Ratcliffe's Coming Declassification May Mean No Prosecution Of Brennan

That's the main theme of John Solomon's latest article:

CIA conduct during Russia assessment may be next boomerang in probe of investigators 

DNI hints new declassification coming soon. Some want it to be a congressional complaint to the CIA inspector general questioning the Obama intelligence assessment on Russian intentions.

Back in May I quoted a 25 year national security specialist, Fred Fleitz:

... CIA has been concealing a House Intelligence report that provides evidence that Putin and Russia wanted Hillary to win. This evidence was considered "strong" by CIA analysts but was excluded from the ICA over their objections by John Brennan. "Weak" evidence that maybe Russia wanted Trump to win was included by Brennan over the objections of the same CIA analysts.

This is what Solomon is talking about, and it boils down to what Bill Barr has said about prosecutions and wrongdoing: Not every abuse of power is a crime.

Clearly there are those--including myself--who strongly believe that Brennan abused his power outrageously. However, if Solomon is right, then it could mean that Brennan is out of the woods:

If Ratcliffe declassifies the House intelligence panel's complaint to the CIA inspector general, it will signal that Durham does not believe the release would impact any prosecution and could mean no charges are forthcoming concerning the assessment. 

But the release of the report would be significant nonetheless, since both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee have sided with Brennan and agreed Russia was trying to help Trump win. 

The belated emergence of evidence — such as dissenting analysts — that calls into question a three-year-old finding would be jarring, especially if it occurred before the election.

The timing of this declassification is probably tied to Durham's interview of Brennan. Presumably Durham now has a fixed account from Brennan for what Brennan did. If, as Joe diGenova recently maintained, Brennan will be required to testify against Comey, this could play a role.

Losers Of The World Unite!

I got this courtesy of TGP, via Baker City Herald:

A Clackamas man and his teenage son were both arrested early Monday after an Oregon State Police trooper saw the pair apparently racing at over 100 mph in separate vehicles on Interstate 84 near North Powder. 

The father, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another person and unlawful possession of a firearm. He was also cited for driving while uninsured, driving while suspended, and for speeding.

His 17-year-old son, whose name was not listed in a police report, was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Scratch the surface just a little bit and that's who these Antifa/BLM folks are: Losers. And that's the Dem base now.

Portland Antifa Killer Had Previous Firearm Arrest

Shipwreckedcrew has a thorough article:

Suspect in Portland Killing: Self-Identified Antifa “Security” Previously Arrested For Possessing Firearm — Not Charged By Portland DA

However, SWC doesn't really address what that prior firearms related arrest was actually about. The reason I mention that is because Oregon--contrary to what you might expect--has rather liberal gun laws: it's a "shall issue" concealed carry and open carry state with statewide preemption. HOWEVER ...

Portland bans loaded firearms in all public places for anyone who doesn't have a license. So, I suspect he was arrested for having a loaded firearm in a public place in Portland without a license. That public place was a demonstration.

Here are some highlights from the article. This guy sounds like he fits the typical Antifa profile. Crazy. Don't take my word for it--his family says so:

Flynn Petition For Mandamus Denied

It comes as no surprise that the Obama judges on the DC Circuit have denied the petition for mandamus in the Flynn case and sent the case back to Sullivan for further abusive political proceedings and delays. What comes as somewhat of a surprise is that they did so without spelling out virtually anything in the way of guidelines for how Sullivan may conduct a hearing. Specifically, the per curiam opinion allows Sullivan's appointment of an "amicus" to stand and states only:

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. As the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.

This is no more than a fig leaf, a brief nod to rule of law while providing free rein to Sullivan to conduct a virtually unfettered political inquisition in a case that DoJ declines to prosecute. While Sullivan will ultimately be denied his wish to prosecute--with the assistance of a rabid "amicus", a friend of Sullivan but no friend of justice--the abuse will continue.

Strikingly, the opinion, in declining to remove Sullivan for bias, refuses to discuss the issue of Sullivan's claims that Flynn has committed perjury by withdrawing his plea--an extraordinarily tendentious claim that would prevent virtually any defendant from fighting back against an overbearing government that had coerced a guilty plea.

Overall, the opinion of the Obama judges is remarkably shallow, given the extremely serious Separation of Powers issues that are involved in this case. In essence, the Obama judges simply sidestep those issues, claiming that the only consideration that matters is that a final order must first be entered by Sullivan. The claim is that that will be time enough for the Executive to protect its interests and Constitutional rights on appeal. That would amount to an intolerable claim of judicial supremacy--except that we know that such a claim would only be made against Republican administrations by Democrat judges. The lack of principle in this is breathtaking--it's about the election, and that's it. If you want to make yourself stupider, I'm sure there will be no lack of blogs and articles dissecting this travesty of legality.

In the circumstances, my view is that DoJ has no choice but to appeal to the SCOTUS in order to defend the Executive's constitutional status as an independent branch of government with its own proper powers. Whether DoJ appeals or not, however, make no mistake about this: This is a victory for Obama, through his judges. Flynn will remain muzzled throughout the election campaign and a powerful voice of criticism against Obama will be silenced for the time. It's a shameful defeat--even though I very much doubt it will ultimately stand--for our constitutional order. My personal hope is that DoJ will appeal, simply to force Chief Justice Roberts to declare himself.

In what follows, I will quote extensively from the dissenting opinions of Judges Henderson and Rao. The two judges split the dissent. Henderson dealt with the issue of Sullivan's outrageous bias, while Rao dealt with the harm to the Executive. What I've done is to delete references for the sake of readability. I believe their opinions are clear enough to be read with profit by non-lawyers. You can access the full opinion here. Both opinions are outstanding. Henderson's moral outrage at justice denied is moving. Rao's powerful defense of the Constitution shames the Obama judges--if they were capable of shame. The excerpts follow:

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

'Mostly Peaceful' Protestors Flock To Kenosha From Out of State

The hapless governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, appealed to President of the United States Donald J. Trump not to travel to Kenosha. Trump, he said, is "divisive." I wonder. Is it divisive when people from outside Wisconsin--bringing fireworks, helmets, gas masks, protective vests, firearms, and suspected controlled substances--travel to his state and burn down a city? Seems like help from the Federal government might be welcomed, in the circumstances.

Fox is reporting:

Kenosha sees 175 arrested during civil unrest so far; 102 had addresses listed outside city, police say

Kenosha Police said in a media release that the arrests were from people located in 44 cities, although authorities didn't elaborate which states they came from. ... 

Thirty-four were arrested for violating curfew. The charges ranged from carrying concealed weapons, burglary and possession of controlled substances, police said. More than 20 firearms were seized. ... 

Kenosha police had arrested nine people traveling in vehicles with out-of-state license plates last Wednesday on suspicion of criminal conduct, according to a report. 

Inside the vehicles, officers found fireworks, helmets, gas masks, protective vests, and suspected controlled substances, police said.

That doesn't actually sound like "civil unrest". It sounds more like "civil war" on an interstate level.

Anecdotally, last week we read on police blogs that 'mostly peaceful' protestors were being bused in from Chicago.

Of course, many of the Wisconsin based participants in the sack of Kenosha came from cities other than Kenosha--including, if memory serves, all three of those who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse.

Also anecdotally, I heard from a completely reliable source over the weekend that the parking lot of a Piggly Wiggly food store in Kenosha was filled with cars bearing Minnesota license plates. Go figure, right?

John Ratcliffe: Durham's Investigation Is About Predication

Maria Bartiromo had Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on her show this morning for a fairly wide ranging interview. All the topics were of interest, but one that especially caught my attention was the segment dealing with the John Durham investigation. We've been hearing rumors about Durham nearing, if not the end of his whole investigation, then the end of a certain phase of it. The Clinesmith guilty plea has whet our appetites for more information, but it's been slow in coming--despite promises that we'll be hearing more before the end of the summer. Before we get into that, however, a few remarks.

As we know, as a Congressman, Ratcliffe was a key part of the investigation into the Russia Hoax--as an experienced former prosecutor he showed himself to be a skilled questioner who knew the value of careful preparation. Trump's decision to replace veteran Deep State operative and former senator Dan Coats with Ratcliffe as the head of the Intelligence Community was a shrewd pick. Coming at a time when the Barr/Durham investigation was picking up momentum, there was an obvious need for a DNI who could break through the bureaucratic logjams that Coats and others had constructed to protect the Deep State. The fact that Ratcliffe was an experienced former prosecutor who would understand what was involved in such a major investigation and, especially the legal issues involved in coordinating with a grand jury investigation was an important plus. When you add to that he years of experience in Congress investigating the Russia Hoax, his knowledge of the all the players both in Congress and the Deep State as they overlapped, it came as little surprise that the Deep State and GOP senators closed ranks against Ratcliffe. In the end, however, Trump (and probably Barr) persisted and won the day.

In the transcript of the relevant portion of the interview, note that Maria has focused on some key issues that we've been discussing in recent days. First, of course, she located the tape of then Congressman Ratcliffe clearly referring to disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's "changing evidence." Maria astutely relates the Clinesmith guilty plea to the entire three year investigation--and Ratcliffe picks up on that.

Note that Ratcliffe relates what Clinesmith did--"changing evidence"--not just to the final FISA application but to the origination of the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation. As he puts it, what Clinesmith did had to do with continuing the entire investigation. What's left unsaid, however, is that the continued focus of Durham--and Ratcliffe!--on the predication for Crossfire Hurricane also relates directly to the predication for Team Mueller witchhunt--the two are one and the same. Further, at the heart of his is Joe Pientka, who was the supervisor for the Crossfire Hurricane team and who wrote the EC recommending its closing. Also note that Ratcliffe, without being prompted, brings up the topic of the Intelligence Community Assessment--that can't be a coincidence.

Place Pientka into this context when you read about the ongoing coordination between Ratcliffe and Durham. The willingness of Durham to allow Ratcliffe to declassify some of the Pientka related documents and to allow Pientka to talk to Senate investigators in a tightly controlled setting suggests that Durham is still very much focused on the big picture conspiracy. Things appear to be coming to a head.

What Happens If Trump Loses?

Many readers will be familiar with Michael Anton's bombshell essay from 2016:

The Flight 93 Election 

The election of 2016 will test whether virtù remains in the core of the American nation. 

by Publius Decius Mus

And it really was a bombshell in conservative and, more generally, GOP circles.

Anton has a book that's due out on September 1, which in a sense updates that earlier essay in the context of the current election: The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return.

Today he gives a preview in a lengthy essay adapted from the book:

A Tyranny Perpetual and Universal? 

Is the leftist dream now within reach? If President Trump loses, we will find out. 

By Michael Anton • August 28, 2020

The essay is, as I say, quite lengthy. What I want to do here is present Anton's essential argument. However, because Anton's writing is quite clear, what I've done is to work up a shorter version of the essay. To do that I've edited it and have also inserted a relatively few paraphrases within brackets that keep the argument moving along, even while condensing the argument. Where there are no brackets the words are all Anton's, but even within brackets I have striven to use Anton's own words (such as "deep state"). To see it all, especially the large portions that I've left out, follow the link.

One thing to be aware of as you read. I've emphasized repeatedly over the months since Bill Barr reappeared on the public stage that Barr's major commitment, the principle that explains all that he does and stands for, is the proper role of the Executive--meaning, the presidency. That commitment is what explains the unrestrained rage of the Neoliberal oligarchs who rule America against Barr--who is the most effective force standing between the oligarchs and the president who would make America great again.

Here we go:

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

Two Views Of America--And Hope

There are a lot of disturbing things happening these days, and we can't help but be immersed in them. It's the man bites dog stuff that gets covered. I've been talking about the same stuff, too, and will be doing more of that today. So, I thought I'd lead off the day on a somewhat upbeat note, by quoting Roger Kimball:

After the RNC, I am confident Trump will triumph

The Democrats own the anarchy they have unleashed and abetted

In most cases, prediction in politics is a mug’s game. ... There are just too many future unknowns that can intrude and spoil your carefully reasoned calculations. ...

