New FBI Document Released by Senate Judiciary Comm Shows FBI — AND Mueller — Deliberately Misled Senate About Steele Memos
Two points, however.
1) Unfortunately, Shipwreckedcrew screws up big time in his crucial timeline--thus missing an important point: Andrew Weissmann. And this also means he misses something about AG Bill Barr.
2) For a bit of perspective and corrective, please read CTH's two posts today re the Senate and especially re Lindsey Graham, who released this document today. You have to ask yourself:
If this document had been released a bit earlier, what would have become of Team Mueller and the Fake Impeachment?
Is it just possible that a lot of what's playing out in DC is not only about the Dems going after Trump but also about the GOPe trying to control Trump? If so--and I think it is--the Impeachment Theater was probably in large part about that GOPe effort. And this also shows how important an ally Bill Barr is for Trump. As I've stressed: Bill Barr is all about protecting the Executive. Period. He will work with Lindsey Graham and others, but he will not compromise on principle, and Executive powers are his principle. We all know that. Everyone in DC knows that.
So, what's up with this new document? Here's how CTH describes it:
Today Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham released a set of talking points [full pdf below – AND here] from the FBI during a briefing on February 14, 2018 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The unknown FBI briefer is informing the SSCI about the reliability of Chris Steele’s primary sub-source, and whether he agrees with the Dossier content & conclusions:￼
At first blush the impression from the release; and indeed the expressed position as outlined by Graham in the release; is that some unknown entity from the FBI was misleading the SSCI in February of 2018 about Christopher Steele and the perspective of his primary sub-source. However, there’s a deeper story.
Within the release it must be noted the date of the briefing material is February 14, 2018. The unknown FBI briefer is saying, in essence, the primary sub-source doesn’t dispute the Dossier material. Obviously this position is demonstrably false given how the PSS said the Dossier was full of “rumor”, “gossip”, “innuendo” and “bar talk”.
As sundance observes, in effect: So the FBI lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. Should we be surprised? But there's more to it, of course, and sundance gets that.
Did you notice that date? February 14, 2018.
Here's another date: December 9, 2019. That's the date of the Horowitz report, which tells the real story about the Danchenko interview. Which would also be the date after which the Senate would be on notice that the Russia Hoax and the Steele dossier was, officially, a hoax.
Here are two more dates:
December 18, 2019: That's when the Dem House voted a fake impeachment of President Trump.
January 16, 2020: That's when the fake impeachment trial began in the Senate.
Now, I know that the proximate cause of the fake impeachment was the Ukraine Hoax, but we all know that in the background was the Steele Dossier and the resultant Mueller Dossier. If the GOP had raised holy hell about the FBI lying to them in this way, would it not have made a difference? Convince me otherwise, if you can.
OK, now comes Shipwreckedcrew and his timeline--he starts with the significance of that first date, February 18, 2018:
February 2018 is one year after the FBI learned of the dubious sourcing behind Danchenko’s most explosive claims.
February 2018 is seven months after Christopher Wray was confirmed to replace Jim Comey as FBI Director.
February 2018 was nine months after Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel by Rod Rosenstein.
February 2018 was one month after William Barr was confirmed as Attorney General replacing Jeff Sessions.
February 2018 was ONE MONTH BEFORE Andy McCabe was fired from the FBI, and two weeks after he was placed on leave pending retirement in late March 2018.
What cannot be overlooked here is that AG Barr pledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing that he would not take any steps to impede the investigation that was in the hands of Robert Mueller.
Shipwreckedcrew is all over the big point--on February 18, 2018, any lying to the Senate about the Steele dossier was done by Team Mueller. They had complete control over the Russia Hoax by then, courtesy of Rod Rosenstein. That's a hugely important point. And we also know that the guy who was the real driving force behind Mueller--and I'm NOT saying that Mueller is senile--was Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann would have known about this. Here's how Shipwreckedcrew puts it:
To the extent this memo misled the Senate, that was Robert Mueller’s SCO misleading the Senate — plain and simple.
