Sunday, December 15, 2019

Horowitz Reports Steele Meetings With Clinton Lawyers

What could be less surprising than Chris Steele meeting with the people who were paying him? Still, I'm sure they tried to keep meets to the minimum that were essential.

Here's the date that really interests me. September 23, 2016.

As I like to bring up, Steele was part of an extraordinary meeting in mid-September, 2016, that included future Team Mueller hotshots Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, veteran DoJ Clintonista Bruce Swartz, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. I've maintained that this looked like a meeting to tell Steele what they needed in the "dossier" so they could get the FISA on Carter Page. It's unquestionably a strategy meeting. And a few days later Steele meets with Michael Sussman, the Dems' real evil legal genius when it comes to elections.

Can I swear that the proximity of the two meetings wasn't coincidence. I suppose not, but I wouldn't want to bet that it is coincidence. In fact, if I were an investigator I'd be operating on the assumption that it sure wasn't a coincidence.

(It's About Pressure Points, passim)


  1. So Steele meets with six DOJ/FBI personnel--who called for the meeting? Wasn't Ohr then #4 (before demotion) at DOJ? Then, after Steele is cut loose by the FBI, Ohr is effectively Steele's handler, receiving his reports and passing them on to FBI--resulting in ~12 302s when Ohr briefed the FBI.

    Next, you have Steele, hired through cutout FusionGPS, meeting with the PerkinsCoie partner who served as the cutout for Steele's Clinton/DNC paymaster. Whether arrogance or stupidity, it destroys the idea of using cutouts...

    1. They're getting closer to Clinton.

      Ohr was as high as you could get without being a political appointee.

    2. The "predication" needed to secure the Page FISA were provided by Steele in the 19 July (?) Dossier memo -- all about Page's speech in Moscow, and the baloney about meeting with Sechin and Devoykin (sp?) and being offered 19% interest in Rosneft in return for getting sanctions on Russia lifted.

      That satisfies the FISA warrant requirement of evidence that the US person target is an asset of a foreign government, and is likely to commit a crime.

      IIRC the IG report says FBI rec'd the Dossier material on 16 September.

      A meeting with all these co-conspirators around that time sounds like a "Hi; we'd like you to explain what your Dossier material about, and provide any additional insights you have" (as well as a "this is what we might need in the future") meeting.

      Note that Bruce Ohr and others who have no involvement in the Russian Collusion investigation are participating, along with those who ARE involved. Not too suspicious, eh?

      As Mr. Aplebaum has pointed out in his brilliant open source analysis of the Dossier team, most of them are interlinked via a common professional interest in Foreign Corruption & Organized Crime investigation going back nearly a decade. The players all knew each other well before the 2016 election, including the FusionGPS people as well as the DOJ officials, and Steele, of course.

      The meeting by Steele with the Perkins Coie lawyer seems very odd; Steele's client is FusionGPS, and FusionGPS is Perkin's... client. The only thing I can imagine is Perkins Coie needed to tell Steele something they didn't want passed through FusionGPS. Can't imagine what it was, but must have been pretty damned important to violate the cut-out arrangement.

    3. Where there's smoke, there's fire. As you say, this cuts across normal lines of communication.

  2. Anyone who has ever interviewed a criminal suspect will recognize that Comey is now at Stage 2. First comes arrogant denial, then lame excuses, and soon-to-be the pleading and bargaining phase. That will likely occur with Durham, but not before the assembled evidence is rock solid and undeniable.

    And Comey's lawyers must not be very bright if they continue to let him incriminate himself in public TV appearances. Comey will flip rather than allow the ignominy of a criminal trial. And the day Comey goes silent, Brennan should take his retirement to the Maldives.

    A gusher of revelations will be coming forth in the weeks and months ahead. The recent indictments of 8 individuals for funneling illegal foreign donations to various prominent Democrats will reveal massive and long-term corruption of political fundraising practices. Rudy will tell the world the backstory to a monumental kickback and money laundering scandal. Even a few prominent Republican politicians will likely be rolled up in this mega bust.

    The potential impeachment and Senate trial is a Hail Mary by the Deep State, but they haven't locked up enough Republicans to get anywhere near 67, so it's just a bluff.

    Trump is three steps ahead and Pelosi is playing right into his hands. Pelosi should detour to a censure next week, but I doubt she will.

    1. I gotta admit I'm genuinely puzzled by the way Comey keeps yakking in public. It seems insane to me.

      Speaking of the Maldives, here's an interesting fact--they provided, per capita, the highest number of volunteers to ISIS. Well, Brennan is a big fan of Islam.

    2. Maybe Comey's not that smart. Or maybe he's staking out his position realtive to other conspirators. "Hey, Strozk, Page, Baker, Brennan...I'm not taking the fall."

      Just a guess.

