Swartz has been on our radar here for nearly a year. We first wrote about him in The FBI: Working Hand In Glove With Clinton Operatives and, very recently in connection with the Horowitz Dossier, again just yesterday in an update to AG Barr Speaks. Here's what I wrote in January:
When Ohr met Steele again in either late September or early October, 2016 he did so in company with quite a group: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page from the FBI, and three DOJ career officials from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman--currently Robert Mueller's deputy. ... this also probably means that they were planning for the FISA application, given that the application was submitted on October 21, 2016, immediately after Steele's October 20 report--the report in which Michael Cohen's famous trip to Prague for a "clandestine" meet superseded the clandestine Moscow meet of Carter Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign. Which leads to the supposition that this meeting with Steele was to tell him, inter alia, that more detailed information was needed for the FISA application--which Steele duly provided, in the form of the now famous Cohen-Prague miscue.
All in all, it's an interesting picture: three officials from DoJ's Criminal Division meeting with the second in command of the FBI's CI division (accompanied by the Deputy Director's counsel) to plan for a FISA on--in effect--a candidate for the presidency. Coaching the asset on what was now needed for the FISA to go through, which would be typical Weissman tactics.And all this without informing the Acting AG, Sally Yates. Or so they say.
And yesterday:
UPDATE 2: At the top I briefly referenced the significant fact that the same group of people who were involved in the Crossfire Hurricane pretense investigation were also involved in the Mueller witchhunt. To understand what I'm getting at, recall that Barr specifically mentions that his direction to Durham to concentrate just as much on the post-election period as on the origins stems from things that Horowitz uncovered. One of the things that Horowitz uncovered--actually, we've known this for a long time and I've placed great stress on it--is that Bruce Ohr was keeping several DoJ attorneys apprised of the FBI case. All three attorneys who were named by Ohr in his House testimony went on to play key roles on Team Mueller--Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, and Bruce Swartz. These attorneys had actually met with Steele before the FISA. So when I say that the same people are involved, it's not just Strzok and Page. And, importantly, Horowitz points out that those attorneys had no reason to be involved during that time period, and that it was improper for Ohr to be briefing them. This is why Durham will necessarily be examining the Team Mueller operation. [My mistake: I say above that Swartz was on Team Mueller. As Cashill points out, Swartz did not play an official role on Team Mueller, implying--I believe correctly--that he had an unofficial role.]
Cashill also points out the significance of what the Horowitz Dossier has to say about Bruce Swartz:
The Inspector General’s Report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) features a heretofore unheralded costar by the name of Bruce Swartz, the assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division. Swartz was also the supervisor of the feckless Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr and frequent breakfast buddy of Christopher Steele of Steele dossier fame.
Cashill goes on to document what Horowitz has to say about the way in which Swartz inserted himself into the Manafort investigation:
As Swartz himself acknowledged, he had a Javert-like zeal to bring Manafort to justice. “Ohr and Swartz both told us that they felt an urgency to move the Manafort investigation forward,” reported Horowitz, “because of Trump's election and a concern that the new administration would shut the investigation down.” This urgency translated into frequent semi-covert meetings with the FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Strzok told the IG that Swartz wanted him to "kick that [investigation] in the ass and get it moving."
Swartz continued to “weigh in” on the Manafort investigation even though it was clearly outside his jurisdiction. ...
Swartz hoped to get the cooperation of an unnamed “foreign national” to help squeeze Manafort. According to Ohr, he and Swartz had “information that Manafort [was]... somehow... a possible connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign."
One suspects that the foreign national in question was Oleg Deripaska, whom disgraced former FBI Deputy Director McCabe and Bruce Ohr were focusing on in the fall of 2016.
Swartz admittedly did not advise DoJ leadership of his maneuverings. He claimed the meetings were on the hush-hush to keep the Manafort investigation from being "politicized." More likely, Swartz hoped to pressure Manafort into rolling over on Trump and did not want Trump’s people to know about his intentions.
The "unusual level of interest" in the Manafort case by Swartz, Ohr, and Weissman caught the attention of some of their colleagues. Reported the IG, “The former senior Department leaders we interviewed expressed serious concern about Swartz's assertion that not informing Department leadership about case-related investigative activities somehow protected the Department.”
Admittedly Swartz didn't write Horowitz a letter stating that his extraordinary interest in a case outside his jurisdiction was politically motivated. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to at least surmise that Swartz's out of bounds interest in a person connected to Trump derived from an improper political motivation. But then Horowitz doesn't mention what Cashill does--Swartz' many years long connection the Clinton organization, along with Andrew Weissmann. And that shines an interesting light on Swartz's probable motiviations. Instead:
It seems likely that Swartz lied repeatedly to The IG’s office about the reasons for his unseemly meddling, and Horowitz more or less scolded him for it.
So what were Swartz's Clinton connections? You'll need to follow the link above to get the full story, which Cashill presents excellently. However, here's how he begins it, for those who have forgotten about the Sandy Berger affair:
Horowitz could have made a much stronger bias charge against Swartz had he been able to review Swartz’s handling of the Sandy Berger affair.
Wait a minute--who says Horowitz couldn't review that? Maybe he just didn't want to.
Here’s the background. In 2002, according to a subsequent House report, former president Bill Clinton “designated Berger as his representative to review NSC documents” in relation to the 9/11 inquiry.
In that capacity Berger made four trips to the National Archives. He did so presumably to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003.
During those four visits Berger stole and destroyed an incalculable number of documents. “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” reported the House Committee, “is not known and never can be known.”
Yes, that's right. Berger was stealing and destroying Clinton related documents to prevent the 9/11 Commission from seeing them. Think about that.
Now think about this:
Swartz and his boys recommended a $10,000 fine for Berger and three-year loss of security clearance for a crime that would have put a Republican in prison for decades. Happily for the Deep State, Berger regained his clearance just in time to serve as a Hillary Clinton adviser in the 2008 campaign.
Call it The Deep State, call it The Swamp. It is desperate to destroy Trump.
Here's the good news. AG Bill Barr doesn't need to play catchup on any of this. He knows it all, and has for years. He came back because he saw a chance to do something about it.
ADDENDUM: Speaking of "improper motivation" or "political bias,"--which Horowitz can discern nowhere--it's worth remembering that Horowitz himself, as well as his wife (a former CNN producer), is a committed Liberal. That may help explain his blinders.
Listening to this mess this morning, I realized we don’t need Horowitz to say grace over his investigation by calling out bias. It would have been nice, but as we discussed before, and as others are pointing out, ipsa res loquitur, the facts are glaring and they do speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe article you featured from Kevin Brock was excellent and should be read by everyone.
Horowitz’s investigation has undoubtedly helped Barr and Durham. But they have gone on from there. After a few visits to the Horowitz hearing thread at CTH, I believe Horowitz is causing a lot of steam ventilation today. Perhaps that is useful, though I doubt that it makes anyone feel better. I am waiting for the next act.
Brock explains how it's supposed to work and how, in my experience, it used to work.
DeletePS. I did not remember Swartz. Was busy with Life 101 about then and not paying close attention. Thanks for the reminder and the dot-connecting...
ReplyDeleteHey, I was all over that story back then, and I'd forgotten about it, too.
DeleteWhat's stunning about all this, once you start digging just a little, is the continuity of the actors. The pattern of continual criminality. And the complicit media.
I think I found the explanation for why the IG did not investigate details about Swartz:
DeleteSo what were Swartz's Clinton connections? You'll need to follow the link above to get the full story, which Cashill presents excellently. However, here's how he begins it, for those who have forgotten about the Sandy Berger affair:
Horowitz could have made a much stronger bias charge against Swartz had he been able to review Swartz’s handling of the Sandy Berger affair.
Wait a minute--who says Horowitz couldn't review that? Maybe he just didn't want to.
here's a brief answer Horowitz gave today in his senate testimony:
IG Horowitz:
"We're the only IG that can't review conduct of all the employees in our organization, including attorneys."
10:28 AM - 11 Dec 2019
This puzzled many people who were unsure what this means, but the story about Swartz appears to be an example -- it seems the DOJ IG is unable to review department personnel records!
That may be the explanation for the lack of follow-up by Horowitz on Swartz.
The good news from today's testimony is that Horowitz made it clear the reason for no criminal referrals in his report is because he recommend EVERYONE IN THE REPORT be reviewed by DOJ for potential criminal prosecutions.
Literally, the wrongdoing was so pervasive and serious, and the explanations were so unsatisfactory, that the IG is leaving it up to DOJ to make the call on everyone in the report!
I don't think anyone understood this until today.
Sounds good to me.
Delete"The pattern of continual criminality."
ReplyDeleteMark, speaking of continual criminality, remind me, please, where you believe you came out on statutory criminal violations. If my foggy memory serves you landed on a criminal conspiracy theory which (it is devoutly to be hoped) would encompass all of the individual bad acts and, together with aiding and abetting liability, land all of them in the criminal dock.
Perhaps in my wishing and hoping I exaggerate...
No, you've got it right.
DeleteThat would be a good reason why there’d be no individual targets named along the way. Barr/Durham would get the entire lot in one fell swoop...
DeleteRepublicans already talking impeachment trial, this has turned up:
ReplyDeletehttps://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474002-republicans-consider-skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial
I don’t trust Thune or Blunt. And they’re worried about Collins and Gardner? Aren’t they always worried about Collins?
If they're targeting a motion to dismiss, they need to have a simple majority--but a majority. An aquittal, of course, just means less than two thirds. In a scenario where not all GOP senators were on board, I'd prefer to lose two and get a dismissal with 51. Rather than an aquittal in which more than two GOPers voted to convict. I assume McConnell is on top of this.
DeleteI will share with you my shocking prediction: this Impeachment never goes to the Senate (unless and until Dems have a Senate majority.)
DeleteDems cannot afford it to be litigated by the GOP majority in the Senate, who will use the Trial to highlight the bogus fraudulent process Schiff used to cherry-pick testimony/hearsay, while ignoring exculpatory evidence (kinda like what the DOJ did with the FISA warrant application, according to Horowitz,) all in front of live TV cameras.
That would be the worst nightmare the Dems could imagine; hence they cannot let this get to the GOP controlled Senate.
Either Pelosi never calls a vote, or she allows her Dems to defect and loses the vote, or (most likely) Dems Impeach, and then Pelosi announces that since the GOP Senate refuses to look at the "overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt," she cannot in good conscience allow the Senate to acquit this horrible orange man, and puts the Impeachment in her purse.
This effectively denies Trump the opportunity to defend himself, while placating the Dem base, which I believe is the real object of the Impeachment Theater.
I believe Dems have internal polling that shows the WH is a lost cause for 2020; their ONLY hope is to try to preserve their House majority, and to do so, they need their base voters back on the reservation, after having lost them after the Mueller Report fiasco.
It's an entirely logical argument, for my money. The real question is, will they behave logically?
DeleteNot a fan of FiveThirtyEight, but here’s their writer’s rundown on his predictions of who would vote for and against removal in the Senate:
ReplyDeletehttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-senators-are-likely-to-vote-for-trumps-removal/
This is why I say, if they're not going to go with a motion to dismiss then I'd prefer a full trial with lots of witnesses.
DeleteI second that. Thanks, Mark...
DeleteRead Dersh today:
Deletehttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473849-two-house-articles-of-impeachment-fail-to-meet-constitutional-standards
Per the article that Bebe links to, 92% of Republicans oppose removing the President. I see the likelihood as near zero that he'd be removed. I don't even think Pierre Delecto has the guts to do it.
ReplyDeleteHe's not exactly a profile in courage.
To me the point isn't so much to prevent removal--that's not gonna happen--it's to maintain unity. The 92% figure strongly militates in favor of unity.
DeleteI would hope that any person of good will would oppose what has been going on in the House as anathema to the American way of life and the rule of law. Especially someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
DeleteTo not support the President regarding this show trial is to betray the Constitution. Adam Schiff needs to be shamed and face consequences, as do Pelosi, Nadler and others. And I'm not saying consequences as in legalities. I'm talking about being a pariah in our society. There should be a price to pay for abusing his chairmanship the way he has.
"Adam Schiff needs to be shamed and face consequences, as do Pelosi, Nadler and others"
DeleteYes, they should be shamed, but how do you shame someone who has no conscience? If they had a conscience, they wouldn't have done all this.
That only leaves legalities.
But Barr said yesterday that jail is not the answer for everything either. So where does that leave us?
BREAKING: Adam Schiff demands last minute third Article of Impeachment for Trump -- "for attempting to sap and impurify the precious bodily fluids of he American People."
DeleteLOL!
DeleteAnonymous wrote
Delete"Yes, they should be shamed, but how do you shame someone who has no conscience? If they had a conscience, they wouldn't have done all this.
That only leaves legalities.
But Barr said yesterday that jail is not the answer for everything either. So where does that leave us?"
To answer about shaming someone with no conscience (and by the way, that's a really good question), look to Lisa Page. She stated that when she's on the subway and people look at her, what are they thinking about her? So, if Pencil Neck has no conscience, maybe his children tell him "Dad, you're a louse." Or his parents upbraid him. Or his Rabbi offers a pointed sermon that is obviously about Pencil Neck. There's all kinds of ways.
Also, I am a proponent of prosecution. But, that doesn't mean that everyone who acted badly broke the law. At least that they broke man's laws.