There's been a fair amount of comment regarding the soon to be famous "Annex A" to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The ICA, of course, was the brainchild of the Intel Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Released in the first week of January, 2017, it sought to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration before Trump was even inaugurated by claiming that the Intel Community had "high confidence" that Russia had tried to help Trump get elected.
The whole thing was nonsense, of course, and now we're told that there is documentary evidence that IC analysts pushed back against the official conclusions of the ICA. The official conclusion was that the Russians wanted Trump elected, but the analysts apparently put in writing that the evidence that claimed to support that conclusion was actually very weak. Instead, the analysts pointed out, the evidence that the Russians wanted Hillary to win was quite strong. That pushback was suppressed by the IC, but has been dug out by the Barr/Durham investigation. We have never missed an opportunity to stress that the ICA is at the very heart of the Big Picture conspiracy case that Durham is building.
Yesterday, as one of his first official acts as DNI, John Ratcliffe forwarded to Senators Grassley and Johnson a newly declassified version of Annex A. It's quite brief--not even a page and a half. All it is is a summary of the fabrications that Chris Steele ginned up for the Clinton campaign as contractor for the Clinton oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. Steele then also purveyed these falsehoods to the FBI, the Fake News Media, and various politicians and their operatives. As the Horowitz Report was at pains to point out, the FBI was fully aware--from the get go, in July, 2016--of the political provenance of the Steele "dossier," as it came to be known. The fact that this material was, in all essentials, fiction was also known by the FBI when Peter Strzok helped put together the summary of the "dossier" that was appended to the ICA--Annex A.
None of this should be news to regular readers. Bill Barr and John Durham are smart guys, and they've been focused on the ICA all along. The reason is simple. If the ICA was a knowingly fraudulent production that put forth conclusions favored by the IC Triumvirate, but disputed by the analysts themselves, then we have a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to defraud the US Government of the honest services of the Intel Community, because if the ICA had been the product of honest services it would have incorporated the views of the analysts who were fraudulently claimed to have reached the official conclusions. By colluding to falsify the true views of the analysts, the IC Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to defraud the US Government of their honest services. The aim of their conspiracy, of course, was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election.
Also, as I've been at pains to emphasize, without the ICA there could never have been a Mueller Witchhunt. Think about it. Without an official IC document saying that the Russians tried to help Trump Rosenstein would have had to put all his eggs in one basket ... Crossfire Hurricane! And we all know, just as Strzok told Lisa Page, what Crossfire Hurricane had actually established by the startup of Team Mueller was that there was no "there" there. As it was, Rod Rosenstein was able to blithely authorize Mueller to continue looking into "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. While that's a reference to Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of the artificial "Russian meddling" hysteria conjured by the ICA that Rosenstein could get away with that. Without that ICA generated hysteria in the media, Rosenstein would have actually had to go into the whole question of whether there was any predication for Crossfire Hurricane in the first place. And we know the answer to that, too, thanks to the declassification of the Opening EC. There was none. It was all a hoax.
This is the Big Picture conspiracy that we'll be hearing about as we approach Election 2020. And it's what all this ginned up BS about BLM and every other tempest in a teapot is all about: desperately trying to distract attention from the Big Picture story that Barr and Durham will be putting into final form.
ADDENDUM: The beauty of bringing this as a conspiracy to defraud is that for each separate act that helped further the goal of the conspiracy--whether the act was criminal in itself or not--as long as that act helped to further the goals of the conspiracy it becomes a criminal act. And the prosecutors will be able to present the entire conspiracy against Trump to a jury to explain why the given act is important. The possibilities in this should give Durham enormous leverage against potential defendants.
I had to laugh earlier when I read about this at CTH. Sundance has the nerve to now tell his readers that Barr and Durham--well, Durham; sundance can't get himself to actually mention Barr--are doing something rather smart. Thanks, sundance! No doubt Barr and Durham are reassured by sundance's pat on the back.
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.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
A DC jury?ReplyDelete
Very coherent explication of how it all ties together as a conspiracy, and thus why Barr/Durham have been focused on the ICA.ReplyDelete
Both DiGenova and John Solomon are saying they expect indictments this month, the latter being careful to tamp down wild expectations by indicating it may be a modest number of people being indicted (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan being among the most likely, w/RR possibly thrown in as well.)
I'm guessing if this is true, it means there have to be some cooperating witnesses assisting the defense (which explains why they aren't being named as targets.) Clinesmith is perhaps the most obvious, with Comey's counsel, Baker, being another potential turncoat from the conspirators.
