At the end of his interview with Maria Bartiromo today, Senator Graham stated that there would be another revelation coming soon that would be even more shocking that what they had been talking about. What they'd been talking about was the FISA abuse and the Barnett 302. However, Graham was too cagey for me to even make a guess at what that revelation might be.
Then, to close out the interview, Graham summarized the Barr investigation as being composed of "three buckets":
1) Was there any predication at all for Team Mueller?
2) The Carter Page FISA abuse.
3) The Michael Flynn case.
I see #1 as being the most significant. The wrongdoing in the second and third buckets has been known for a long time. However, the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is now openly suggesting that the Team Mueller witchhunt had no predication--i.e., was illegal--is a major positive development. It certainly confirms what I've been saying since Durham was appointed: Team Mueller is in the crosshairs. We saw that, implicitly, in the Barnett 302, and now Graham is saying that pretty explicitly.
3) The Michael Flynn case
RAZOR (Pg 9) Barnett 302: "While BARNETT questioned the investigation theory, he did not think at the time the investigation was illegal"
"...BARNETT thought at the time the NSLs were legally justified"
I'm sure that's part of why Cassander found Barnett to be overall "unimpressive"--or words very close to that.Delete
N.B. the phrasing of the Barnett quote: "... at the time ..."Delete
It's used at least twice in the 302.
It implies Barnett changed his mind after having that initial opinion.
Were it not the case, there would be no need for that phrase at all.
This is further evidence this is a partial, or one of many, 302s with Barnett.
I do acknowledge all of the understandable reasons why Barnett did and said what he did and said.
If memory serves, Barnett also said that he believed Flynn lied to the FBI (to save his job) when they interviewed him. On what basis did Barnett conclude Flynn lied? I am still not aware of any evidence other than SCO's assertion that Flynn lied.
I also believe Barnett said accusations made by Chris Steele constituted a direct accusation. What does he mean? That a direct accusation is sufficient predication?
I also believe Barnett said that while he did not believe there was evidence Flynn was working for the Russian Government, he did believe there were 'grounds to investigate' the other three CH subjects. This sounds to me like Barnett thought CH was reasonably predicated. I would ask: on what basis did he believe this?
Lastly, if Barnett believed that Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation were inappropriate attempts to 'get Trump' why did he not report his beliefs to the Inspector General three years ago? Despite his numerous misgivings, Barnett apparently did nothing to change the course of the CH, Razor or Mueller investigations.
If you read the 302 closely you'll also see a number of clearly--to me, anyway--self serving statements. For example: Hey, I only joined Team Mueller to try to influence them away from their biased views. Please!Delete
Despite all the above, SWC theorizes today (at RedState) that "Why No Durham Activity Before Election — Likely The Interview of Agent William Barnett".Delete
"The interview took place only 10 days ago."
Why not sooner, of a guy w/in the FBI, on which Horowitz reported over 9 months ago?
I am full on going to be full on contrarian.ReplyDelete
It does not matter.
One side believes laws matter, other side thinks laws are a hindrance to power.
Been going on for darn well a century. Appears to being actualized today.
Let’s say next week, AG Barr indicts Obama.
Doesn’t matter. They will say it’s political, which it is even if it follows the law.
Subversion of the law is a time honored American tradition, especially in the South, by Democrats, but is evidence all over the US with all political parties over the years.
If people aren’t jailed for 2 and FISA warrants aren’t banned, I’ll never trust the FBI again, like CNN never...ReplyDelete
In the question that led to this "3 buckets" comment, she referred to the stuff about no indictments before Nov., and he said *zip* to refute that assumption.ReplyDelete
Does he buy this, or did he just duck a spat with her?
