Pages

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

UPDATED: Bash's Unmasking Investigation: No 'Substantive Wrongdoing?'

RE THE UPDATES: I have three updates below, and I've also updated the title with a "?"


I'm quoting The Hill's summary of an article in the WaPo. The Hill's account can be found here:


'Unmasking' probe concludes without 'finding any substantive wrongdoing': report


I take that to mean that then USA John Bash--recently resigned--who led the investigation simply concluded that no criminal violation could be proved. That understanding is reflected in the WaPo title:


‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report


"Without charges" seems to be the operative conclusion. The phrase "without finding any substantive wrongdoing" appears in the first paragraph of the WaPo article, but is not a quote:


The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.


In the last paragraph the WaPo states that it was "unable to review the full results of what Bash found." In between the first and last paragraphs you can read paragraph after paragraph of political speculation that doesn't bear repeating here. But there's no further substantive information.

Therefore, the bottom line as we know it is that there will be no criminal charges arising from the unmaskings. That doesn't mean that regulations and guidelines weren't violated, but since those involved are no longer with the government they will suffer no disciplinary action.

UPDATE 1: In support of commenters EZ and Anonymous, I would point out that it would have been easy enough for Durham to have determined that there were no actual crimes committed--without pulling a USA from a large district back to DC to make that determination. That raises the question: What possible crimes did Barr and Durham think they might find? After all--they needed some predication to begin the investigation in the first place. 

A likely supposition would be that the unmasking investigation was part of the leak investigations. The unmaskings may not have been criminal in and of themselves if the unmasked information didn't go beyond persons with the requisite clearance--which everyone we've looked at in the Russia Hoax would have had. But, since the unmasked information was contained in classified documents any leaks to persons without clearances would be crimes.

The question then is, Do the unmaskings and leaks really play no part in the Durham investigation and are being totally dropped, or will they come up later as part of a bigger conspiracy?

UPDATE 2: Commenter Anonymous points out that a week ago it was reported by the NYPost that Bash's replacement in San Antonio, Acting USA Gregg Sofer, would be handling "any matters that John Bash was overseeing" for Barr and Durham: Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will pick up ‘unmasking’ probe: report.

My understanding is that Bash had already informed Barr that he'd be stepping down. Still, if his part of the unmasking investigation was going to be completed within a week, one would have thought he'd stick around for just one more week.

More importantly, the NYPost article specifically states that Bash was looking into the leaks with regard to Michael Flynn, and that Sofer will also be looking into that--which makes sense in line with my suppositions, above:


Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will take up the investigation into the “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn after Sofer’s predecessor resigned from the Justice Department, according to a report Tuesday.

...

Barr named Bash in May to look into the process that led to Flynn’s name being revealed after a conversation between him and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was picked up by the intelligence community.


The characterization of the investigation clearly describes a leak investigation. The revelation of Flynn's name came as a result of a leak to the WaPo. Any unmasking of Flynn's name would have been an internal government matter, separate from--albeit related to--the actual leak. 

It makes no sense to me to suppose that Bash or anyone else found no "substantive wrongdoing" in leaking a transcript of a top secret "tech cut" to the WaPo. That's clearly a criminal violation. This doesn't appear to be adding up right now. Perhaps there will be some clarification.

UPDATE 3: Commenter Bebe points to the Fox account of the appointment of Sofer, a week ago. Kerri Kupec is saying basically what I wrote last night--"unmasking" is unlikely, in and of itself, to result in criminal charges. However, it can be important in revealing motives. For example, non-criminal acts, when motivated for certain ends, may help to prove the intent behind a criminal conspiracy. As I also wrote, we find paragraph after paragraph of highly tendetious political speculation in the stories, sandwiched between one basically unsourced tidbit and an admission that the authors haven't seen any documentation:


The Justice Department also, at the time, revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham from Connecticut, who is reviewing the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, was also investigating the so-called unmasking of Trump campaign associates as part of his broader review. That line of investigation was confirmed after Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made public a list of Obama officials who purportedly requested to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn, who at the time was Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big-picture events," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in May after Bash was tapped to take on the task.


What could have changed so drastically in one week to make Kupec's statement inoperative? Nothing, I would say. I think our skeptical commenters, Cassander and others, have the right approach.

 

24 comments:

  1. It also does not eliminate the possibility that some unmaskings were overt acts in support of a criminal conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sigh ... just sigh.

    - TexasDude

    ReplyDelete
  3. Evidence that Bash did not do a real investigation and my suggestion the Barr fired him for not doing his job.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Washington Post will no doubt spin this for the liberal point of view. Good catch on what is and is not an actual quote or based on actual source information.