I don't want to sound like Captain Suckup here, but in all honesty I can't remember the last time I so enjoyed each and every paragraph of a blog post. Your case that DOJ will end up charging a conspiracy to defraud the government of honest services is coming together quite nicely, it seems, and I just really enjoyed reading the way you laid it out here tonight.ReplyDelete
If I seem a bit emotional, it's because we really are experiencing a major moment in history - for this country and really for the whole world - and I just feel very tightly plugged into that moment when I read people who I'm convinced have it right and whose take on things will soon enough be vindicated by events.
All of us here understand pretty well what actually happened over the last 4 years - certainly from a big-picture standpoint. But what the law will allow the DOJ to charge or not charge is above most of our pay grades, so it's great to have your expertise here shine a nice bright light on that particular path.
I don't want to give the impression that this is easy. The outlines are clear enough, but every element has to be proven. With something this big Barr/Durham are not going to be satisfied with some half-ass case. Fortuntately, they appear to have both cooperating witnesses and documentary evidence.Delete
Pretty obvious reason why Strzok texted page "There's no there, there."ReplyDelete
The documentary evidence trail is overwhelming and, as such, is the Achilles heel of the Deep State strategy to discredit any future prosecution of the coup conspirators. It helps to recall that in 2016 Hillary's coronation was widely viewed as inevitable and the Deep State still owned all the levers of power in DC. This hubris made them sloppy, and very little was done to hide their tracks. Later, in 2017, an effort was made to destroy some evidence, but this was undermined by the actions of some honorable lurkers at the bottom of the Executive Branch pyramid. Lots of smoking gun evidence is yet to be revealed.ReplyDelete
The next major development will occur when Comey flips. Brennan cannot survive that, and he is the Deep State designated Fall Guy. And if Brennan gets serious prison time, he will sing mightily.
I agree that the presence of documentary evidence could be the key. I'm cautiously optimistic that this disclosure of previously hidden docs will sway both public opinion as well as any jury. Revelations like that have a powerful effect.Delete
If some like Obama, Lynch, Page and Clinton don't pay a price, at least I hope that someone who flips, as Unknown says Comey will, will be required to clearly state that these rats did wrong, too.Delete
For example, Obama isn't prosecuted but his crimes are laid out for all to see. I want to see all the mud thrown on him stick like glue so that the world knows what an ugly man he really is.
My contempt for him, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Harry Reid, Schiff and others runs deep.
Comey may flip on Susan Rice too as it seems she has contradictory statements in her "note to self" from the Jan. 5th meeting implicating Comey.Delete
Adam Mill had a column at the American Thinker and his list sounds similar to John Solomon's. One would think that Clapper and Weissmann would be on the list.ReplyDelete
Bruce Ohr was on Adams' list.
With cooperating witnesses, one would think that the list would be extensive. The question in my mind is to John Solomon and Adam Mill have sources or are they simply speculating?
Maybe there will be a small number of indictments and a large number of unindicted co-conspirators.
Solomon has sources. No idea about the other guy.Delete
One reason for a limited number of targets and a large cast of unindicted co-conspirators laid out in the specification of offense is that Durham and Barr do not want to get hung up on cases where it isn't a slam dunk conviction.
What matters is holding the lead conspirators to account for their crimes, when there is sufficient evidence to make conviction virtually certain.
Also, do not overlook the fact Durham/DOJ can come back with additional indictments later, when they have more evidence and flipped witnesses who want plea deals.
I would look for this after the election, assuming Trump is reelected.
If the number of indicted people is small, does that indicate that others took plea agreements and aren't getting off scot-free?
For example, James Baker and Kevin Clinesmith aren't in the list of indictments, but they have agreed to a deal where the prosecutors recommend probation or a prison term of x number of years?
Here they are.ReplyDelete
Familiar Names That May Appear in Durham Indictments found at https://amgreatness.com/2020/06/10/familiar-names-that-may-appear-in-durham-indictments/
Sorry for the lack of links. I was up late doing Deep State research and got up early this morning and all the brain cells aren't awake.
Listen to the writ of mandamus hearing live at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15exlPAA3UReplyDelete
Leslie McAdoo Gordon live tweets at https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon
Mark, Where was AG Lynch during all of this? why is she not noted much anywhere?ReplyDelete
She tried to palm decisions off on others. So far it seems to have worked for her.Delete
Annex A should have been declassified years ago.ReplyDelete
Excellent point, Mike. Two words: Dan Coats.Delete
I hear you on Dan Coats. But I also wonder if delays in de-classification work to the advantage of prosecutors, so as not to give away the game. Just a thought. Transparency and accountability are to be preferred, but for people who have hidden behind the cloak of classification--live by the sword, die by the sword.Delete
In this case I don't think that's a factor, for the simple reason that the substance of Annex A--the "dossier"--was leaked to the MSM by the time of the inauguration. Therefore I don't see what the point would be from a prosecutive standpoint. The main culprits already knew what was in Annex A, anyway.Delete