Friday, October 9, 2020

Why The Daniel Jones Story Is Significant

Yesterday I ran with the Alfa Bank Redux story. Please follow the link if you need to refresh yourself about that hoax--probably the first part of the Russia Hoax that truly went public during the 2016 election. Dexter Filkins at the New Yorker--one of the original purveyors of the hoax, which was quickly debunked by the FBI--is trying to resurrect the hoax for a very specific reason.

Filkins, in his article, breaks the news that John Durham is taking what looks like a very deep dive into the origins of the Alfa Bank hoax. In doing so Durham has subpoenaed several of the hoaxters before a grand jury. Among those subpoenaed is Daniel Jones. Another participant in the hoax--and possibly one of its originators--was Jake Sullivan, who is currently a top adviser to none other than Joe Biden. Filkins is sounding the alarm about the, um, alarming direction Durham's investigation has taken--signaled by Durham's subpoena to Daniel Jones. Here's how I described Jones' background yesterday:


But let's turn to John Durham's interest in the Alfa Bank hoax. And Filkins has some interesting things to tell us about that.

We've seen that Durham has summoned various people connected to the Alfa Bank hoax before a grand jury--including Daniel Jones:

After college, he worked as a middle school teacher with Teach For America, an AmeriCorps national service program. Jones spent four years with the Federal Bureau of Investigation before joining the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the leadership of its then-Chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller. Jones subsequently worked for Senator Dianne Feinstein when she became Chairperson of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.


To those who pooh pooh the Barr/Durham investigation, I ask: Do you or do you not want Daniel Jones in front of a grand jury? If that squib from Wikipedia isn't enough to pique your interest regarding Jones' involvement with the Alfa Bank hoax, consider what Sean Davis has to say about Jones' activities after the 2016 election:

CONFIRMED: Former Feinstein Staffer Raised $50 Million, Hired Fusion GPS And Christopher Steele After 2016 Election

A declassified congressional report confirms that Daniel Jones, a former intelligence committee staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to push the Russian collusion narrative against Donald Trump.

A declassified congressional report confirms prior reporting by The Federalist that Daniel Jones, a former staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele after the 2016 election to push the anti-Trump Russian collusion narrative.

According to the report, Jones, who runs an investigative outfit called the Penn Quarter Group (PQG), told the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in March of 2017 that he had retained the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to “continue exposing Russian interference” in the 2016 election. Steele is the former British spy who authored the infamous unverified dossier of allegations against President Donald Trump.

Although Jones’ name is redacted in the report, the biographical details plus previous reporting on the matter make clear that he is the individual referenced. The report also revealed that Jones told federal investigators that he had raised $50 million from “7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California.”


There was big money backing Jones and the scorched earth war on Trump.


In other words, Daniel Jones is at the center of the Deep State. Those “7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California” did not give him Jones $50 million on some sort of whim--they were looking for tangible results--along the lines of the removal of Trump from office by hook or by crook. Speculation is that Jones was the connection between the "resistance" operatives within the Intelligence Community and the outside world--the MSM, the Dems in the legislative branch, etc.

The subpoena to Jones is a measure of just how serious Barr and Durham are. They would never have subpoenaed someone so connected unless they were deadly serious and unintimidated by the Left's hysterical attacks on their investigation. Think about that in the context of what I wrote about Barr's determination to forge ahead on his efforts to pull the Deep State inside out. Compare that to what SWC has recently written about Jones (Durham’s Investigation Has Taken an Interest A Person Named Daniel Jones — The Implications are Uncertain At This Point):

An investigation of Jones and his organization will certainly lead to exposure of Jones’ communications, and all the financial transactions between Jones and his clients and partners.

THAT could go anywhere — including back to Democrat Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I would maintain that that is only a small part of what an investigation of Jones could lead to.

Consider this. I simply can't conceive that Durham is calling Jones before the grand jury on a whim, without having conducted a searching background investigation of everything connected to Jones. If Durham sent Jones a grand jury subpoena to testify before the grand jury, IMO it's for sure that he has also issued grand jury subpoenas for everything in Jones life that could conceivably be obtained via grand jury subpoenas. That would, as SWC says, focus on communications and finances. Moreover, before quizzing Jones on all that, Durham would have reviewed that mountain of material and followed out all leads that arose from it. And my belief is that Durham would not be calling Jones before the grand jury if he hadn't already developed bona fide investigative leads that he has followed out. That's too serious a step to take just to show how thorough an investigator he is.