Then, she had Sen. Johnson on, w/ both winging their hands vs. the no indictments stuff, and the extent to which Wray etc. get to block key Declasses.Delete
Spell-check: "wRinging their hands".Delete
Yeah, color me highly skeptical of Graham or Johnson's faux concern. They have about as much self-interest, and probably for similar reasons, to expose it all to sunlight on the right timetable as Hillary does.Delete
Interesting that Barnett didn't wipe his phone. Must be lots of evidence of criminal conduct by all the others. If he was cut out of the process because he thought there was no basis for going after Trump, Flynn, Page, and others, Barnett now has a pretty good defense to any possible charges he could have otherwise faced.ReplyDelete
I have wondered here a few days ago...and wonder here again...whether Mueller wiped his phone...Delete
If he did...
What, you mean like with a cloth?Delete
He and Biden worked on it together for 3-4 days.Delete
I sure hope Lindsay has laid a trap for Comey and/or McCabe. Maybe he is holding something back for his hearings.ReplyDelete
IMO, this being an open door session, it will accomplish literally NOTHING of substance except a couple soundbites for CNN to take out of context, and for a handful of election ads.Delete
You don't suppose when Barr talked about how honest prosecutors should target crimes, not people to pin crimes on, in his speech at Hillsdale College, do you suppose, in light of the Barnett 302, that perhaps he was referring to certain unnamed, but very specific prosecutors who worked for Mueller?
RE: Bartiromo's "No indictments" before election news blast:ReplyDelete
Bartiromo's comment yesterday morning that no indictments or report are expected before the election contained a detail about an argument having broken out among career DOJ officials that bringing indictments this close to the election would be seen as "political."
Anyone else see the smuggled detail?
There is no reason for an argument over bring indictments this close to the election if Durham HAS NO INDICTMENTS TO BRING!
Ergo, if the story is accurate, it implies Durham has indictments he has either sealed, or ready to launch.
Lastly, even if the report is accurate, plea deals are not indictments; they are filed with the court via an "information" rather than via a GJ indictment. So, even if true, and I'm not convinced is true, technically, it does not preclude announcements by Durham of plea agreements before the election.
Extending this thought further.... what if "Durham will bring no indictments before the election" means what's coming are NON-Durham indictments???Delete
How about Jensen indicting some people for criminal acts related to targeting Flynn as an insurance policy investigation, and using it to frame him from a crime that was never committed, in order to fetter the nascent Trump administration, while taking out the one person who might have figured out the dirty partisan campaign trick that morphed into soft coup attempt that had been undertaken?
That may seem to be far fetch at the moment, but let's revisit the redacted passages in the Barnett 302.
Notice that Barnett does not seem to provide any reaction to those redacted passages, which presumably are GJ testimony related to CR.
His reactions can't be in the redactions because the redactions all read "Pending unsealing by Court," so Barnett's reaction to the GJ testimony isn't part of those redactions -- it would be redacted under "ongoing investigation" if redaction were required ...
... unless Barnett's reactions were testimony in front of a GJ!!!!! Then it would be redacted under "pending unsealing by Court" right along with whatever else is in those same court sealed sections.
And that's the only way I can make sense of the Barnett 302 redactions. And if that is an accurate interpretation, Jensen may be the one dropping indictments imminently, not Durham.
DOJ/Flynn filed some more notes today, but heavily redacted and sort of cryptic. Presumably the right people will know what's redacted? Also, possible in an effort to create some controversy in the case, Peter Strzok's lawyer wrote a letter to Judge Sullivan disputing a few of the notes that have been submitted as his, and accused Powell of violating court's order to wait until all Brady materials produced to file more. Maybe Sullivan will use this as a setup to demand an investigation?? Say he can't trust any of the materials released by the DOJ w/out checking with all the people involved to make sure they agree it's accurate?ReplyDelete
They seem to be just one more indication that there was no intent to deceive--and that Strzok knew it. It's beginning to look like Powell will need to appeal to the SCOTUS, as she said. I doubt she would have said that if she had any glimmer of confidence in the two lower courts.Delete
I take it she is able to bypass the Court of Appeals after Sullivan rules and get to SCOTUS? This travesty shows no signs of a timely conclusion even after all this time.ReplyDelete
I can't give you the exact details, but the SCOTUS has to agree to take her appeal. If they don't agree, she has to appeal to the DC Circuit, and there are no guarantees.Delete