Pages

Monday, July 27, 2020

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been predicated on the Downer - Papadopoulos bar conversation, the ICA in effect--although not in formal reality--superseded that narrative except for occasional tactical purposes when the Dossier came under fire.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."

48 comments:

  1. Yeah. much hinges on what super-dirt Comey can cough-up, but also key are the aspects i keep posting on, about the election outcome.
    If he sings and Biden wins, he figures to end up wearing a Cement Overcoat, or end up like the Spilotros, shortly after Biden takes office.
    If I were Barr, such aspects would lead me to settle for relative wrist-slapping of Comey, lest Mr. Higher Loyalty opt for ensuring, that TPTB have no motive to Cement him.

    I gather that TPTB will be fine with him going to trial, and falling on his sword there (e.g. clinging to taking of the 5th).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Barr will be testifying tomorrow, Tue July 28, in the House, in case anyone's interested.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Recent polling data, suspect as it is, still quite weakens Barr's leverage.
    Particularly in view of the Left's recent show, of it's ability to summon its antiFa etc. flock to drastic measures (as if there was much doubt of that, among those who really know Power Politics).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As to Antifa, the Democrats think they are in control but they are learning differently in Seattle and Portland. Antifa has shown their goal is anarchy not Democrat party victory. They're not even Leninist in that respect, willing to employ useful idiots in the road to power.

      Delete
  4. I, too, wonder what Comey could offer.

    Above him would be only (a) Obama, who won't be prosecuted because he's a former head of state; (b) Biden, who's not competent to stand trial even if he weren't nominally the Democratic candidate; and (c) Clinton, who nobody dares touch for reasons that are by design both well-known and deniable.

    Below him would be other coup participants that Durham has already got. However, Comey might also provide information about the networks and activities. That could lead to additional evidence and indictments, assuming that Barr-Durham are serious and not just for show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a matter of perspective. I can't see how Comey escapes a felony at this point. I think they have the proof and he was too central to the coup attempt--without the complicity of the FBI Director basically nothing of importance could have been put in motion. Barr can't let him off the hook, IMO.

      OTOH, perspective. Between Comey and Obama were other players--Rice, Talbott, Nuland, and others. How does Barr assess their importance, is one question, and the other is, Can Comey deliver?

      Delete
    2. Don't forget AG Lynch. Comey was personally briefing her about Carter Page in the Spring on 2016, as soon as his joining the Trump Campaign's foreign advisory board was announced publicly..

      Delete
    3. I haven't forgotten that meeting, but Lynch so far seems to have done an extraordinarily good job of keeping her fingerprints of incriminating acts. She had to have known what was up, IMO, but she seems to have insulated herself from complicity.

      Now, digging back into the Hillary case is a different story. But we haven't seen indications of that so far.

      Delete
    4. And that's exactly why I think SHE set up Bill Clinton at the airport -- because she didn't want to make the decision to NOT prosecute Hillary, and have to answer to Congressional inquiry afterwards.

      She, knowing the Comey cannot resist the limelight and making himself the center of attention, orchestrated her own recusal, adn in so doing knew that Comey could not resist jumping in and making the call which was not his to make.

      And that got Lynch out of the line of fire from Congress.

      Delete
    5. Yes, but she had a duty to blow the whistle on this stuff.

      Rob S

      Delete
    6. Rob, of course I agree, but in the real world it's much harder to translate that into a conviction or even a plea.

      Delete
  5. If Comey believe the polls and believes a Biden Presidency would pardon him, how would he act?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a very dangerous thing to bet on for a guy in his position.

      Delete
    2. The democrats are in a dangerous position. They've nominated a dementia addled man for their nominee. If there is a debate, the nation will witness his mental decline even if the moderators try to protect him. They know how weak the hand is they hold; why else would they advocate mail-in voting. That's an invitation for chaos as is playing out in a New Jersey race - and that is what they want. Contest an election due to massive fraud. They have sold out the ideals of the founding fathers for power. They can't stop now.

      DJL

      Delete
    3. Agreed. They're trying to deflect all that with bogus polling but I doubt that can swing an election.

      Delete
    4. "They have sold out the ideals of the founding fathers for power."

      But, what about "our democracy!" ???

      Delete
    5. Yeah, contest an election due to massive fraud.
      While the results are being litigated, shoot the Establishment a tacit ultimatum, e.g. by sending antiFa etc. to sabotage the *hyper-complex* economy's weakest links (e.g. server farms).

      The message being, "cave to us, or see the whole system destroyed", hoping that RINOS like Mittens will sell DJT out, and try to cut deals, so as to (even if only temporarily) save their skins/ empires.

      The Dem position may be weak in certain regards, but they have at least one ultra-precious advantage: a totally united mass army, of troops willing to do *anything* to "Refuse Fascism".
      Whereas, they're opposed by a GOP, composed mainly of decent but worn-out Boomers, and funded largely by corporate *backstabbers*.

      (Just as Hitler had a fervently loyal SA, by which
      Hindenburg's paymasters could be nudged, into spurring the oldster into playing ball.
      Whereas, most of his foes were "respectable" folk, akin to Mittens and the Fortune 500.
      He once said of them: "they can't see beyond the wares they peddle!")