    No indictments from this investigation, perhaps, but also perhaps Barr is waiting until after the election to disclose Bash's findings. I also would have to think that if unmasking were performed in furtherance of wrongdoing being investigated by Durham, such findings may be relevant to criminal investigations outside Bash's purview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's possible that a report could be released as a public service--to acquaint the public with abuses of power. Barr has said, not every abuse is a crime--but abuses deserve to be exposed.

      OTOH, as you and EZ point out, the findings may yet serve a purpose in the rest of Durham's investigation.

      Delete
  5. May this be Exhibit “A” for breaking rules, being unethical, doing the wrong thing, behaving badly, etc., but not breaking any law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried to address that in the UPDATE. Interesting electoral doings in CA--GOP is getting creative about harvesting votes.

      Delete
    2. Right. There are 5 million registered Republicans in CA and about an equal number of No Party Preference. The Dems have 9 million + - not even a simple majority. We have to do something. Corrupt Becerra will try to stop it. I’m hoping he gets nowhere.

      Delete
  6. The again...:

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/acting-us-attorney-gregg-sofer-to-pick-up-unmasking-probe-report/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Bash found no criminality, why has Durham appointed someone to take over Bash's unmasking/leak investigation after Bash announced he's leaving to take a private job, if the investigation is finished?

      The obvious conclusion is the investigation is NOT finished ....

      Delete
    2. See my second update. I suspect we're not getting the whole story.

      Delete
    3. From the Fox News article on which the NY Post based its article:

      The Justice Department also, at the time, revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham from Connecticut, who is reviewing the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, was also investigating the so-called unmasking of Trump campaign associates as part of his broader review. That line of investigation was confirmed after Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made public a list of Obama officials who purportedly requested to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn, who at the time was Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

      "Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big-picture events," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in May after Bash was tapped to take on the task.


      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/replacement-us-attorney-reviewing-unmasking-assume-investigations-sources

      Delete
    4. Thanks. For some reason I had trouble accessing that last night.

      Delete
  7. Am I the only person here who is skeptical that a Wapo article published three weeks before the election which concludes that Bash “completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing,” and which is attributed to unnamed “people familiar with the matter” and which admits that Wapo was “unable to review the full results of what Bash found” and that information has not been released, so "it is not yet known what Bash unearthed"...is actually credible?

    The article states that "it is not yet known what Bash unearthed". People "familiar with the matter" could well be attorneys for one or more of the unmaskers. Isn't that the stunt Brennan's lawyer pulled when Durham interviewed him? None of Bash, Barr, Durham or Sofer has said anything or, in fact, ever leaked anything about these investigations.

    I call BS until someone who knows the facts goes on the record.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are correct when you say Bash had informed Barr. He had given his resignation a month prior to the public announcement.

    Something about that stinks to high heaven.

    The probe itself seemed pointless, unmasking is not necessarily an illegal activity. The leaking however was but I'm not at all confident we will see anything from that either.

    The NCTC kiddies are celebrating tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joe Biden, a bona fide dementia patient, is being pumped full of drugs in a desperate attempt to keep him going until November 3rd. He looks like death warmed over and is an endless source of gaffes. He is pitiable, not presidential; and his campaign is an act of elder abuse, not a serious candidacy. Not even massive voter fraud can save the Democrats, and there will be a huge down-ballot impact. That is reality.

    As such, the MSM is starving for anything at all that can be framed as positive for the Democrat Party. This weak disinformation story is the best they've got to offer. That is how bad things are going for them.

    Yes, they have convinced themselves that this canard will discourage Trump voters and thereby offset the Biden Campaign trainwreck, but my guess is that it will have the exact opposite effect. Every Trump voter is now supremely motivated to see him re-elected and then pray that he kicks ass beginning on November 4th.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I take that to mean that then USA John Bash--recently resigned--who led the investigation simply concluded that no criminal violation could be proved."

    That was also true in the case of General Flynn and many other patriots who were actually innocent. Their persecutors knew it before they launched the persecutions.

    It's time for loyal Americans to stop prissing around like Mitt Romney and start fighting like Andrew McCabe and Adam Schiff (without the oleaginous smirk). The b-stards deserve no quarter. Eff them. SWAT them. Make them suffer for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  11. O tempora, o mores! is a Latin phrase that translates literally as "Oh the times! Oh the customs!", first recorded to have been spoken by Cicero. A more natural, yet still quite literal, translation is "Oh what times! Oh what customs!";[1] a common idiomatic rendering in English is "Shame on this age and on its lost principles!", originated by the classicist Charles Duke Yonge.[2] The original Latin phrase is often printed as O tempora! O mores!, with the addition of exclamation marks, which would not have been used in the Latin written in Cicero's day.


