at this late date.

  3. My question is, since Barr went to the jail, I presume to check conditions and try to ensure Epstein would stay alive, why didn't Barr give orders that there should be 2 armed guards standing at the door of the cell 24/7?
    And now all he does is transfer the director and put 2 guys on admin leave? In 6 months the 3 of them will be rich somewhere. It's difficult to keep faith.

    1. I think it's symptomatic of the lack of trust--the fact that so many people expect Barr to run all operations of the DoJ personally--prosecutions, civil law suits, FBI investigations, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons. Barr went to NY, but I assume that he met with the warden to review procedures and emphasize the importance of following all the rules. The warden no doubt assured Barr that he would do it all by the book. And then did things as usual.

      I can't say that Barr CAN'T give specific orders, but then what would be the point of having all those subordinate officials? What would be the point of all those guidelines and regulations? When would he ever have time to authorize bathroom breaks for Durham?

      I don't think it's the AG's job to issue orders when procedures are clear. It's his job to hold people accountable.

    2. As for the disciplinary moves he's made, Barr is required to follow the guidelines, too, and the people he disciplined have rights as government employees, too. Barr cannot act against those rules and he can't change them arbitrarily.

    3. And a silver lining is that if prison laws were broken and prosecutions and convictions follow, the Deep State knows that are consequences. We ain't in Obamaland anymore. And most men aren't willing to go to prison for someone else's crimes. That is, be the fall guy.

  4. All good points - in general I would agree, but this was just too important. Too many powerful people involved who could have been brought down - esp C. Since Barr was there already, it would have cost nothing to give an order. And I read somewhere that something sketchy about that warden being assigned to that facility. Strange that he wouldn't know something like that.
    All in all, a big disappointment.

    1. Yes, of course it was a huge disappointment. All I can say is 1) repeat that Barr can't run DoJ all by himself and can't be everywhere all the time, and 2) hope that this was a cold shower for him, a real awakening.

    2. Perhaps that is the most disheartening aspect. Barr at DoJ, and Trump overall, have a truly Herculean task before them, and I mean that in the most literal sense. Few have ever undertaken projects of the magnitude required and even fewer have been successful. Peter the Great perhaps?
      Tom S.

    3. My pushing of Deneen's views should tell you that I'm not all that optimistic for the long run.