Which is why I hesitate to leap from the Democratic and Republican conventions that just ended to the natural prediction that Donald Trump is likely to win in something approaching a landslide. Were the election held right now, today, I believe that he would win with a commanding margin, far beyond the margin of fraud or (as a lawyer friend likes to put it) beyond any margin of litigation. But November 3 is still some 60 days off.  And the party that brought us the Robert Mueller entertainment, the Ukrainian telephone call distraction, the party that managed to weaponize a novel virus developed by China and deploy it against President Trump, and then encourage its proxies to riot and scream that everyone (except themselves) was racist — well, such a party is essentially unaccountable. Who knows what they will do next? Lincoln’s words, quoted by  Ben Carson in his masterly speech last night, are to the point. ‘Your purpose,’ said Lincoln in 1860, ‘is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.’ Now as then, the opponents of the President are not engaged in politics but the sedition that follows when politics fails. 

... 

In a way, Trump’s observation that ‘Americans build their future, we don’t tear down our past’ epitomized the essential difference between Trump’s vision and that of the Democrats. As I say, political prediction is a mug’s game, and I won’t venture one now. I will say, however, that this election will be, and will be seen to be, between two sharply different ideas of America. One sees America as the sinful impediment to human flourishing whose only hope, as Joe Biden (echoing Barack Obama) put it, lies in being ‘fundamentally transformed’. The other holds up the country as a land of hope and opportunity, ‘the last best hope of earth’ (Lincoln one final time). My sense is that an overwhelming majority of people prefer the latter to the former, especially as the Democrats have been courteous enough to demonstrate what ‘fundamental transformation’ is likely to look like on the streets of Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kenosha, DC, St Louis and elsewhere across the country. The Democrats own the anarchy they have unleashed and abetted. People almost never embrace anarchy. Ergo, Donald Trump is likely to win. I offer that not as a prediction, merely a confidence.

Commentators have described what's going on using slightly different words, but the thrust is basically the same--the Dems and their Antifa/BLM proxies are trying to hold America hostage, to extort America: Give us total power or else--as Rand Paul put it the other night--America will become Portland.

Kamala Harris has been quite explicit about that, in a video clip I picked up from Kamala puts a gun to our heads:

Kamala Harris says that the riots are not going to stop, ever, and to BEWARE. With a smile on her face. pic.twitter.com/xkwAUOMJcL

— 𝕔hi𝓁𝓁iຖ໐iˢ (@chiIIum) August 27, 2020

They own it, but the American people have it within their ability to disown them.

Update Re Kyle Rittenhouse

Apparently Rittenhouse's legal team has put out a statement. I couldn't locate it quickly with searches, but TGP has extensive excerpts. Of most interest is the following. Rittenhouse, who we learned previously, had been laid off a lifeguard job in IL during the pandemic, was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha:

In a statement by Rittenhouse’s legal team at Pierce Bainbridge, provided to the Gateway Pundit, “after Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters.” 

... 

“Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence,” the statement continues. “Business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.”

 What that means is that Rittenhouse is clear on IL charges--as are, presumably, his parents. If any federal charges might have applied, he's clear on those, too. On the other hand, the WI weapons charge--a misdemeanor for Rittenhouse, a minor--remains, and whoever supplied Rittenhouse with the rifle is in felony trouble.

Additionally, while Rittenhouse did a dumb thing, the fact that he didn't travel to Kenosha with a rifle he obtained in IL tends to make him look more dumb and less intent on hurting anyone.

AG Barr Speaks Out Re The Federal Courthouse In Portland

I thought this statement that Barr issued--after the 9th Circuit put a temporary hold on a District Court injunction targeting Federal LE agents in Portland--was worth reading in its entirety:


Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement on the Ninth Circuit's stay in Index Newspapers LLC, et al v. United States Marshals Service, et al:

“Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit entered an order temporarily blocking an injunction entered by a federal district court in Portland that imposed extensive but vaguely defined constraints on federal law enforcement personnel striving to protect the federal courthouse and surrounding areas in Portland from destruction.  In practical effect, the district court’s order prevented the federal government from effectively addressing violent mobs through the general crowd-control measures that are required, and it unacceptably increased the risk of serious injury to federal law enforcement officers.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision is an important step that will allow federal officers to continue carrying out their important security responsibilities without being subject to untenable conditions.

As the Department of Justice explained in our briefing, federal officers in Portland – like law enforcement in other parts of the country – have confronted aggressive mob violence.  Behind the veil of “protests,” highly organized violent operators have carried out direct attacks on federal personnel and property, particularly the federal courthouse in Portland.  Shielded by the crowds, which make it difficult for law enforcement to detect or reach them, violent opportunists in Portland have attacked the courthouse and federal officers with explosives, lasers, projectiles, and other dangerous devices.  In some cases, purported “journalists” or “legal observers” have provided cover for the violent offenders; in others, individuals wearing supposed press badges have themselves attacked law enforcement or trespassed on federal property.  More than 200 federal officers have been injured in Portland alone.

The Portland city government has the ability to stop this.  Instead, the city government has abetted the violence through action and inaction, neutered the ability of the police department to deal with the mobs, impeded the ability of police to coordinate with federal law enforcement, and refused to pursue charges against the rioters.  By contrast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Portland has charged 74 people with federal crimes arising from the Portland riots, including arson, assaulting federal officers, and destruction of federal property.  The message should be unmistakable:  The First Amendment protects the rights to speak and assemble, but not to attack people or property.  The Department of Justice will continue to fully and fairly enforce federal law against these violent rioters.”

UPDATED: Giant Conspiracy or Recreational Rioters?

That's the question Steve Sailer is asking in the wake of the bustdown on the RiotKitchen206 convoy near Kenosha yesterday.

What he means is, we've all heard about the Soros funding for Antifa/BLM, but is there a simpler explanation? Could it be that this is simply driven by the desire for sociopathic recreation? Sound familiar?

So is this a giant Soros-funded conspiracy? Or is it a bunch of Recreational Rioters who drive cross-country to get in on the latest riots?

For my part, I say, Why choose? Couldn't it be both--a marriage made in ... Hell?

Still, Sailer does seem to have their number:

My impressions are that white Antifa rioters seem disproportionately to be:

– pedophile
– transgender
– drug addict
– general criminal
– punk rocker
– enjoy vandalism and violence
– working or lower middle class by background
– physically unattractive
– firebugs: people who enjoy starting pretty, pretty fires

Joe Pientka To The Senate

As a witness, apparently. TGP is full of speculation about former Peter Strzok sidekick Joe Pientka and his wife, Melissa Pientka. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I believe there are simpler explanations. The original twitter thread by Catherine Herridge is sober enough, however.