    Cicero throws up his brief like a Gentleman, by John Leech, from: The Comic History of Rome by Gilbert Abbott à Beckett.
    The phrase was used by the Roman orator Cicero in four different speeches,[3] of which the earliest was his speech against Verres in 70 BC. The most famous instance, however, is in the second paragraph of his First Oration against Catiline, a speech made in 63 BC, when Cicero was consul (Roman head of state), denouncing his political enemy Catiline. In this passage, Cicero uses it as an expression of his disgust, to deplore the sorry condition of the Roman Republic, in which a citizen could plot against the state and not be punished in his view adequately for it.[4]

    ReplyDelete
  12. Again, slightly O/T

    https://thenationalpulse.com/commentary/farnan-how-the-russia-lie-doomed-the-durham-investigation/

    First, I don't know Farnan or know of him. But he raises an excellent question which has always troubled me. Which is: Why do we accept as true the assertion that "Russia meddled in our elections"?

    Especially, why does the GOP Establishment accept this assertion. I've heard Rubio proclaim it...I've even heard Trump when backed into a corner accept that Russia meddles in our elections.

    I've even heard Dan Bongino accept the premise.

    But, as Farnan suggests in this article, there is no actual proof of it...nor does it actually make any sense. There are now reports that the Kremlin may have actually favored Mrs Clinton...but...think about it...the Kremlin must have realized it didn't matter who they preferred and that 'Russia' had no way of actually influencing the outcome of the election.

    I've read somewhere that there were billions of 'political' statements made on Facebook in the runup to the 2016 election. Multiply that number by 'x' for the political statements made in other social media outlets and in the MSM. To me, the idea that 'Russia' had any impact on the election...or that anyone in 'Russia' reasonably thought Russia had any practical opportunity to impact the election...is absurd.

    I'm sure this aspect of the Russia Hoax will turn out to be another ridiculous and total fabrication by the conspirators and...as this fellow Farnan suggests...the lie will turn out to have done great harm to discovering the whole truth of the Conspiracy...because it suggests that there was actually a legitimate basis for the various IC investigations, when, in fact, there was not only no legitimate basis, there was no basis whatsoever.

    It was all made up.

    Barr needs to expose the entire sorry story. Yes, its sprawling, yes it is taking time to investigate and build the cases, and yes there will be questions whether certain conduct is criminal or merely abusive.

    But none of that takes away from the unquestionable fact that Obama and Mrs Clinton -- with devastating consequences -- ran the largest political scandal in the history of the Nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farnan's right, and it's hard to see how our republic can continue unless this whole hoax is massively exposed. Not just bit players prosecuted. But it's necessary to keep in mind: It's not just Obama and Hillary. This hoax could not be put into operation and continued to this day without mind boggling amounts of money.

      Delete
    2. Yes...the money.

      For those of us following Judge Barrett's confirmation proceedings, "Senator" Sheldon Whitehouse has, somewhat counter-intuitively, raised the question of 'dark money' in Republican politics.

      Talk about Pandora's Box. Yesterday and today, Ted Cruz has eviscerated Whitehouse's allegations by showing the far greater presence of 'dark money' in Democrat politics.

      Wait until Barr and Durham expose the presence and extent of dark money in the Obamagate Conspiracy.

      Just wait.

      Delete
    3. "This hoax could not be put into operation and continued to this day without mind boggling amounts of money."

      Yes, and years of prep: Gov't and media infiltration, elected, appointed, and hired. This may not have been the specific purpose that all of these assets were intended but one must use what is at hand in a Black Swan level event, which Trump clearly is.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  13. https://No one ever intimated that the unmasking was, in and of itself, crilawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-counselor-to-bill-barr-replaces-u-s-attorney-in-texas-who-investigated-michael-flynn-unmasking/

    1) It would appear that this was a forensic sidecar to the Durham investigation which might give more perspective but add little actionable info.
    2) We tend to forget that, while the additional assignment by Barr was important, Bash still had a USA district to manage. The Western Dist. of Texas is huge (700 miles across) and includes close to 500 miles of border. It could be that Bash was just ready to take a break (maybe hoping for a Judicial Appt.?).
    3) According to his resume Sofer is fully qualified to take over and an organization that depends on personal indispensability in leadership builds in personalities setting their own agendas (Mueller's SCO team for example).
    4) A sad truth is that the D.C. revolving door career system has in no way been touched, much less mitigated.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete