Smith first asks McFarland about the documents that Senator Ron Johnson has subpoenaed from the FBI (as well as Director Chris Wray). McFarland goes over the items that we've all heard about on the news--the documents that were turned over to the IG, the Crossfire Hurricane documents. Then she turns particular attention to a third category of documents, which I hadn't heard were subpoenaed:
But interestingly, he's also asked for all documents that the GSA--Government Services Agency, General Services Agency [sic, it's actually General Services Administration]--had collected during the transition into the Trump administration and asked for what documents were there. I mean, what documents were turned over to whom? Who was turning them over to the FBI? So when I'm looking at this for those three requests, I think some of this is indicating that they're also looking at the Mueller investigation. Not just at incompetence at the FBI or potential wrongdoing.
I've been maintaining exactly that, that AG Barr and John Durham are definitely focusing on Team Mueller from a number of angles. Recall: You can't investigate Crossfire Hurricane without also investigating Team Mueller, which was a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. The same goes for the Flynn case.
Now, the GSA documents that McFarland is referring to were the very first group of documents that Team Mueller went after. It was a very controversial and aggressive move on Team Mueller's part, because these were documents of the Trump transition team, not the Trump administration, and GSA simply turned them over to Team Mueller without informing the Trump administration. It was a typical Andrew Weissmann and inside the DC establishment move. One angle that Durham could be looking at might be whether Weissmann, in demanding these documents from the (all too willing to cooperate) GSA, may have misrepresented his official authority to obtain those documents without process or notification to the persons and the entity that created those documents.
In my opinion, the fact that the Senate is looking at this event does, indeed, mean that they're looking at Team Mueller. But I think you can take this to the bank as well: The Senate wouldn't be doing this unless they knew that Barr and Durham had already done so.
In any event, I think Christopher Wray is in big trouble. Because, Sandra, he did one of three things. He either knew what was going on in the FBI and he uncovered it--and he kept it covered, y'know, cover it up. He, secondly, didn't want to know, and so he's just sort of, 'Don't tell me about it, I don't wanna know.' Or, he's just completely incompetent. I mean, either way, all three of those are pretty bad indictments against the current FBI director.
Assuming Trump is reelected--Wray is unceromoniously fired. My opinion.
Sandra then pivots to disgraced former FBI Director, James Comey, noting that McFarland also thinks that Comey is in 'big trouble'. McFarland responds:
Yeah, because, not just particularly with this subpoena that you just referred to, but it's the testimony that's happened in the last couple of weeks. So you had Sally Yates saying last week, 'Well, the FBI Director, Jim Comey, he went rogue--I didn't know what he was doing.' And then Rod Rosenstein, who testified a couple of weeks ago, he was the Attorney General, acting Attorney General, he said, 'I didn't know anything about it, I would never have signed those requests coming from the FBI if I knew now what I knew then [sic].' And so Comey has a lot to answer for. Either he was rogue and he was running a rogue operation in the FBI--Comey, McCabe, and his senior officials--or he's being set up to take the fall, if in fact it was not a rogue operation, if it has origins that were higher up.
And the other thing, Sandra, to remember, is that Susan Rice wrote herself a memo for the record on Inauguration Day, saying, 'President Obama wants everything done exactly by the book.' So, in other words, 'Jim Comey, if he does something that's not by the books, it's not on us!'
If you watch the video, you can tell from McFarland's body language that she doesn't necessarily believe Yates and Rosenstein, but whether they're telling the truth isn't the real issue. The point is simply that nobody's going to bat for Jim Comey, nobody's arguing--as Chris Swecker recently did--that, gosh, it's so hard to prove intent. They'd all be happy to have Comey take the fall. And, in fact, if he turns out to be the fall guy he'll certainly have earned the distinction. But I think Durham's looking at others, too.
The interview ends up with some general remarks riffing off Lindsey Graham's call for people at the FBI--or who were formerly at the FBI--to go down. IMO, McFarland's remarks here will resonate with any jury, and that dirty cops will receive no sympathy:
Now what we're finding out, whether they lied to the FISA court, whether they lied to Senator Graham, whether they lied to even President Trump, or that they lied to the American people--there were documents being falsified, there were people who were lying, senior officials of the FBI. And I think Lindsey Graham is saying, 'I wanna get to the bottom of it.' These are actual crimes. This is not just leaks to the media. These are actual crimes where people knowingly lied to other government officials and to people.