Pages

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

A Reminder About USA John Bash's Unmasking Investigation

It's hard to remember all the events and names surrounding the Russia Hoax and the subsequent investigations of the hoax. This morning I thought it was news that USA John Bash had been named to investigate the unmaskings that were conducted so broadly by the Obama administration. In fact, however, I did a post on that back on May 20.

However, there was an interesting tidbit in Bill Barr's exchange today with Jim Jordan. Jordan--obviously not up to speed on this issue--asked whether Durham was investigating the many unmaskings in the final days of the Obama administration. Barr responded that, "actually," Bash's investigation covered "a much longer period of time." So, NOT just "the final days" of the Obama administration.

With that in mind, here's what I wrote back in May, quoting Kerri Kupec, who stresses that the unmaskings can "add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events." I like that!

=======================


News: Bash, Rosenstein, Sullivan
Catching up on the news right now--we can do it quickly.

AG Barr has appointed John Franklin Bash III--currently US Attorney for the Western District of Texas (i.e., San Antonio) to probe more deeply into "certain aspects" of the Deep State unmaskings of Donald Trump and members of his campaign and administration--which is to say, the "certain aspects" will concern unmaskings that took place both "before and after the 2016 election." That's according to FoxNews. DoJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec noted that while unmasking isn't illegal, what Barr is having Bash examine could play into the bigger picture investigation that John Durham is conducting:

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events."

"Big picture?" Can you say "conspiracy"? I sure can. As I noted last night in a comment, Bash will certainly be examining whether any unmaskings can be associated with illegal leaks targeting the Trump administration, which have been rampant right up to the present. However, even unmaskings that cannot be associated with specific criminal acts may be associated with the "big picture" conspiracy. If those unmaskings can be seen to be in furtherance of the conspiracy, they become criminal acts in and of themselves. Obviously Barr thinks that Durham has come up with something that's worth pursuing regarding the unmaskings. He wouldn't be pulling a US Attorney from a major metro area if he didn't think so.

Interestingly, Bash has the distinction of having been one of the very few non-girl law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh.


14 comments:

  1. I've forgotten all about this the past few months. Pretty quiet which I assume means progressing nicely. THanks for the reminder Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's almost as if he isn't putting all his eggs in one basket. Seeding the investigations over multiple USA's....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fine, if the USAs aren't blocked from mutual consultation about, say, vibes from perps.
      If the regs outright prohibit such mutual consultation, the drawbacks of separating eggs into different buckets may exceed the bennies.

      Delete
  3. Question for MW:

    Do you have any thoughts on why Barr choose to talk about Bash's unmasking investigation today?

    One possibility is that Barr is going to blind-side Dems by bringing indictments from Bash's investigation before Durham's. The beauty of it is if he's got plea deals from unmaskers, and from MSM journos who received leaks (because if the journos are in agreement with the object of a criminal conspiracy, even legal acts -- like publishing leaked info from unmaskers -- in furtherance constitute conspiracy,) and the pleas deals include the journos as well as unmaskers allocuting to conspiracy charges, it not only allows prosecution and conviction of the lead conspirators, but also discredits the MSM that has been pushing the fake Collusion news as part of the conspiracy.

    In short, discrediting the Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists is a prerequisite for Durham's indictments to be seen by the public in a fair light, which can only be done after the MSM conspirators publicly confess to their participation in the the conspiracy, thus discrediting any attempt by the MSM to spin Durham's indictments.

    Very speculative, but I can't really see why else Barr brought up Bash's investigation today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barr didn't bring it up. Jordan did, and Jordan clearly had forgotten that DoJ had announced it two months ago. Jordan acted genuinely surprised, like this was new news, instead of old news. Had me going for a while.

      Delete
    2. In fact, Jordan said "we didn't know this", after Barr responded with this detail.

      Delete
  4. This conspiracy is so huge, with so many players, content, and interconnections, it would be helpful to have a wiki.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps not as effective as a Wiki, and always needs updating seemingly, but nonetheless I've always thought this infographic was rather effective.

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html

      Delete
    2. @Ray - SoCal

      Jeff Carlson has written a 'wiki' which captures the 'sprawling' nature of the conspiracy. Of course I can't vouch for its absolute accuracy. It is mind-boggling in its scope.

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html

      Delete
  5. Brit Hume tweeted this morning the following:

    "People wondering why we don’t have better presidential choices than we are getting this year should think about the Barr hearing yesterday. Why would people of quality and ability want to expose themselves to the poisonous climate of our political life today?"

    https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1288465418940817408

    This is the kind of Washington apologist equivocation which drives me crazy. If Hume had any sense he would be all in for Trump and leave out the bit about better presidential choices. Its just a bone for friends inside the beltway to show he, too, gets it: Orange Man Bad. I have made the same comment about Andrew McCarthy and Charles Lipson. They don't understand this game is for all the marbles and Trump is our last, best hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is that they (esp. Hume) do get much of it, but "can't" tell it as it really is, since that'd mean pointing fingers at Beautiful People.
      If Hume did this, he'd need an army of bodyguards, at least when he's around the Beltway area.

      Delete
    2. My guess is that Hume etc. will keep rather low, until Barr shows that he can actually hit real paydirt, or until some thing like it shows, that someone can really put the DS/ SJW juggernaut on its heels.
      So far this year, Big Mo has been (esp. with lockdowns, & tepid responses to riots) all on the Dems' side.

      Delete
  6. And, I can see why Hume etc., would tend toward the tall grass, seeing as The Dems strut around, as if this whole ballgame is *in the bag* for them, while guys like Mittens slobber all over them, often leaving guys like Meadows hanging out to dry.

    ReplyDelete