    3. @Unknown

      "First comes arrogant denial"

      In case anyone is wondering what arrogant denial looks like:

    4. Cassander, I am looking at the youtube link that you provided. Strozk reminds me a little boy who could always get his way with his parents if he hollered and cried enough.

    5. @Joe

      Doesn't he?

      What strikes me today (and this applies to Comey, too) is the extreme arrogance and self-righteousness of their denials back then, a couple of years ago... just as Unknown says. I guess deluded criminality, like everything else relating to things human, follows a pattern. I think Comey is clearly entering the lame excuse period, again just as Unknown says. Who knows where Strzok is...

      Have you watched any Victor Davis Hanson interviews recently on the parallels (hubris, nemesis, etc.) between these guys and figures in Greek mythology? Very interesting...

    6. Didn't Comey begin giving up McCabe, when he claimed ignorance of some facts?
      Isn't this the first step of shifting blame to his underlings?

    7. We all saw how McCabe turned on RR when RR tried to distance himself. McCabe will not go down alone, so Jimbo better be careful.

    8. "McCabe will not go down alone..."

      This is my hope. A domino effect. 'If I go down, I'm taking you with me.'

      Comey signalled a little of the shift blame routine with his 'As Director, I wasn't involved if this case' and 'There are 38,000 people at the FBI' claims.

      I forgot to mention this. Did anyone else catch Comey's claim about mistakes by the FBI during his tenure? He said there were other greater mistakes than this FISA process.

      What could be greater than the worst scandal in our country's existence? And it sure made him look bad, too. And indifferent to his terrible tenure.

      Mr. Higher Loyalty.

  3. I'm listening to Comey on Fox News Sunday via Sundance. If my interpretation is correct, Comey is saying that his evil twin brother Tim Comey was FBI Director when all of theses mistakes were committed. Jim Comey never said that the FBI relied on the Steele Dossier. Tim Comey said that.

  4. Comey is sorry if he was not clear in his past testimony. He meant no harm or damage to the country.

    "Hey, what's the problem if I was a little careless"?

    This guy is slick. He's relying on his "aw, shucks" act to fool the American People.

  5. Comey has changed from the interview that he did with Brett Baier. He seems much more comfortable with lying now. He also rope-a-dopes with Wallace. He parses words like "bunk."

    Sundance criticized Wallace, which is fair, but he did a tough interview with Comey.

    Comey's own words are "Oaths are sticky things." He might want to ponder that when he thinks about his prior testimony to Congress.

  6. I finished the whole segment. Comey is a liar. In his world, the FBI is vindicated. No one made intentional mistakes. When Wallace challenged this with a reference to Clinesmith, Comey rebutted that the allegations weren't proven. That's a true point but it's lawyerly and evasive.

    Comey wants to make sure that Fox viewers are set straight that the FBI is not political. Sure, mistakes were made, but they're human.

    Then he takes on Barr but he whiffs.

    1. >> "No one made intentional mistakes." <<

      Notice the trick Comey pulls here? "Mistakes" are never intentional -- that's why they are called "mistakes."

      So, by definition, there are no "intentional" mistakes, ever.

      If someone screwed it up on purpose, then it isn't a mistake at all, it's a falsehood (by omission or commission.)

      As regards Clinesmith and the presumption of innocence; how does Comey explain Clinesmith admitting what he did when confronted with the evidence by the IG, if he's "innocent"? The fact that a court has not adjudicated a charge based on that action yet doesn't mean Clinesmith hasn't admitted his guilt -- he did, and, except in cases of prosecutorial blackmail (such as Gen. Flynn,) innocent people do not admit guilt when confronted with evidence.

    2. As Unknown says above, these are the tactics of someone who knows he's the target of a criminal investigation.

  7. sorry if this is off topic, but why did Roger Stone not testify at this trial? Why force the judge to silence him with the judge in the cross hairs stunt? Kind of like he does not want to answer questions about Trump, no?

    Stone could have made a case to the jury at this trial that, yes he lied to Congress, but that lie was political gamesmanship against democrats who do the same. Or something like that. The point being, Stone could have put on a presentation to the jury to sway them to see the prosecutors as being members of the impeach, imprison Trump government gang.

    The fact that Stone has not testified could easily be due to Trump having something to hide, no? Yes, if democrats or FBI had anything on Trump, it would be known by now. But how to square the circle of why Roger Stone stays silent?

    1. There could be a lot of reasons why Stone's lawyers didn't want him to be cross-examined--which is what would have happened if he had testified. Your suggestion of the case that "Stone could have made ... to the jury" is not in fact a defense to the charges, so he would not have been allowed to make that case to the jury. Obviously his lawyers believed, rightly or wrongly, that his testimony would not have made a material contribution to his defense. I have no reason to second guess them on that.