What Kind Of Deal Could Comey Make?

Yesterday, commenting on a fine article by Shipwreckedcrew, I pointed out that in January, 2017, the FBI did two things that tied them firmly to the Steele Dossier:

1) At the beginning of the month they inserted a two page summary of the Dossier as Annex A to the Intel Community Assessment (ICA). This placed an Intel Community seal of approval on the Dossier, and drove all subsequent events in the attempted coup against Trump--especially the institution of the Team Mueller witchhunt. Even though Crossfire Hurricane had supposedly been predicated on the Downer - Papadopoulos bar conversation, the ICA in effect--although not in formal reality--superseded that narrative except for occasional tactical purposes when the Dossier came under fire.

2) Toward the end of the month, following Trump's inauguration, the FBI appears to have made the decision to take over operation of Chris Steele's notional "Primary Subsource" (PSS), Igor Danchenko. The FBI had known Danchenko's identity since before the 2016 election, which means they also knew that he was an employee of the premier Dem thinktank The Brookings Institute--then run by long time Clinton crony Strobe Talbott. Further, the vetting interview with the Washington based Danchenko confirmed definitively what the Bureau would have long suspected--that the Dossier was a hoax concocted by the Clinton campaign's "opposition research" arm (spearheaded by Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS, for which Steele was simply a subcontractor, probably used as a frontman to insulate the US operatives). Danchenko appears to have been unproductive in the role of a FBI source, but this action again tied the FBI closely to the Dossier. They could not disavow the Dossier for purposes of the ongoing FISA operation as long as they were also trying to mine its supposed sources for more "dirt" on Trump.

This all plays into the very recent rumors that Comey has been interviewed by John Durham. I gave it as my view that Comey would never sit for an interview with Durham except as part of a plea agreement. That's simply common sense--there would be no benefit for Comey in submitting to an interview under any other circumstances. If here were called before a GJ he would simply be forced to take the 5th.

Thus, I wrote:


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

Now you can see why I was convinced that Comey and McCabe would absolutely have been made aware of the results of the Danchenko interview, and not just in some airy, general kind of way. This was a shift in gears, a hoped for new initiative that could lead to taking down the President of the United States. There was NOTHING of more importance in the world of the FBI than this. Nobody in the FBI below the Director was going to take that responsibility on themselves, and the Director had to be aware of anything of importance going forward with a coup. Even something that might otherwise seem routine, such as a decision to open Danchenko as a CHS, could not have been regarded as routine business in such circumstances, because all this was being done with no predication, no basis at all for investigating the President of the United States. It was all a pretext. A hoax.

You can bet that John Durham has been discussing all this with Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, James Baker, and others at both the FBI and DoJ. I simply cannot see how Comey is not between a rock and a hard place, unless something has gone terribly wrong with the Durham investigation. If even half of this scenario is accurate, Comey should be facing criminal charges.

And that leads to interesting speculation regarding the rumors that he has been interviewed by Durham. Earlier today I stated that I can't see Comey doing an interview except in the context of a plea deal. I'll stick to that. The question then becomes, Does Comey have any bargaining chips in plea negotiations with Durham? Could he seek a use immunity agreement based on those chips? The only such chips I can imagine would be if Comey could offer confirmation--solid confirmation--that he was taking direction in all this from persons higher up in the DC world than he.

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

Earlier today I listened to Dan Bongino 1306. Once Dan got into the Russia Hoax portion of his program he made a number of important points, parts of which I've mentioned. The primary point is that the revelation of Danchenko--a Brookings employee--as the notional source for the Dossier shines a light on Danchenko's connections to Brookings and Brookings' connections to the Clintons. Names that came up included Strobe Talbott and Victoria Nuland--major Deep State players for many years--and, of course, Fiona Hill, who had ties to both Danchenko and Steele as well as Brookings. Beyond that, however, Hill is closely tied to the fake impeachment "Ukraine Hoax". Bongino's point in this is that all this people knew each other. The fake impeachment was no more than a follow on to the failure of the Team Mueller witchhunt.

Comey, of course, was out of the picture by May, 2017--at least as far as playing an active decision making role. Up until that point, however, he had been a lead player in the coup attempt. The question is: Did Comey undertake the role he played strictly on his own, or was he doing so at the behest of others? My belief is that Comey's involvement was undertaken for career advancement purposes and so it had to have been at the behest of others. In the nature of things, those others would have had to have been near the very top of the Establishment and Deep State pecking order if they were to be able to reward Comey for his perfidy.

Bill Barr is no naif in any of this, nor is Durham. Comey understands what they want from him. Comey makes an excellent indictment target. Indeed, even if he is able to deliver a person or persons above him to Barr/Durham, I can't see Comey not being required to plead to a felony. The sticking point in such a deal could be whether Comey can actually come up with solid confirmation that he was acting for the interests of others. That's a tough one, but not impossible with a slippery operator like Comey. But if Comey can't deliver, then Barr and Durham might well prefer to take him to trial with the idea of forcing him to seek to minimize his own role by implicating others and claiming he did what he did with a mistaken belief in the legitimacy of what he was asked to do.

Either way you slice it, it makes for delicate negotiations. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but at a minimum this is an angle to keep in mind in the coming weeks--before "the end of the summer", as mentioned by Barr as his target date for "developments."