Pages

Friday, October 2, 2020

SWC Now Thinks It's Van Grack Who's Cooperating With DoJ

Yesterday evening we had a flurry of rumors on twitter, suggesting that AG Barr's Russia Hoax Team has made a breakthrough--they have secured the cooperation of a former Team Mueller attorney in addition to the recently disclosed cooperation of FBI agent William Barnett. For details regarding Barnett see two recent posts:



In the second of those two posts I pointed out that, despite all the activity in the last few months regarding the Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack--who had been the lead Team Mueller attorney on the Flynn case--has basically disappeared from view. However, we know that he has returned to DoJ to head the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) section, and so last night I pointed out that Van Grack fits the profile of the type of attorney from Team Mueller who might cooperate with Barr's Russia Hoax Team:

He is still with DoJ, and thus subject to DoJ disciplinary policies--he could have a lot to lose.

While he was not one of the "star" attorneys on Team Mueller--in no way comparable to Michael Dreeben, Jeannie Rhee, or Andrew Weissman, to name three--he nevertheless ended up in charge of the Flynn case. And the Flynn case has turned out to be by far the most consequential of any of the Russia Hoax cases that Team Mueller attempted to make.

Given Van Grack's role in the important Flynn case, even though he was not a "star" on Team Mueller he would surely have been privy to the overall legal strategy, methods, and attitudes of Team Mueller's leaders. He could, in other words, turn out to be an important witness for Barr's Russia Hoax Team.

Shipwreckedcrew initially speculated, yesterday evening, that Van Grack isn't the cooperating attorney, reasoning that--since we have heard nothing negative about him since he left the Flynn case, whereas we've heard a continue stream of criticism of the FBI's conduct--there was probably no circumstance that could be used to pressure Van Grack. This morning, however, SWC has come around to the view that Van Grack may, in fact, be the cooperator: Clues About Who From SCO Prosecution Team Is Cooperating Are Found in Interview of FBI SA Barnett. In making that switch he notes that cooperation need not be as a result of pressure--it can also be purely voluntary, and he speculates that that my be the case if Van Grack is the cooperator.

Here are what I take to be the main points SWC is making, and they're worth considering.

First of all, as I pointed out in the linked posts (above), it's notable in the Barnett 302 that three Team Mueller attorneys are singled out--by name--for criticism by Barnett: Weissmann, Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein. There are references to other Team Mueller attorneys, but their names are all redacted. The inference I drew from this circumstance was that Barr's Team is focusing on those three named attorneys--Weissmann, for one, has been squealing loudly in public--and that one or more of the attorneys whose names were redacted could be cooperating. This circumstance goes to the overall issue of whether, in fact, any former Team Mueller is cooperating with Barr's Team--and it tends to support a positive conclusion.

Secondly, as readers here probably noted themselves, it's also notable that in his interview Barnett appears--in rather stark contrast to Barnett's views regarding the named threesome--to have a positive attitude toward and relationship with one Team Mueller attorney in particular: "SCO Atty 1." In point of fact, Barnett recounts that he shared his negative views of the named three with SCO Atty 1, with whom he said he had worked in the past and whom he liked. My experience is that prosecutors get quite uptight and defensive when an agent criticizes other prosecutors in their presence, so to me that's an indicator that SCO Atty 1 must have shared at last some of Barnett's negative views of those named three.

Third, proceeding from the supposition that the cooperating former Team Mueller attorney may be cooperating voluntarily, SWC suggests that a likely candidate could be SCO Atty 1, who appears from the Barnett 302 to identify to at least some degree with Barnett's negative attitude toward the named three.

That SCO Atty 1 is, in fact, Van Grack appears likely. Van Grack is a relative newcomer at DoJ--having only about four years of experience. That experience was in the rather specialized field of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. What was SA Barnett doing for the years prior to being recruited to be case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane Team's Manafort and Flynn cases? He was working Chinese and Russian espionage cases, according to the 302, making it likely that he would have been in contact with Van Grack.

All in all, Van Grack seems to be a likely cooperator. It's speculation at this point, but it seems an educated surmise.

NOTE: I've taken to referring to those investigating the Russia Hoax as "Barr's Russia Hoax Team." That seemed advisable since we know that John Durham is now working with at least two additional US Attorneys--Jeff Jensen and John Bash--and the exact lines of demarcation, especially with regard to Durham and Jensen, aren't totally clear. What we do know is that they all report to AG Barr, and we can be sure that Barr is requiring close coordination among them.