My assumption from Herridge's account is that Pientka is cooperating with the Senate investigators voluntarily--unlike former head of FBI counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, who will only appear if subpoenaed. My takeaway from this is that it almost certainly means that Pientka has already cooperated fully with both IG Horowitz's FISA related investigation as well as with John Durham's more wide ranging investigation. Signs have, IMO, always pointed in that direction--it has long been apparent that Pientka disagreed with the framing of Flynn and, in the wake of that "awakening," may have realized the full scope of the Russia Hoax.

Thus, I assume that Pientka's period of cooperation with the Durham investigation is now complete and Pientka has been made available to the two Senate committees. More to the point, this almost certainly also means that Durham believes he has no further need to keep Pientka's cooperation confidential--Pientka's cooperation has already been put to whatever use it could have for investigative purposes. And that's another sign that an important phase of Durham's investigation--the pre-inauguration phase--is drawing to a close. A fact that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey is, no doubt, painfully aware of.

Herridge (edited only to form a continuous narrative):

Kyle Rittenhouse

I didn't really want to write about this, but it may be useful to place this kid in some sort of context.

I agree with those who maintain that, from a strictly legal point of view, he almost certainly shot three criminals in self defense.

However, that won't be the end of the story and it doesn't mean that either Rittenhouse or the other knuckleheads he was apparently with were behaving sensibly. He shouldn't have been on "riot duty"--contrary to what he told the Daily Caller, that wasn't his "job" because he wasn't trained for it. Rittenhouse's lack of training as well as the lack of training of the others he was with, showed in how events went down. They clearly had no coherent plan for what they intended to do if they were confronted or even surrounded by an aggressive and hostile crowd. The result was they got run out of the area they claimed to be defending, so from that standpoint they were ineffective.

That said, the people who hold the greatest responsibility for ALL the violence in Kenosha following the arrest of Jacob Blake are government officials. Above all, --and, above all, WI governor Tony Evers who turned down President Trump's offer of 500 National Guard troops to help an overstretched local law enforcement contingent.

Further, Rittenhouse was 17. I'm not an expert on IL or WI gun laws, but a cursory bit of research leads me to believe that he was not legally allowed to own or possess the rifle he was carrying in either state--no matter that WI is an "open carry" state. Gun laws can be a bit complicated, but it seems clear enough that he was in violation of IL law and almost certainly of WI law. Beyond that, whoever gave him access to the rifle is probably in serious trouble--at least in IL.

Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Naturally, we're finding out more and more about him as the day goes on.

George Parry Weighs In On The Floyd Toxicology Report

I'd like to draw attention to this excellent article:

Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin et al: The Prosecution’s Dirty Little Secret

Medical examiner’s memorandum on Floyd’s toxicology report proves cause of death to be drug overdose, not murder.

Many of you may be familiar with Parry, but it bears repeating:

George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. From 1978 to 1983 he was Chief of the Police Brutality/Misconduct Unit of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, which investigated and prosecuted use of deadly force by police. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net and may be reached by email at kignet1@gmail.com.

He actually knows what he's talking about and has a lot of experience in the specific area of police use of force.

In the first part of the article Parry cuts through the chaff and comes to the obvious conclusion. It's worth reading through, once again. Then he concludes by listing the legal issues that arise from the unpardonable hiding of the documents in this case from the public:

It is quite telling that this explosively exculpatory June 1 memorandum was not released by the prosecution until August 25, 2020. All of which prompts these questions: 

First, why did the prosecution wait three months to release this memorandum?

Second, if the prosecution had released this information in a timely fashion, would that have helped to quell the anti-police outrage that has fueled the nationwide orgy of rioting and looting? 

Third, in light of Floyd’s toxicology results and the medical examiner’s assessment that Floyd’s fentanyl overdose caused him to essentially drown in his own bodily fluid, why haven’t the charges against all of the police defendants been dropped? 

The handwriting is on the wall. Through all of the rioting, looting, and burning, the prosecution has kept secret its knowledge that George Floyd died as the result of a self-administered overdose of fentanyl. The Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County said as much way back on May 31, 2020. 

But, now that the truth has finally emerged, it’s well past time to call a halt to this illegal and unfounded “murder” case and to let these wrongfully accused men go free.

This has always been nothing other than a politically motivated frame up of innocent police officers who were doing their jobs to the best of their ability. What it all says about America--about the Left and their complicit media enablers--at this juncture is deeply troubling.

DiGenova: Brennan A Witness Against Comey?

Joe diGenova gave a very interesting interview this past Monday on WMAL. In the interview--for which I've transcribed most of his remarks--he touches on a number of important points, some of which we haven't heard much about and some of which also contradict the conventional wisdom:

1. Joe argues strongly that Brennan is probably in the clear--unless he lied to Durham. But, he also argues, that almost certainly means Brennan will now, willy nilly, be a witness against Comey.

2. Joe also believes that Bill Priestap--who I previously thought may have cooperated with the investigation--is now in the crosshairs, because it was Priestap who lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. The fact that Priestap has refused to testify voluntarily seems to confirm this.

3. Joe further believes that John Carlin, who presented false certifications to the FISC, is also a target. I have to wonder whether that is just the tip of the DoJ iceberg in this Durham investigation.

4. Finally, Joe offers his view on the Chris Wray situation, arguing that Trump can't afford to fire Wray--much as he undoubtedly wants to. I think his position on this is pretty sound. It's one thing for the Dems to invent one hoax issue after another, all of which are pretty transparently bogus  to the bulk of the public. It's another thing for Trump to initiate a brouhaha when he's trying to focus on his positive achievements. That's been my position in the past--that Wray is safe through the election--and it still seems the best bet. After the election, all bets are off.

Jonathan Winer, Chris Steele, Worked For Oleg Deripaska

I think we pretty much knew that Chris Steele had close ties to Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. That was part of Steele's attraction for the FBI. Today Eric Felten has a pretty comprehensive round up of the ties of key figures associated with Steele's hoax "dossier" to "Putin's favorite industrialist": Top Kerry Aide, Key Conduit for Dossier, Once Worked for Russian Oligarch, as Did Steele.

