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 crux of the situation was that Somma and others in the FBI's New York Field Office (NYO) had long been aware of Carter Page's relationship with the CIA. Such a relationship was totally unsurprising given Page's background--it would have expected. Moreover, as I've pointed out, Page informed the FBI of that relationship the very first time the FBI contacted him. In other words, it wasn't just that the CIA informed the FBI about their relationship with Page in 2016--the FBI was aware of that relationship dating back to 2009, and it didn't terminate until 2013 at the earliest. The reason it terminated was because Page became a key cooperating witness (CW) for the FBI against several Russian Intelligence Officers in New York.
So, when Stu Evans asked Somma, 'Hey, what about Carter Page's claim that he was a source for the CIA', Somma was forced to scramble, to improvise. Here's what his response was (as we've previously discussed)--I quote Cleveland:
The IG report expressly stated that “in late September 2016,” an attorney with the Office of Intelligence who was “assisting on the FISA application,” “explicitly asked” Case Agent 1 “about Page’s prior relationship with this other agency.” And that “Case Agent 1 did not accurately describe the nature and extent of the information the FBI received from the other agency.”
Not to put too fine a point on it, Case Agent 1--Stephen Somma--deliberately misled Stu Evans, i.e., he lied to him:
Specifically, in a draft of the FISA application, the OI Attorney asked Case Agent 1 whether there was “any truth to Page’s claim that he has provided information to [another U.S. government agency]—was he considered a source/asset/whatever?” In reply, Case Agent 1 inserted this comment: “He did meet with [the other U.S. government agency], however, it’s dated and I would argue it was/is outside scope, I don’t think we need it in. It was years ago, when he was in Moscow. If you want to keep it, I can get the language from the [August 17 Memorandum] we were provided [by the other U.S. government agency].”
It wasn't just when Page "was in Moscow," it was for years when Page was based in New York (although traveling frequently, but no longer residing in Moscow). As we've seen, the formal relationship of Page with the CIA lasted up to 2013 when, in essence, the FBI stepped in. Also, it wasn't just that Page had "met" with the CIA--the CIA had maintained a formal designation for Page as an "operational contact" until 2013 and did not terminate Page due to any wrongdoing or suspicions about him.
So, two issues are raised.
The first is that not only did Somma misrepresent Page's relationship to the CIA, he also misrepresented Page's role in cooperating with the FBI against Russian IOs.
The second issue is this. I don't believe that Somma--a "street" agent--would have taken it upon himself to deceive a DoJ attorney. After all, it wasn't just Stu Evans who would have known about this. As we've seen, the vetting of a FISA application goes through multiple levels of review within the FBI. Others would have known about this issue--Cleveland points to Clinesmith. I suggest that when Somma was asked about this issue by Evans, he would have consulted with others within the FBI who were "in the know" about CH and Carter Page--Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, even others like Andrew McCabe?--who were anxious to get the FISA approved ASAP. They would have suggested to Somma how to reply to Evans. We know that Lisa Page and Strzok complained about Stu Evans and that Page suggested getting McCabe involved with Evans directly to pressure him to approve the FISA.
This may be the real importance of Stephen Somma, as a cooperating witness for John Durham.
Do you have particular reason to hope that Somma is a cooperating witness?
ReplyDeleteBecause the facts suggest that he could help lead to higher ups. Second to last paragraph.
DeleteLet me rephrase: reason to hope that Somma *will consent* to being a cooperating witness (instead of laying low, expecting a Biden win)?
Delete"Not to put too fine a point on it, Case Agent 1--Stephen Somma--deliberately misled Stu Evans, i.e., he lied to him..."
ReplyDeleteMisled and lied. Is that like "lacked candor?" These past few years have been very informative in how a government agency manipulates the English language to avoid saying or writing something distasteful about one of their own, or someone they want to protect.
DJL
It's much worse. Lack of candor gets you fired. Lying gets you jailed.
DeleteWhat is the legal difference between the two?
DeleteWhy the FBI Fires People for 'Lack of Candor'
Deletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/candor/556262/
I would argue that, while the first part of Somma's response may be lack of candor, the last part--based on what we know, based on the CIA memo--is a lie.
