Friday, April 3, 2020

Durham Still 'Pushing'

That's what the WSJ tells us this morning--but not much else. Let's see.

Alexander Downer, the Aussie "diplomat," says he was recontacted by Durham. Downer says he told Durham that he had nothing to add to what was already on the public record. He declined further comment to reporters.

OK. But how about this:

"Increasingly, investigators are focused on former CIA Director John Brennan, examining whether he pushed for a blunter assessment about Russia's motivations than others in the intelligence community felt was warranted, people familiar with the matter said."

I think we've already heard that Durham was focused on Brennan and the ICA--several times. You've got to like that business about a "blunter assessment." I think Durham wants to know how much of it was pure fiction.

That's pretty much how the article goes--very defensive, pushing the idea that there was no slant to anything the Intel Community did. For example:

"There was no political interference," by Mr. Brennan or anyone else, said a former senior intelligence official involved in preparing the report. A 2004 intelligence overhaul that added new procedures to "tease out and highlight" analysts differences ... "worked perfectly," the official said.

 Uh, a "former senior intelligence official"? "Involved in preparing the report"? That could be John Brennan. Or Peter Strzok!

And so it goes. But the good news, if this seems like news to anyone, is that Durham is still on the job, still pushing.


  1. I have liked the idea that Durham was operating in secrecy. Not before a mic, not talking to reporters. He is a prosecutor. He is not preparing a report. He has had interviews going and made it clear that the interviewers were prosecutors. Findings of criminality will then go to a grand jury for its deliberation and the rendering of indictments if justified.

    I am not a fan of the WSJ, so will wait for what Durham and the grand jury actually do. We have enough to keep us busy now.

    1. Reading between the lines, what we learn is not so much that Durham is still on the job--we knew that--but that the targets are still very worried and threatened enough to spin, spin, spin.

    2. Yes. Weasel Brennan keeps popping his head up. He and others have to be in prolonged anxiety because they are hearing nothing from Durham and the grand jury. The WSJ tries to keep some frail legs on the story… Betweeen the lines is the only part worth reading...

  2. Downer was questioned about the genesis and instigation of the meeting with Papadopolous. At the time of this "impromptu" meeting initiated by Downer, Papadopolous was an insignificant peon and Downer was the highest ranking Aussy diplomat in Britain. The idea that this meeting was happenstance is ludicrous on it's face. And the recording of the meeting reveals that the interrogation was anything but casual or friendly. Downer was acting as an agent of the CIA and there is documentation of this role. He cannot lie without trashing his reputation or opening himself to liability.

  3. I hadn't looked at Brennan's Twitter feed for a while. By happenstance, someone lined to one of this tweets and I saw what he has been up to.

    This lying man must pay for what he has done.

  4. The WSJ article is very tendentious. Most of the assertions are by passive language, while all the sources are outside government, i.e. Brennan or Brennan acolytes.

    The article ends on the meaningless (false) assertion that "there were repeated contacts between Russia-linked entities and Trump campaign officials..." It further claims Russian election interference as a given, despite a finding that no one "knowingly conspired with Russian interference efforts."

    The passage is rich with innuendo of suspicion in pursuing the agenda to keep the Russian interference narrative alive. It's shameful "news" reporting, and a sign of desperation.

    The article looks just like the FusionGPS/Glenn Simpson model for placing news stories in media in pursuit of a partisan advantage and agenda.

    The "hook" is the Durham investigation. But there's nothing to report as no one is leaking, so the article is all "reaction" to the concept of the investigation, despite no actual news.

    A textbook example of fake news. Fake news, not "fake news."

  5. The line from the article I love is:

    "At least one former CIA official has been seeking to hire a lawyer in recent weeks in connection with the inquiry, some of the people said."

    What amazing journalism!

    1. Right. The article notes that the interviews have been thoroughly professional, non-confrontational (a veiled contrast to Team Mueller's tactics). Why would he need a lawyer, if he was acting within the scope of his employment? Logically he would have little risk.

  6. WSJ Reporters are pretty interchangeable with reporters from the Washington Post and NYT. A bit more focused on business, but they come from the same elite schools with the same brain washing. Editorials is the more conservative part of the WSJ. I used to be a subscriber.


    Two GOP Senators who requested declassification of the redactions in the FOUR KEY FOOTNOTES TO THE HOROWITZ report have now asked Acting DNI Grennel to do it, after reports that DOJ was unable to do so due to IC push-back.

    There ate two observations that should be gleaned from this:

    1) this tells us the redactions were for IC product material, otherwise DOJ could have declassified it without IC having any say in the matter. IOW, the IC is the OCA for the redacted material. We may have suspected that all along, but now we know.

    2) Barr could have used the authority delegated to him by Trump to override the IC and declassify it under his authority, but obviously has chosen not to do so at this time. I suspect this is being coordinated, and since Grennel is a temporary DNI, it may well make more sense for him to do it, so that Barr does not add ammo to his critics' armamentarium.