The main focus of the very detailed article, however, is on Jonathan Winer. Felten works off the SSCI report, but I think we can be absolutely certain that John Durham has also been examining Winer's role in the Russia Hoax. It's a good example of the "sprawl" that Durham has had to contend with--in his position he can't afford to leave stones unturned.

Who is Winer?

Winer was for a decade an aide to Sen. John Kerry. From 1994 to 1999 he was a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of State. From government he went to the international lobby and law firm Alston & Bird. Winer moved to APCO Worldwide in 2008, about the time he met Steele, who had just left British intelligence and was setting up his own shop. Winer told the Senate that in his private sector jobs he “was still engaged in various types of Russian representation all over the map.” Pro-Putin, anti-Putin: Winer didn’t care, he told senators: “It was any work that was consistent with their needs and my values.”

"My values." Gotta luv that! What would those values have been? The almighty dollar is my guess.

Winer returned to the State Department during Obama's second term, rejoining Kerry. Here are some of the highlights of Felten's article, to whet your appetite for the whole thing. Note that both Winer and Glenn Simpson of Fusion - GPS may have perjury problems connected with their Senate testimony:

Woke Conservatism--Is Its Time Now?

Sohrab Ahmari is best known for his May, 2019, article Against David French-ism. Here is how Wikipedia characterizes the argument Ahmari presented in that article:

The dispute centered around their differing opinions on how conservatives should approach cultural and political debate, with Ahmari deriding what he calls "David French-ism", a political persuasion he defines as believing "that the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side". He argues that this belief leads to an ineffective conservative movement, and contends that the best way for culturally conservative values to prevail in society is a strategy of "discrediting ... opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions", which he maintains is a tactic already utilized by progressives, leaving conservatives who adhere to the David French-style of politics impotent in what he views as a waging culture war in the United States. He argues that the political realm should be viewed as one of "war and enmity", and that the power of the government should be directly utilized to impose culturally conservative values on society.

Ahmari has a new article, following up on Against David French-ism. Below I present enough excerpts to outline his argument. I thought this approach is especially relevant in view of what Lee Smith refers to as The Permanent Coup, the "resistance" against not only President Trump but against--in essence--all things American. It's a war, and Ahmari calls on conservatives to recognize that reality.

As you read you'll probably be frustrated at a lack of specific proposals, beyond Ahmari's skepticism that the libertarian "marketplace of ideas" will magically lead to an agreeable solution and his clear view that that "marketplace of ideas" has been jiggered by "private tyrants" in collaboration with entrenched liberal government. Also lacking, or so it seems to me, is any attempt or appeal to ground this critique in what I would call the humane civilizational principles that lay behind our constitutional order. That is particularly unfortunate because those principles are now under increasingly open and explicit attack.

Nevertheless, there is food for thought. A GOPe is part of our current crisis because its accommodationism plays into the progressive usurpation of constitutional institutions for distinctly unconstitutional ends. Ultimately, Ahmari is calling for conservative to wake to the true nature of the threat that our country is facing, to wake--as we face a crucial election--to the fact that this is a war, and wake to what tactics are necessary to preserve our civilization.

In a sense, one could argue that Ahmari is calling on conservatives to wake to the fact that de Toqueville's misgivings, as expressed in Democracy in America, regarding the way democracy would play out are, in fact, coming true:

Tocqueville speculates on the future of democracy in the United States, discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These include his belief that democracy has a tendency to degenerate into "soft despotism" as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority. ... 

Tocqueville also outlines the possible excesses of passion for equality among men, foreshadowing the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.

... 

Tocqueville observed that social mechanisms have paradoxes, as in what later became known as the Tocqueville effect: "social frustration increases as social conditions improve". He wrote that this growing hatred of social privilege, as social conditions improve, leads to the state concentrating more power to itself.

De Toqueville's misgivings have turned out to be prophetic warnings. Conservatives must come to grips with that reality if they are to have any chance of winning this civilizational war.

UPDATED: George Floyd Died Of A Drug Overdose

Most of us have known that since, well, since the death occurred. It's now pretty much official, now that previously undisclosed documents have been made available. Via Big League Politics (go there to see the image of the original):

Previously unseen documents released by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office on Tuesday reveal that a medical examiner who analyzed samples of George Floyd’s blood taken shortly after his death concluded that he died of a drug overdose. 

A summary of a conversation between Amy Sweasy, a Hennepin County Attorney, and Dr. Andrew Baker, the chief medical examiner for the county, reveals that the former would conclude George Floyd died of a drug overdose if there were no other contributing factors. 

The medical examiner makes the conclusion of an overdose death on the basis of blood samples collected from George Floyd at a Minneapolis hospital. 

Dr. Baker reveals that Floyd’s blood tested positive for the presence of 4ANPP, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and norfentayl. He described the level of fentanyl found in George Floyd’s bloodstream as a “fatal level under normal circumstances.” 

This revelation could potentially have significant implications for the upcoming second-degree murder trial of Derek Chauvin, and the criminal proceedings of the other Minneapolis Police Officers facing charges for their role in the infamous arrest of Floyd. 

Bodycam footage of Floyd’s arrest show the 46-year old man acting in a seemingly delirious and excited manner, resisting arrest before being pinned to the street by Derek Chauvin.

I believe it's quite possible Floyd thought he was using heroin, but he had been given cheaper but far more powerful fentanyl. Whatever.

BTW, within the past week I read an article about Covid that explained that we--meaning, medical personnel--now have a far better understanding of how to treat Covid. Among other things mentioned in the article was that we now understand that Covid patients having trouble breathing should be placed on their stomachs, as that position allows them more easily to use their lungs to the full extent possible.

With that in mind, recall what Derek Chauvin said to the young cop who said he was worried that Floyd was undergoing excited delerium. Chauvin responded: That's why we have him on his stomach. Oh! Seems Chauvin knew exactly what he was doing in restraining Floyd on his stomach when Floyd claimed to have trouble breathing.

UPDATE: It's beginning to appear increasingly clear that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner succumbed to political pressure:

UPDATED: What was that, Renuka?