16 comments:

  1. The "wild card" in the Barnett 302 that we don't know about: what's in the "Court sealed" redacted passages.

    It possible a SCO prosecutor who did nefarious things related to the Flynn case is exposed in those redacted sections, suspected to be GJ testimony. And that person could be be the rumored cooperating witness.

    Without know what's in the redacted material we can't exclude other SCO prosecutors, other than Van Grack, as a putative cooperating witness.

    OTOH, if SWC is correct that it is a non-coerced cooperation, then Van Grack, at least from what Barnett had so say, seems to be a good nominee for the role.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree--at this point Van Grack is simply an educated guess. OTOH, there could be more than one.

      Delete
    2. Only problem with Van Graack being a cooperating witness is he'd have to disclose all his emails, phone logs, etc with Flynn's Covington lawyers; and maybe Judge Sullivan.

      Delete
  2. As long as we are speculating...please let me pile on.

    An aspect of the Flynn case that has always troubled me...more than most, it seems...

    Is that...

    notwithstanding all of the prosecutorial misconduct relating to threats to Flynn's son...and communications between Covington & Burling and the prosecutors...and failures to provide exculpatory evidence...

    the fundamental flaw in the Flynn case was that...Flynn committed no crime.

    He was charged with lying to the FBI...but he never lied to the FBI.

    This conclusion was never clear until the transcript of Flynn's calls with Kislyak surfaced. And it became clear that the Pientka/Strzok/Page FBI 302 did not disclose a false statement.

    Together, the call transcripts and the various iterations of the 302 could simply never have been used to prove a crime.

    So...there was never a crime.

    It seems to me entirely plausible that Van Grack has had an attack of 'conscience' regarding his involvement in charging an innocent man with a crime he never committed.

    Perhaps Van Grack's 'conscience' has been helped along by the serial disclosures of exculpatory information, some of which may even have been hidden from him...or perhaps Durham/Jensen has also developed some leverage over Van Grack which has helped him with his 'conscience'.

    In any event, so I speculate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "exculpatory information, some of which may even have been *hidden* from him...."
      Cass, is there any particular factor that leads you to imagine this?

      Delete
    2. No...nothing in particular.

      I simply speculate that Van Grack may not have been aware of all of the exculpatory material which USA Jensen has developed.

      For example, would Van Grack have been aware (prior to Jensen's investigation) of Strzok's or Priestap's handwritten notes which question Flynn's criminality?

      Delete
    3. OK.
      If Van Grack weren't aware of Strzok's or Priestap's handwritten notes, then, yeah, I can see how he'd resent his bosses' hiding that stuff, and *spurring* him to push what we now know to be a totally BS case.
      Here he was, expecting to emerge as a National Hero, and instead his "pals" played him into jumping into a sh*tstorm.

      Delete
  3. Mark, reading your article and Cassander’s comments, isn’t Van Grack doing the threatening of Flynn’s son without legal basis and withholding exculpatory info?
    So he is looking at misconduct and loss of law license before his conscience may kick in? Seems like lots of leverage to me or am I not following? I do recall
    seeing a govt. submission in Flynn case suggesting FBI may have been hiding some info from Van Grack, Hard to believe he wasn’t involved there to a large extent, though. Thx.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should he have known better, been less willing to accept what he may have been told by the FBI? Almost certainly yes. But we're talking criminal liability here rather than moral liability.

      Delete
    2. Right now at https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew SWC is fielding lots of angry tweets from people who feel the same way as MjH. Read his responses to see how convincing you find his defense of the process. He basically wants to push the blame off onto the FBI, but one does wonder.

      Also, one wonders about Barnett's role.

      Delete
    3. I'm reading shipwreck's push back and thinking...if the Flynn prosecution had been in good faith, perhaps shipwreck's defense of VG's actions would be acceptable.

      But in this case there was no -- zero -- underlying crime. So everything the Govt did to get a plea agreement was unethical. There is no defense for it.

      We'll see if the Govt's actions were also criminal.

      Delete
    4. See my new post re the push back.

      Delete
    5. If Van Graack had been acting in good-faith, he would have fed the motion to dismiss.

      Delete
  4. Without knowing more about the timing of Barnett’s conversion, I am skeptical of
    people being picked by Strozk to lead a team. They seemed to be picking players who they viewed as “flexible”. Jumping on the team and then finding out
    “There was no there there” may have led to his conversion. I am glad he saw the light and his info certainly moves things forward. Good for him and us.

    ReplyDelete