The time span from the beginning of the Russia Hoax to the beginning of Durham's investigation covers several years. Jones probably never envisioned anything like the Barr/Durham investigation, and in that frame of mind it's hard to maintain a strict operational security. People lose their security consciousness and make mistakes. It's hard to imagine that Barr and Durham are going down this road unless they've discovered some of those mistakes.


  1. As the Bible tells us, many shall fall into the very pit they have dig for others. Daniel Jones looks to be a current example, with many more to follow.

  2. Wild thought: could Durham have "flipped" someone (or they volunteered cooperation) who has dished up Jones to him on a platter? If so, then he waltzes Jones before the GJ and gets him to perjure himself, and then WHAM -- "what do YOU have to proffer, Mr. Jones?"

  3. The more I think about it, the new Filkin article about the Alfa bank allegations, the witnesses being subpoenaed, the Alfa Bank civil suits, etc., all seems like "open-air witness coordination" masquerading as journalism.

    Somebody is very very worried about where Durham is headed with this.

  4. There is still much to be unpacked regarding the SSCI and it's role in all of this. I imagine Mitch McC. put Marco in place to safeguard some information that apparently can't be shared w/Johnson and Grassley amongst others would love to see. Funny how this works. Burr must have sold his soul w/Warner in some deal and could be an embarrassment for the GOP. All this going on after Feinstein was voted down as top minority lead for the SSCI and replaced by Warner. Much to uncover here.

  5. Trump is going to need 4 terms to see the end of this slow motion hackerama.

  6. Mark, just a comment on today's Pelosi presser re: use of the 25th amendment. I hope all your readers understand that Pelosi is bringing this out now as a precursor for Biden and not Trump.

    In other words, she'll have no problem using it on Biden shortly after (if elected) he enters office and Harris will have no problem signing off. This is a "stage" show now to gauge reaction from the press and the people. IMHO.

  7. OT

    Dissatisfaction with the Conspirators is less polite in some other quarters

  8. All I am going to say on this is that I am frustrated knowing full well investigations can take time, especially large, vast investigations like this.

    My issue has always been that the desired result, convictions of those that perpetrated this no matter how high will not happen if Trump loses. Yes, the Democrats will be tarnished if they win and Trump puts it all out there, but it will not really matter.

    The vast majority of people, in my opinion, are not affected by the lawlessness that has happened to Trump, G Papa, Flynn, Stone, and, yes, Manafort. It is not existential to them. They are working and raising families and trying to have a good life. It’s almost as this is just perceived as a very large political trick with no real bearing on their lives.

    That begs the question of what of those states that have allowed the rioting to continue, to spill over to neighborhoods? I would like to think they would go for Trump, but I truly think a large portion of that population likes the violence, hurt, pain, and death of even those that support the Democrat causes.

    - TexasDude

    1. I puzzle over the mentality of people who can vote for the destruction of their world--because that's what we're talking about.

    2. It's all about the free stuff. If Dems win, they'll keep getting free stuff from the gubmint.

      Nobody thinks of the future.



  9. Was this already posted here?

    Durham investigation "expanded in recent weeks + goes well beyond origins of FBI Russia probe"

    1. Yes. If I'm right about the extent of the Jones investigation they may well have been working on that part for a couple of months.

  10. Help - I’m feeling clueless. What am I missing on potential criminal prosecutions?

    The only ones I see right now are in DOJ and FBI.

    CIA would be nice, but seems just embarrassing bias.

    Executive branch due to unmasking and other activities my guess is just more embarrassment.

    Senators, especially Senate Intel committee, I just see some more embarrassing information coming out.

    Wolfe got his wrist slapped.

    Reporters were also part of this fiasco, but seems more embarrassment, if that is possible.

    Foreign intel agencies just more embarrassing information.

    Jones, outside of lying, what is his risk? And other non government employees?

    1. The lying would probably feed into conspiracy charges, not only in re lying but also possibly leaks, which could lead to natsec charges. Wolfe don't go with Wolfe like sundance--pre-Barr.

    2. "Wolfe don't go with Wolfe like sundance--pre-Barr."
      Mark, can you clarify this?
      Do you mean, that sundance is over-hyping things on Wolfe? Or, ....?

    3. What I mean is, don't try to extend the coverup of Wolfe to current events. The Wolfe coverup occurred before Barr came in as AG. I expect it would have been handled differently by Barr.