This was first brought to my attention by an emailer. You've probably heard that liberal heads are exploding because Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley said in her speech at the RNC last night that America isn't racist. Racist? Yes, because she allegedly "changed" her name to something that sounded more "American." Nikki, rather than Nimrata. Except that Nikki is her legal middle name, as in, it's on her birth certificate.

Hilariously, among those calling Nikki out--in their minds--was Asha Rangappa, an internet gadfly masquerading as a "legal scholar" and expert on all things National Security on the strength of having been very briefly employed as a Special Agent with the FBI. Only thing is, Asha Rangappa is actually Renuka Asha Rangappa. She's using her middle name, which she has claimed is a thing not done by Indians.

Haley, as it turns out, is of Punjabi ancestry, whereas Rangappa--as I deduce from her name--is probably a Kannadiga from the south Indian state of Karnataka. Is there something ethnic going on here? Some female rivalry thing, maybe? I dunno. If there are any Indian readers out there who care to speculate ...

Anyway, I've always been annoyed by the way Rangappa offers uninformed opinions on national security legal matters, mostly on the strength of her brief employment by the FBI. So I was amused to read the following (below) from Shipwreckedcrew--a VERY busy guy--just a day after taking down another internet knucklehead, Marcy Wheeler. Here he is on Rangappa, and every word of it is true:

What? 

Your name is not “Asha”? 

You CHANGED it? 

Did you start going by “Asha” because “Renuka” means “horse excrement for brains” in Hindu?

Actually, Renuka is a classical Sanskrit name meaning--so I'm told--“Born of dust; mother earth”. I read that on the internet, FWIW.

You went to Yale and Princeton — or so you say — so how can you be that industrial-strength stupid to raise this issue when you yourself use your middle name professionally as your first name? 

But then again, this is the same Asha Rangappa who spent less than three years as an FBI Special Agent, yet holds forth on CNN expressing opinions on federal law enforcement matters with a level of expertise any reader here could gain with Wikipedia. 

Supposedly she was assigned to a counter-intelligence squad in the New York Field Office.  I can assure you 100% that an agent straight [out] of the Academy going to a Counter-Intelligence squad in NYFO is given NOTHING of significance to do for a long period of time.  They fetch coffee, offer no opinions, and listen.  The basic admonition is “Stay out of the way and don’t screw anything up.”  Once they have proven the ability to not screw anything up on unimportant matters, THEN they begin to get meaningful assignments. 

There is a reluctance to go on the record for fear that her legions of CNN acolytes will descend upon them, but people I have spoken with that either were familiar with her in NYFO or knew people who were familiar with her, universally regard her as joke.  But the CNN audience loves her — which is enough said by itself – so her idiocy only feeds her following.

UPDATE: How a liberal knows they really stepped in it? When your attack tweet against a conservative gets slammed even by writers at NYT and WaPo:

"Asha revealing that she's lost so much touch w/ her Indian culture that she doesn't know that Nikki is actually a Punjabi name," The Hill's Saagar Enjeti reacted. 

"I hope you did better research when you worked for the FBI than you do when calling people out for the name they go by. Nikki Haley was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa & married someone w/ the last name Haley. Her family called her Nikki growing up. It means 'Little One' in Punjabi," Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy swiped the CNN analyst. 

"I understand this is a divisive issue among South Asians, but I keep landing here: A name doesn’t belong to a community. It belongs to an individual. If Haley/Jindal changed names, it’s their choice. There’s lots of reasons why one would do that. Don’t think we need to judge," New York Times writer Sopan Deb said, also referring to former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. 

"What happened in your life to make you like this?" Tablet Magazine associate editor Noam Blum asked. 

"Have you ever thought about not tweeting," Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel told Rangappa. 

"Whenever there's a controversy about a blue check being a jerk, the odds that person is with CNN are around 98.5%," Mediaite editor Caleb Howe wrote.

Here's A Guy Who Gets It

He gets what I've been saying all along--most recently in Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying:

Not only had Carter Page been in contact with Russians at the direction of the CIA, but he had also--as recently as 2013--been doing so at the direction of the FBI itself. He had been a cooperating witness for the FBI in a very important case against Russian IOs--one which, unlike virtually all other such cases, actually resulted in a prosecution. That case culminated in early 2016, just before Page joined the Trump campaign. It might be one thing for the FBI to somehow misunderstand and misrepresent Page's relationship with "another government agency," but how to explain away such a misrepresentation of his relationship with the FBI itself?

This guy gets it:

@EuphoniusNuts 

What are the chances that a couple of months after the Buryakov spy ring is busted in the Spring of 2016, the Rooskies would make Carter Page, the guy who busted said ring, the linchpin of the world’s most audacious double-naught spy caper? 

1:55 PM · Aug 25, 2020·

Really. Think about that. The whole thing is ridiculous. 

This Is Some Tease!

It better be very good! Looking forward to it.

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

I've been noodling something for ~3 months & 3 weeks ago got a clue during AG Barr's interview on Levin. Been running that line down for 3 weeks, reading, re-reading, and re-reading original source documents. Yesterday figured it out. Will be AWOL to lay it out concisely. 1/

1:33 PM · Aug 25, 2020·

Coup, Coup, Coup

Three good reads today, all relating one way or another to the coup-coup crazy Dems' anti-constitutional efforts to seize total control since Trump's unapproved election victory.

Thomas Lifson leads off with a startling article on the Dem strategy, working off recent public statements by Pelosi and Hillary. As Lifson notes, those statements give the game away:

Dems no longer even bothering to hide their strategy to steal the election

The statements themselves could be termed 'unhinged', except that they unquestionably reflect thinking and strategy at the highest level of Dem organization. Here they are:

Hillary: “We’ve got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that… Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”

Pelosi: "One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election, ... the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States ... enemies of the state."

That's right. Pelosi labeled the Trump and the entire GOP as "domestic enemies", "enemies of the state."

Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying

That's the contention of Andy McCarthy's latest:

Clinesmith’s Guilty Plea: The Perfect Snapshot of Crossfire Hurricane Duplicity

McCarthy contends that, while Clinesmith's guilty plea allocution may have been legally sufficient, it was just barely so. McCarthy's expressed hope is that DoJ will have much more to say about that when it comes time for sentencing. In McCarthy's view it was only a "sort of" guilty plea.