But, no hiding the ball here. Shipwreckedcrew's big screwup is this:
Bill Barr was confirmed as AG on February 14th, 2019. I know this because I checked it in Wikipedia.
So, forget about that business about Barr pledging not to "interfere" in the Mueller witchhunt. He didn't interfere. He shut it down. That pledge not to interfere was NOT a pledge not to do his job. Ha ha! Joke's on you, Senate!
But something else happened a month after Barr came on board. Andrew Weissmann announced he'd be leaving not just Team Mueller but DoJ. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was Bill Barr who personally told Weissmann not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out. Barr is a regular Rolling Stone--gathering no moss.
Is this why Weissmann is freaking? Did he get a heads up that this connection had been found and would be coming out? I wouldn't be at all surprised. It's the kind of thing that could get you prosecuted.
Contrary to reports, I believe John Durham has some material to work with.
Typo alert: "know that they guy who was the real driving" meant to be "know that THE guy who was the real driving"?ReplyDelete
And, Wray's FBI presents BS, at a SSCI briefing the day of Barr's confirmation.
Pure coincidence, or key connection?
In any case, how can Wray dodge the noose for this?
While it's true that Wray had been Director for 7 months by that time, it would still be ANOTHER YEAR before Barr became AG.
Yeah, 2018 vs. 2019. Duh!Delete
One of the likely "GOPe" conspirators is Richard Burr. He's been out of the headlines of late after the announcement of an investigation into potential stock trading based on insider information. He was in a position to end the Russian hoax as well, but cozied up to the equally slimy and detestable Mark Warner to continue the farce.ReplyDelete
Sidelining this double dealer was either very convenient timing or an opportunity taken.
It was only after the mid term elections that Sessions left, and Barr was confirmed.ReplyDelete
My guess is Trump was stuck with Sessions till after the mid terms. The Russian collision bs was at full blast.
After Trump had defeated THREE sitting Democratic Senators, and MCCain was dead, and Flake gone,Trump had a more reliably Republican majority that would work with him. Barr was confirmed, and forced Mueller to either put up, or shut up.
@Ray; not to mention Paul Ryan's unwillingness to get anything done but his grand tax cut. His assistance on anything else was nill.Delete
Trump was flat out told by Chuck Grassley that no AG confirmation if he fired Sessions.Delete
Stop, stop - just put the culprits in front of a firing squad and have them spill the beans or the triggers are pulled. Only way to get any answer.ReplyDelete
"My guess is Trump was stuck with Sessions till after the mid terms."
I guess you're right. I would agree that Trump couldn't remove Sessions, certainly not without raising the Deep State cry of *obstruction of justice* to a deafening level.
But I will always wonder why Sessions chose to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and at the same time stay in the job. He should have simply resigned.
By not resigning, and giving way to the Rosenstein/Mueller/Weissmann conspiracy he handicapped President Trump just as surely as if he had joined the Mueller Team himself.
The miracle is that notwithstanding Sessions' (and many others') perfidy and disloyalty Mueller came up empty which might have been a better result for Trump than any non-conflicted Attorney General could have achieved. Not that the Resistance has accepted Mueller's conclusions.
Makes one wonder what Barr and Mueller's wives talk about at their Bible group.
I believe Sessions did a deal with Schumer--Sessions gets confirmed with some Dem votes, but agrees to recuse on Russia.Delete
Did Sessions or Schumer tell Trump that was the deal?Delete
No. However, Trump complained that it was basically a done deal, that Sessions knew he'd be recusing. Trump repeatedly said Sessions should never have taken the job if he knew he'd recuse. It's why Trump has been so bitter about Sessions.Delete
Sessions knew full well going in that he was going to recuse from the Trump-Russia farce. Didn't inform Trump, obviously. Makes Sessions very suspect.Delete
Sessions got played by Schumer with his deal to recuse on Russia. Sessions saw the Russia thing as BS, and thought it would just blow over. He trusted the system, and his former colleagues. He thought he was doing the best job possible as AG. He was over his head, and did not realize it.