      Delete
    6. Slightly off topic but since you raise it, again, i think we make a mistake thinking that Antifa takes anything like orders from Democrats. Yes, the Dims find Antifa useful in ways but also a huge electoral risk by scaring suburbanites to vote safety first. Antifa is the proverbial tiger by the tail and Dems have loosed it with no way to control it now. Hence the ridiculous attempts by Nadler to call Portland riots a "myth" and Propaganda Media narrative of mostly peaceful riots.

      Delete
    7. Dems seem to be only very slowly coming to that realization. Too late, IMO, to unown this. Just yesterday Nadler was defending Antifa, and Barr is loaded for bear today.

      Delete
  6. Mueller and Brennan are the scalps Barr wants IMHO, but Mueller in particular. I offer the following 5 points in support: 1) Barr seems to have had a longstanding contempt for Mueller's legal/intellectual acumen and ethics going back to at least when Mueller served as one of his Associate Attorney Generals in the Bush 41 Administration. 2) Barr let his availability for coming out of retirement be known by his open letter to DAG Rosenstein in which he successfully anticipated and parried each of Mueller/Weissman's specious obstruction theories. 3) Whatever activity occurred in Comey's FBI between 4 September 2013 and 9 May 2017 were performed at the initiative of Mueller's lieutenants and his hand picked successor--his technical excuse of being nothing more than a civilian private citizen during the development of the Steele-Brennan-Comey conspiracy to defraud the United States is laughable. 4) Mueller was the FBI Director who approved the creation of the illegal 702 FISA programs that made widespread unlawful surveillance on American citizens by unnamed partner agencies within the USIC possible in the first place according to Judge Collyers April 2017 report. 5) On top of a general distaste for special counsels that began with his handling of Lawrence Walsh of Iran-Contra fame, AG Barr is a lifelong proponent of the unitary executive theory of the presidency and truly despises any federal prosecutor that would presume to exercise the powers of the presidency without the consultation, let alone approval of the President. Throw on the practical matter that most of these prima donna lawyers--Mueller, Fitzgerald, Walsh, Jaworski seem to always go after Republican administrations. Put Mueller in jail and no one will ever be volunteering to be appointed special counsel again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, and I've argued in the past that Durham in particular probably believes he has unfinished business with Durham. Barr probably didn't pick Durham out of a hat.

      However, I doubt that Comey can help re Mueller. RR might be a very different matter. The Danchenko interview, the Strzok notes, the final FISA, the Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Manafort cases may all play into a case against Mueller and Weissmann.

      Delete
    2. I'll bet that you mean "Durham in particular probably believes he has unfinished business with MUELLER".

      Delete
    3. I would imagine many if not all of my points have been informed by reading your blog since 2017. I disagree with you on Comey being able to help on Mueller. My understanding is that they had extensive conversations prior to Mueller's appointment as SCO but after Comey's firing. The question is going to come down to the classic Howard Baker question, "what did {Mueller} know, and when did he know it?"

      I'm not a lawyer here, but it seem to me, The second the FBI finished interrogating Danchenko they went from victims of a conspiracy to defraud the United States to coconspirators in that same conspiracy, which is ongoing to this day. If Comey can show that Mueller knew about Danchenko--if he knew that the predicate for the investigation he was assuming control over was rooted in fraud...

      Delete
    4. @M. P. Lampton

      Thanks for the reminder:

      https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/comey-mueller-testimony-russia-239214

      The difficulty for Comey in getting a favorable plea--and I'm assuming Durham has the goods on him--is being able to provide evidence that can stick. He said he said stuff probably isn't good enough.

      Delete
    5. But as we saw with the President, Comey is a stickler for taking immediately contemporaneous, meticulously detailed, and self-serving notes. Some of which have a rather transcript like quality to them--as if he was relying on the assistance of a digital recording device...

      Delete
    6. Recordings are key when it comes to a trial. That's why I reminded of what a slippery operator Comey is. If he has recordings all bets are off.

      Delete
    7. I think Barr would like to avoid having Mueller indicted, but will leave that decision to Durham. Barr has known Mueller for a long time and their wives are very good friends; they attended the same Bible Study.

      Delete
  7. I mentioned it some months ago, but Comey's desire, as told to me by his sister over a decade ago and before his stint at the FBI, was to be Attorney General. Presumably, as it now appears, it was to be Hillary Clinton's Attorney General, given his efforts to protect her during the 2016 campaign.

    And from the looks of it, Comey is smack in the middle of the hoax and coup effort. I don't see him delivering anyone above. Biden is an empty suit with no actual authority. Obama? I doubt he ever did more than insinuate what he thought should happen. He's the epitome of "there's no there, there!" Obama truly was Chauncey Gardner (Chance the gardener) from the Peter Sellers' movie "Being There."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Undercover Huber
    @JohnWHuber
    ·
    3h
    AG Barr testifies to Nadler’s Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Things to watch for:

    —A staged “peaceful protest”

    —Attempts to discredit Barr, really designed to undermine Durham probe

    —Interruptions. Lots of them

    —Roger Stone conspiracy theories

    —Barr eating Nadlers lunch bigly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> —Barr eating Nadlers lunch bigly <<

      That could take several days ...