In “admitting” guilt, Clinesmith ended up taking the position that I hoped the judge, and especially the Justice Department, would not abide ... 

... in my view, Clinesmith is lying about lying. His strategy is worth close study because it encapsulates the mendaciousness and malevolence of both “Crossfire Hurricane” (the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation) and the “collusion” never-enders who continue to defend it. A defendant’s lying about lying does not necessarily make a false-statement guilty plea infirm as a matter of law. The bar is not high. Still, his story is ridiculous, in a way that is easy to grasp once it’s placed in context.

And so McCarthy proceeds to provide the context in masterful fashion. I highly recommend the article.

For our purposes, I want to point out just a few things.

First, McCarthy makes this very important point:

Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ Motives

Stephen Somma Again

Commenter Bebe drew my attention to Margot Cleveland's excellent article today (I was at the dentist):

FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea Suggests Spygate Corruption Goes Way Higher 

FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith’s guilty plea suggests another area ripe for inquiry: FBI Agent Stephen Somma’s misrepresentation of Trump campaign details to a secret federal court.

Cleveland's article largely focuses on the Horowitz FISA report and, specifically, the role of Case Agent 1--Stephen Somma--in persuading DoJ Office of Intelligence attorney Stu Evans that Carter Page's past cooperation with the CIA wasn't relevant to the FISA application targeting Page. Stu Evans, not entirely coincidentally, was a thorn in the side of Peter Strzok and the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) Team in their quest for a FISA on Page, but Evans is now reported to be cooperating extensively with John Durham.

I won't repeat the details that Cleveland provides, but I do want to suggest a line of inquiry that Durham may be looking into--or, more likely, looked into long ago.

The FISA Double Standard

I refer, of course, to Chuck Ross' fine article, FBI Agents Pushed For A FISA To Investigate Foreign Government Targeting Hillary Clinton. Ross is working off Lindsey Graham's recent revelation of internal FBI debates that concerned a FISA in an investigation that would have targeted an agent of a foreign government that was seeking to influence the 2016 election. That foreign government was reported--as early as early 2015--to be targeting the Hillary campaign even before its formal announcement.

It's impossible to be certain of the identities of the agent or the foreign government. However, Senator Graham maintains that this incident illustrates that the FBI had a double standard for seeking FISAs in the context of the 2016 electin: one standard when the FISA might impact Hillary, and a very different standard when the FISA was pretty much guaranteed to impact Trump--since the so-called 'probable cause' in the case of the Carter Page FISA was known by the FBI to have originated from the Hillary campaign. In such circumstances, the Page FISA and its rationale as regards the Trump campaign was bound to be leaked--as indeed it was.

There are some key differences in the two situations that we should be clear about. Most importantly, the agent of the foreign government targeting the Hillary campaign was not a US Person. Here's the key sentence from one of the internal FBI docs. I'll break the sentence up into bullet points:

The Clinesmith Plea Deal In Light Of The James Wolfe Plea Deal

Since sundance "outed" John Durham's lead investigator he has doubled down on his Grand Conspiracy involving the James Wolfe leak case. That case involved the claim (almost certainly true) that Wolfe--a longtime staffer for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)--leaked a copy of the Carter Page FISA application to his journalist paramour, Ali Watkin. So, in addition to the criminal issues, all sorts of constitutional issues were involved--including Separation of Powers as between the Executive and Legislative branches and Press freedom under the First Amendment.

Wolfe ultimately pled guilty to lying to the FBI leak investigators but, because the FBI was unable to recover the actual transmissions by which Wolfe allegedly sent text pix of the FISA to Watkins, he was not charged with offenses relating to the actual leak.

HOWEVER, when it came time for Wolfe to be sentenced, DoJ argued for an 'enhancement' to Wolfe's sentence. In other words, they argued that Wolfe should get a stiffer sentence than a first time offender would be expected to receive under the sentencing guidelines for the False Statement statute (18 USC 1001). That DOJ argument for enhancement was supported by an affidavit from FBI SSA Brian Dugan (no, not the serial killer of the same name). In the affidavit Dugan argued that the preponderance of the evidence supported the contention that Wolfe had, in fact, leaked the FISA and that his false statements to investigators should be viewed in that light--as more serious than the bare false statement charge might indicate.

Paraphrasing and expanding a Shipwreckedcrew tweet, I explained how all that worked. The key to understanding this is the distinction between the burden of proof at a trial--proof beyond a reasonable doubt--and the burden of proof for sentencing purposes, which is the much lower standard of the preponderance of the evidence. Thus, while DoJ had not believed that they could prove the leak at a trial beyond a reasonable doubt, they were quite prepared to argue at sentencing that Wolfe should nevertheless receive a stiffer or 'enhanced' sentence based on the understanding that he had, in fact, leaked the FISA:

UPDATED: What Actually Is Sundance's Big Theory?

Commenter Mike Sylwester explains sundance's theory pretty well. Here's Mike's statement of the facts as I understand sundance to be presenting them. I'll add a bit more:

It seems that Senator Mark Warner told James Wolfe to leak the Page FISA warrant to the New York Times. Wolfe (and Warner) were caught by the FBI, but then DOJ/FBI covered up the crime. Wolfe was not charged for leaking the top-secret FISA warrant. Rather, he was charged only for lying to the FBI.

Exactly who made the decision to reduce the charge against Wolfe from leaking to merely lying? Who approved that decision? What was the justification?

There are three additional contentions that sundance is making in connection with the Wolfe case, and they all suffer from the same problem.

First, sundance also maintains that DoJ/FBI have an official position that the Page FISA wasn't leaked by Wolfe. To support that he cites the Wolfe sentencing memo:

The very obvious problem with this--as Shipwreckedcrew is quick to point out--is that the FBI (and DoJ) are NOT saying they don't believe Wolfe did the leak. They're only saying, in effect, that they don't have the evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I happen to believe that sundance is right, that Wolfe did the leak. The circumstantial evidence is very strong. And although I'm not a betting person, I would happily bet that every single FBI agent who worked that case also believes Wolfe did it. The problem is the lack of physical evidence--destroyed by Wolfe. Here's SWC's explanation:

Sundance's Chat With Bill Aldenberg

Earlier today in Shipwreckedcrew Goes Toe To Toe With Sundance I quoted a sundance tweet in which he invited anyone who hadn't spoken, as he has, with John Durham's lead investigator--William "Bill" Aldenberg--to basically just shut up when it comes to evaluating the Durham investigation: 

@TheLastRefuge2

If anyone else on Twitter has actually talked to the Durham investigators personally please identify yourself so we can compare notes ... 