Trump gave Sessions first pick of cabinet positions because Sessions was the first senator to support him. I think he believed that Sessions would want to be DHS Secretary, as Sessions was a serious hardliner on the border and illegal immigration.ReplyDelete
I further believe that he had planned that Rudy Guiliani would be his AG, until Sessions blindsided him by requesting the AG post. DJT is all about loyalty, which he believes should be a two-way street, so Sessions became his AG nominee.
IMO, Sessions wanted the top DOJ spot because he had been denied confirmation as a federal district judge in 1986 due to scurrilous accusations of racism by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What a different first term Trump would have had if Sessions hadn't let his desire for reputational rehabilitation overcome his area of expertise and if DJT weren't such a man of his word.
another way to say the same thing is viewing the job as political spoils, instead of the challenge of a lifetime. To Sessions, it was an entitlement rather than a duty.Delete
He thought it'd be a nice way to close out a career in politics.Delete
My recollection is that Sessions had crossed paths w Kislyak twice briefly in 2016 and the Deep State/MSM/Lawfare gang (gangsters?) somehow successfully argued he was thus conflicted on Russia matters. It was absurd then and in hindsight catastrophic. But they got away with it.Delete
Even if Sessions did cut some kind of deal with Schumer in Jan/early Feb 2017 to recuse himself from supervision of any investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election, he still should have refused to appoint a special counsel and/or renigged (can we still say that?) on his recusal. What would the Deep State/MSM/Lawfare done? Impeach him? With a GOP majority in the House?
Sessions was a game-changing disaster and among Trump's many early personnel mistakes, maybe the worst. But Trump never imagined his political opponents would be playing by Alinsky rules. Sessions was not only bull-dozed into accepting a Special Counsel, but accepting a Special Counsel who was part of a coup attempt to overthrow the government.
Without Sessions' lifting a finger in opposition, of all the experienced lawyers in the United States who might have headed up an independent investigation, Trump got "Bob" Mueller and Andrew Weissmann, both of whom were Deep State denizens objectively far more conflicted than Jefferson Sessions ever was.
What you're saying is true in the abstract, but the reality on the ground in DC in May '17 was that Trump was faced with a very divided Congressional GOP (both houses) that would not have supported Trump/Sessions in refusing a special counsel.Delete
Perhaps this is more 'abstract' thinking: Would the result have been worse than what unfolded?Delete
In any event, Sessions certainly could have tried to pick an unconflicted special counsel. He rolled over.
it's 'reneged' in that context! no cancel, though...hahaDelete
"it's 'reneged' in that context!"Delete
Of course! What could I have been thinking this morning...
So something struck me as obvious from this development, but left unsaid. All sorts of comments about Graham "finally" acknowledging the lie that was known about for so long kind of misses an important point. The lie was to the Intelligence committee, not the judiciary committee that Graham chairs.ReplyDelete
Why even after this release has the intelligence committee stood mute about this? Maybe Graham is the good guy here after all? Maybe after everyone is done complaining about what a blowhard Graham is (and he is), they might get around to asking the members of the committee who were lied to to comment.
I didn't recall the exact timeline as presented above, but I do recall personnel departures, e.g. Weissmann, after Barr was confirmed. That struck me as Barr fulfilling his desire to bring the Mueller shenanigans to a close.ReplyDelete
It became obvious in reading Sidney Powell's "Licensed to Lie" that the very typical course of action for DOJ attorneys was to jump to the private sector after the conclusion of nefarious activities (in order to avoid the clutches of OIG and OPR, and remain "officially" unsullied), while awaiting a partisan "rabbi" to bring them back to DOJ after the smoke has cleared.
Weissman has left and returned at least twice. Others have similarly behaved. His has all the appearances of a pattern pointing to corrupt acts or a guilty mind.
And he twice received sanctuary at the FBI, as General Counsel.Delete
That he would find sanctuary is bad enough.Delete
But it blows my mind that he was General Counsel. No possible good can come of a person with his character occupying that position.
Very true, and that goes back to his mentor and protector: Mueller.Delete
Yes, It is very suggestive about Mueller's character.Delete