    4. Got it.
      How much does SSCI backing Wray stonewalling, and Mitch acquiescence to this, hinder Barr on such stuff?

    5. It's impossible to tell at this difference. However, it's important to distinguish between access and declass. Barr and Durham, in my understanding, can get access to pretty much anything--that doesn't require declass because they have the authority and the clearances. The stonewalling comes when they try to declass and make available to people who don't have clearances--John Q. Public.

      What would be hinderance would be hiding documents. For example, recent news accounts claim that Gina Haspel has claimed she didn't have docs that she actually did have. Problem--that would definitely hinder an investigation, but Barr doesn't have the authority to discipline or fire Haspel. He does, re Wray, but politics enters into that, too, since Wray, while under Barr, is a separate presidential appointee. Barr can't just go around firing presidential appointees. Just as we saw with Comey, Trump has to do that.

    6. Makes sense.
      But, on "Trump has to do that":
      isn't he hindered (in picking replacements) by the brass of SSCI, or SJC, those panels tacitly backed by Mitch?

    7. Absolutely, although I'm not sure what role Mitch plays. Just as Trump isn't a dictator, neither is Mitch.

  11. Good article (credit where credit is due) by Andy McCarthy on Barr's announcement that there will be no DoJ reports or indictments before the election:

    FWIW, doesn't it make good and logical sense that Barr and Durham are sitting on powerful evidence and major cases? This would probably be the strongest and best reason to delay indictments, because their announcement would ignite a firestorm of Dem outrage (accusations that the indictments are politically influenced) and possibly taint the election results -- especially if Trump were to win.

    This, of course, leaves open the possibility that Trump loses and Durham files indictments after Nov. 3. Many fear that Biden will be able to deep-six any such indictments. As I've said here before, I'm not so sure. Mouse has asked me for my rationale. At this stage I'm not sure I can articulate it (yet). Suffice it to say, I'm just not sure a sitting American President in the year 2021 will be able to cause the dismissal of factually premised indictments brought by a United States Attorney. I'm sure this subject will generate much debate if the circumstance comes to pass.

    1. All the new appellate judges would come in very handy. As also the new roster at the SCOTUS.

    2. Just read the article, very sensible. I like that he confirms what I say, above, re the likelihood that the Jones investigation has been going on for months, and at a very intensive level. McC doesn't cite particular names but:

      "The Justice Department has obviously put a lot of work into what it has always maintained is a good-faith investigation."

      It's obvious to McC for the same reasons I cite above.

      Barr and Trump play two different roles in upholding our constitutional order. Barr's role is mostly legal, whereas Trump's role is heavily political. They both have to live with each other's roles. The role of one may be hard for the other to swallow sometimes, but that's the reality of our system. Trump is saying things all Americans need to hear, in ways that Barr can't really say them--although in his OWN way has said them.

      McC does well citing another point that I've also made repeatedly: "you can’t indict until a case is so ready you could go to trial." Non-lawyers don't get this, but it's true. And the example he gives of the fiasco of the Concord Management case is an excellent illustration. They thought they'd never have to go to trial, but boy were they wrong.

    3. When does one begin to question Biden about keeping the DOJ (Barr/Durham) investigation going if he wins. Similar to the court packing thing.

    4. "Biden will be able to deep-six any such indictments."
      Not "be able to"; he'll be *forced* to by the DS etc. (unless, say, Sil. Valley & Wall St. dare to stick their necks near the guillotine, by pushing
      for his letting the charges to be pursued).
      More likely, the new AG would emulate Barr on the Flynn matter, expecting no judge to emulate Sullivan.
      Any judge who went *there* would, among other things, get nightly visits from antiFa/ BLM.

      Or, DoJ Swamp Creatures could find dozens of stealth sabotage maneuvers, which Sil. Valley & Wall St. wouldn't dare to squeal about.

      Any DA, who dared to really pursue such charges, would shortly be given an Offer He Can't Refuse.

  12. IF Harris/Biden win before all the coup information comes out, look for more than civil disobedience coming from our disaffected populace. It may be the trigger for that hot version of what we have now. I certainly hope not, but as the saying goes - hope for the best and prepare for the worst.


    State Dept publishes Clinton emails.

    1. Wow. Gonna have to pull an all nighter. Mountain Dew and cherry bon bon’s.

  14. It Appears Trump is using the election as a reason to get a bunch of blocked information out past the deep state censorship.