If not, enough said. twitter.com/pera_richard/s… 

I offered some comments and a suggestion:

How silly can you get? The fact that William Aldenberg allowed sundance to present his theories means ... everyone who disagrees with sundance now has to shut up? I'm not following that, maybe because there's nothing to follow.

I was an investigator for 28 years. Investigation is a one way street. Investigators collect information--they don't dispense it. Did Aldenberg somehow make an exception for sundance? I very much doubt that, but there's one way to find out. Sundance is big on issuing ultimatums and demands, telling Barr and Durham what they have to reveal and when. How about if sundance tells the rest of us what information Aldenberg shared with him?

Sundance has now posted My Discussion With John Durham’s Lead Investigator, William Aldenberg. It's one of his trademark long-as-your-arm posts. However, it turns out that there actually was no discussion to speak of. Instead, Aldenberg politely allowed sundance to harangue him about what sundance has posted, and reposted and reposted. That was basically it. As for Aldenberg sharing information about his investigation? Not so much:

Mr. Aldenberg could not affirm or attest to the implications of the information as provided; however, he did accept the briefing was clear and articulately grounded on the evidence within the documents provided.

...

Mr Aldenberg and I exchanged direct contact information, and concluded our conversation.

So there you have it. As expected.

Was Brennan Put In A Perjury Trap?

The answer, in my understanding, is: No, not strictly speaking.

Earlier today I wrote a number of things along the lines that just because Brennan may have been told that he wasn't a target or a subject but was being interviewed as a witness, that doesn't mean he's "out of the woods". For example:

All that said, Brennan is clearly not out of the woods yet. As others have noted, there's only one reason why Durham waited so long before interviewing Brennan--because he was trying to learn as much about Brennan's Russia Hoax related activities as possible before talking to him. And that means Brennan was right up at the top of the list of persons of interest.

In other words, if Brennan was interviewed as a witness for eight hours, that was a whole lotta witnessing going on. Durham must have had a lotta, lotta questions for Brennan as a witness.

Now, Shipwreckedcrew has a new article up about the circumstances surrounding the Brennan interview, and the statements that were made afterwards by Brennan's spokesman: John Brennan Was Put in a Perjury Trap Yesterday — A Completely Legitimate One. The article is well worth your time to read, because in it SWC explains things like:

Shipwreckedcrew Goes Toe To Toe With Sundance

This Twitter matchup has been going on for a week or so, off and on, and has been pretty entertaining as SWC scores easy points against a wildly flailing sundance. It continues today, including two exchanges that are good for us, as we try to understand what's going on with John Brennan's interview yesterday with John Durham. First let's look at the Twitter exchanges. First:

@TheLastRefuge2 

The ICA is a false political document used as the basis for underlying Trump-Russia expansion.  However, by defining his DOJ rules of politics Barr has set up the ICA to be defined as a "political document"  and precluded criminal accountability for its content. twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2…

@shipwreckedcrew 

Please explain the mechanism for making someone "criminally accountable" for the "content" of the ICA. 

You continue to talk in terms that have no meaning in the real world. 

Accountability is found in the Title 18.  What crime do you think was involved in producing the ICA?

Yes, sundance has a point: The ICA IS a false political document. But few things in life are that simple. What do we know about it's production? Well, we know from what has been released that the same CIA analysts who foolishly bought into some of the key Russia Hoax narratives to come to their conclusion also pushed back strongly against the FBI's insistence on including the "dossier"--which was eventually incorporated as an "annex" to the ICA. So it looks like those analysts were duped but were more or less honorable dupes--probably politically biased but not in a criminal way. Those who declined to examine the "Russian hacking" evidence and who put out the stories about Russian bots and so forth are more responsible, but we're still left with the question of evidence and intent.

Brennan, on the other hand, cleverly played the peacemaker in the ICA production process, telling his analysts, 'Look, Comey is insisting so we'll keep the peace and let the FBI have an annex.' Clever. Brennan looks to his analysts like he's on their side, but to the FBI he looks like he's giving them what they want. And that way Brennan slips out of any real responsibility--he presents himself as having no dog in the fight, as someone who just wants to keep each side happy. Meanwhile, he gets what he wants--legitimation of the dossier in a political sense, injecting it into the public debate, despite the caveats of his analysts.

Brennan's Interview

Disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed for 8 hours at CIA Headquarters today. The interview was led by USA John Durham. We're told by Brennan's team:

Brennan was informed by Mr. Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review.

Of course, if as a witness Brennan attempts to obstruct Durham's investigation ...

Brennan also confirmed, indirectly, that Durham remains focused on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA):

About The Worthless SSCI Russia Report

Yes, it's worthless and I wasn't even going to mention it, but Kim Strassell has done the thankless job of digesting it. She even has a Twitter distillation of her behind-the-paywall WSJ article on the topic. Her Twitter thread starts out:

1) Actually, I don't really think the Senate Intel report deserves much attention.

She's absolutely right. However, if you insist, you can read about it in an unrolled version here.

If You're Interested In The Bannon/Kolfage Indictment ...

Will Chamberlain has a periscope discussing the indictment. Short version? It's fraud. What a pair of knuckleheads. This is like painting a target on your back and daring the Feds to come get you.

Will Chamberlain

@willchamberlain

Fraud

Quote Tweet

Brian Kolfage

@BrianKolfage

· Jan 13, 2019

Replying to @PrettyEyedTexan @RyanAFournier and 3 others

I thought it was pretty clear. I made a promise that I would NEVER take a penny 100% of fundraising through @gofundme donations will only go towards the wall, 100% means 100% right? Board won't see any of that money! Donations will be accountable by an audit committee as well.

10:23 AM · Aug 20, 2020