      Delete
    2. I think Nadler will regret bringing Barr before the committee tomorrow.

      Delete
    3. Think of the cholesterol!

      Delete
  9. Mark: Your $64M question: "Did Comey undertake the role he played strictly on his own, or was he doing so at the behest of others?"

    If looking for advancement the only other choices would be in the Intelligence area I presume or possibly a Cabinet level position IMO. Comey's ego is pretty darn large and I don't doubt for a second that he felt it his "duty and obligation" to save our country. Hence I believe he was doing this on his own. Another thought perhaps, is it possible the "Clinton's or Clinton Foundation" was somehow funding this dishevel occurring within the FBI/DOJ? Like underwriting the "bad guys" somehow monetarily?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money would have been sweet, no doubt, but power (meaning position/indebtedness is the coin of the realm in DC.

      Delete
  10. Must See TV?

    Hearings Covered By C-SPAN
    TUESDAY, JULY 28 10:00AM ET
    House Judiciary CommitteeAttorney General Barr Testifies on Justice Department Mission & Programs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barr has released his prepared statement, and he's not backing off from anything. In fact, he's getting in their faces. I expect he'll do his usual blandly dismissive routine, with occasional zingers.

      Delete
    2. Hearing delayed 45 minutes. Jerry Nadler’s car was involved in accident this morning (Washington Examiner)

      (Did anyone notice whether Nadler’s feet were cold?)

      Delete
    3. @Bebe; Can Nadler see over the steering wheel?

      Delete
  11. AC, he wasn’t driving. Probably in the booster seat in the rear, per the law.

    Right now he is going full all-out bully in a personal attack on AG Barr.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Woohoo! Jim Jordan, ranking member, hit the ground running with one word: “SPYING!” And he is prosecuting a great case… Love that man.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is just another showcase for Democrat vitriol against the President. The “hearing” for AG Barr is just Nadler’s latest vehicle. May it also crash.

    ReplyDelete
  14. FLASH TRAFFIC:

    Senate report on ICA just declassified and released:

    A quick skim indicates potential blockbuster revelations

    MUST READ:

    Assistant Director opposed inclusion of Dossier Material in ICA, grudgingly accepted 2 page summary as an Annex. Told Senate committee she disowned everything after page 1 of the annex. Said there is no intelligence to support those claims.

    Decision to include Dossier material was debated in Dec. 2016, Obama demand ALL intelligence must be incorporated despite ICA's not normally allowed to include ongoing investigative material.

    >> https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4_Excerpt.pdf <<

    ReplyDelete
  15. >> Quote:
    Director Brennan reiterated the CIA's reservations about the FBI's Steele material, noting that the DDA "was very concerned about polluting the ICA with this material," and that "there was stiff opposition, especially from CIA, to include that material either in essence or in substance in that report," which "was not used in any way as far as the judgments in the ICA were concerned."' <<


    Quick Take: FBI (COMEY et al) were fanatical about jamming Steele unvetted, third/fourth hand gossip into ICA, preferably woven into narrative text, or at least as a summary Annex. I'm guessing this is related to the ICA inclusion of Dossier gossip being the "hook" news media needed to publish unverified/unverifiable Dossier material.

    The admission of the Dossier claims being unverified at this point illuminate the intentional falsehood of renewing the CP FISA warrant in January, with claims to the court that everything in the application had been "verified" (Woods Procedure.)

    This appears to be hard evidence that FBI knew Dossier material was unverified garbage by December, and renewed the CP FISA 3 more times -- meaning they knowingly lied to the court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO, the insistence of the FBI--Comey personally--in including what they admitted was unverified, and confirmed to be fiction within a few weeks is the big point. Why was the FBI so insistent? We know Durham wants to get to that. It seems clear that, no matter what Obama said, CIA would have left it out. Comey had reasons.

      Impression: Brennan is very slick in straddling fences.

      Delete
    2. Wonder if Comey was conspiring with Clapper(?) to get it included, so as to give MSM the "hook" they needed to publish Dossier, and without which, they could not publish, as it was unverifiable to the MSM.

      Inclusion in ICA, and briefing of ICA to Obama and Trump was the trigger for MSM to have the excuse ("hook") on which to hang publication of unverified material.

      Delete
    3. Another impression: Senate report suggests Comey far more fanatical about Steele material being included in text of ICA than even McCabe, who ultimately agreed to it being relegated to a two page summary as an Annex.

      I would have expected the opposite -- McCabe bing the one pushing of Steele's unverified gossip being included in the body of the ICA, and Comey be more detached and thus less obstinate.

      If these accounts are accurate (?) it paints Comey as an active participant and lead actor/driver in the conspiracy to propagate the Russia Collusion Hoax.

      Delete
    4. I don't see anything to really base a view re McCabe on. Only one ref to "McCabe." "Deputy Director
      McCabe agreed to place the material in an annex." Period.

      Delete