Mark, there has been a lot of “lack of candor” going around the last few years-both FBI and DOJ. What are we to make of so relatively few firings? Better to keep them around or are the supervisors just protecting themselves from a similar fate? Prosecutions are one thing but the lack of accountability is mind boggling to me. Thanks
DeleteAt the time the public was exposed to “lack of candor”, I thought it related to the oath “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. That middle one - lying by omission - is often overlooked when we talk about lying. Lack of candor to me meant not being totally forthcoming, Leaving out certain critical facts. Deliberately.
Delete@ Bebe, there are many degrees of lying and lack of candor is intended to be a way to deal with some of that without, arguably, going overboard and charging people with crimes that entail jail time.
Delete@ MjH I have no figures on firings. What numbers do you have, and what numbers would you consider to be appropriate?
Q. for MW:
DeleteCorrect me if I have this wrong: my impression is that when presenting the FISC withva FISA application on a USPERS, the DOJ is required to disclose any and all information they have which could have exculpatory value, because the FISA application process is inherently "ex parte" -- the target typically never even knows a warrant issued, and thus, has no opportunity to challenge its validity by presenting exculpatory evidence to the court. Thus, DOJ is obligated under the FISA law to present all evidence it has that can go in the target's favor, and allow the FISC to decide if it is relevant and what value it has in determining if there is sufficient predication to approve the FISA warrant.
If that is an accurate summary of the DOJ's obligation, then Somma's conclusion that CP's prior CIA experience was not "recent enough" to be relevant" constitutes Somma usurping the FISC judge's job, to determine what is or isn't exculpatory, and how much weight they choose to allocate to such information.
Leaving out details of CP's CIA work thus consitutes a "false statement" by omission by Somma to Evans, which Evans relied upon to prepare the FISA application, which makes Somma's omission both false, and material, as it resulted in the FISC being denied potentially exculpatory information, which only the FISC had the authority to evaluate wrt the FISA application.
That's true. Now, of course, relevance of facts can change over time. That's why the statements Somma made concerning the time frame are critical.
DeleteSo, if Clinesmith cooperated for his plea deal, and Stu Evans has been cooperating "extensively" (with Durham's probe,) Steve Somma appears to be in the "meat" center of cooperating witness "sandwich."
ReplyDeleteAnd I think Durham is very hungry, and wants a snack.
Clinesmith puts Somma in the crosshairs; Evans has already testified to Somma's lies.
Clinesmith (plea deal) => Somma (plea deal) => potentially others who were part of the conspiracy
Evans (cooperating witness) => potentially next creep up the ladder.
If accurate, watch for a Somma plea deal announcement very soon, as ratting out others in the conspiracy is the only way he can help himself get a plea deal, just as it was for Clinesmith, who probably helped Evans finger Somma for Clinesmith's plea deal.
Sounds like progress ...
Obviously, in our position we have to speculate. But that's what I'm talking about. Re Evans, what he may be able to do is to tie some of this stuff more closely to others in DoJ, like David Laufman.
DeleteLack of candor seems equivocal to not being forthright when questioned or providing a statement, e.g. knowing a detail but withholding that detail. Kind of like the politicians and bureaucrats who suddenly develop memory issues and "don't recall" significant events that would be etched in the memory of most people. Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice being perfect examples.
ReplyDeleteDJL
Uh, equivalent, not "equivocal". :-) It can take other forms, too--subtle mischaracterizations. As I said to Bebe, it gets around problems of proof, but with a lower level of punishment. Not that being fired for lack of candor is a small matter. Try getting hired with that on your record.
DeleteMy operating theory for some weeks now is that all of these people were cooperating or negotiating pleas through their defense lawyers until March 15th shut down all federal grand juries through june 21st at the earliest and the President's poll numbers started tanking, and they all of a sudden clammed up and stopped taking Durham's phone calls. They're in ride or die mode now--which is a great move if Biden wins. But as the Spartans said to Philip of Macedon's ambassador, "if"...
ReplyDeleteTrouble is, if they're in ride or die mode now, that makes Barr's job much harder.
DeleteThe closing the GJs may well turn out to be the death-knell of the Const.
Re firings, I was attempting to follow up(without enough explanation) on the point you made on the Wolfe deal that sometimes “sending a strong message” and “restoring order” can be very useful even when successful prosecution is not possible. It seems that more firings for a lot of the behavior we have read about over the last 3 years from the FBI and DOJ would send the message to all involved that the Comey/McCabe culture is over and we intend to restore our reputation. Numbers are less important than the message and training sessions
ReplyDeleteare wholly inadequate.