Very Brief: Meet The New DAG

 Lisa Monaco, Deep State apparatchik extraordinaire:

Monaco was Mueller's chief of staff, later she framed Russia for election interference, then she was part of the coup plot via the fraudulent ICA. After Obama, she propagandized collusion as CNN's senior national security analyst. Oh, she's also a friend of Danchenko's lawyer. https://t.co/iFIf65mCre

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) April 20, 2021

Read her full Wiki bio. Super tied in with Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.

ADDENDUM: And speaking of DoJ, Emerald Robinson is on a roll:

Trump's AG Bill Barr also has a book deal now. There's no word yet on when "AVERAGE GUY: HOW I FAILED TO KEEP EPSTEIN ALIVE OR PROSECUTE SPYGATE PLOTTERS OR INVESTIGATE VOTER FRAUD" will be out in stores.

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) April 20, 2021

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:

The Barnett 302

Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

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.

UPDATED: Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

In my original post regarding the fascinating 302 of USA Jensen's Flynn Team interview of SA William Barnett, I briefly made the point that this 302 may actually not be the full story on Barnett's cooperation with the Barr led DoJ investigation of all things Russia Hoax--an investigation that has expanded now to include at least three aggressive and very competent US Attorneys: John Durham, Jeff Jensen, and John Bash. Jensen has been making a lot of waves in the last few months, because--among other aspects of the Russia Hoax--he has the lead on the Michael Flynn case, which has gone very public with the lurid details of government misconduct.

Here's that brief point I made--with the surrounding paragraphs for a bit more context:

The result was that very little real investigation of Flynn ever took place. Instead, the open case appeared to Barnett to be a sort of placeholder--a case without real predication that was being kept open "just in case". Just in case Flynn became a target of opportunity (as in fact happened) and the FBI could then say, Oh yeah, we've been investigating him as a foreign agent all along--to provide added credibility to the setup interview of Flynn. 

That, of course, is not how investigations are supposed to be managed. In this regard, there are signs in the 302 that this write-up may be only one of several. For example, regarding the lack of predication and the lack of actual investigative activity, the 302 briefly notes that Barnett mentions a "very frank discussion" on that score with "Analyst 1." But no details. I suspect a more detailed account of that aspect exists.

This perspective on how the Flynn investigation was managed is important, because it narrows down USA Jensen's focus on the Flynn case. Presumably, Barnett's account will also be supported by or will confirm what Joe Pientka has already told investigators regarding who directed it all. This in turn will help Jensen to pin the decision on opening a basically unpredicated Full Investigation of Flynn on Strzok--and possibly others above Strzok.

I probably should have gone into a bit more detail on my thinking here. However, Shipwreckedcrew has done more on that. After citing him, I'll make one additional point that I think indicates that Barnett's 302--as we've seen it--may only be a small part of the whole picture. That will also illustrate why there's reason to believe that the "sprawl" of this investigation could be quite extensive. So, here's SWC, retweeting Sidney Powell and offering his take:

The Barnett 302

I'll do this in a sort of impressionistic way--concentrating on overall impressions taken from the FD-302 of FBI Agent William Barnett. That "302" memorializes the interview of Barnett that was conducted by FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the handling of the Michael Flynn case.

First of all, imagine how Barnett felt going into this interview, and what the circumstances of the interview tell us.

Barnett, a law enforcement official of the federal government, had hired an attorney to be present with him at the interview--even though he was just a witness. He may have been just a witness, but he knew this was a high stakes interview and he couldn't simply trust to his own integrity.

He was interviewed by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors--one of them Jeffrey Jensen, a USA who had also been an FBI agent. Barnett knew there'd be no BS-ing his way through this interview, and that this interview was supremely important from the government's standpoint.

Right at the start we learn something very important. Barnett had worked on both the Flynn and Manafort investigations. In fact, he was the case agent for both investigations at the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO), having been specifically recruited to join the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) team by SSA Joe Pientka. He continued working those cases once Team Mueller was set up. That means that he would have interacted regularly with the prosecutors who led those investigations for Team Mueller. We learn later that Barnett is able to recall the attitudes and words of Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, so it's a good guess that Durham/Jensen are very much interested in those two Team Mueller alumni.

UPDATED: Andrew Weissmann Out To Settle Scores?

Andrew Weissmann's book is out tomorrow.  “Where the Law Ends”. Search it at Amazon if you're interested.

The book is basically an account of how everyone else on Team Mueller--but especially Mueller's chief of staff, Aaron Zebley--screwed up and prevented Weissmann from saving the country. Commenter Mike Sylwester has linked to an interview Weissmann did with The Atlantic: The Inside Story of the Mueller Probe’s Mistakes. I haven't read it, but Shipwreckedcrew has, and he says the interview is "a doozy."

In the past I've written about Weissmann, pointing out that after the ethical shambles of the Enron case, resulting in a 9-0 and strongly worded reversal from the SCOTUS for Weissmann, Weissmann become a pariah at DoJ. It was Bob Mueller who twice gave Weissmann a landing place at FBI, "to lick his wounds" as SWC puts it.

SWC, however, has far more of a DoJ insider's perspective on Weissmann than I ever had, and he explains what's going with Weissmann's holy war against Zebley.

Here are a few samples.

UPDATED: About Team Mueller's Phone Problems

TGP has an excellent summary of what's known regarding the mass wiping of Team Mueller phones:

NEW: DOJ Records Show Weissmann, Other Mueller Henchmen Claimed to Have “Accidentally Wiped” at Least 31 Phones Used in Russia Probe

For anyone who hasn't accidentally wiped their phone, here's how you might accidentally do that (paraphrase):

You put your phone in airplane mode, lock it and then nuke the phone by repeatedly entering the wrong password.

The wrong password must be entered 10 times in a row in order to nuke the phone.

As it happens, this accident happened to Andrew Weissmann with two of his three phones.

Does this suggest that Team Mueller lawyers and investigators new they might have something to hide? Yes it does.

UPDATE 1: A fried asked me whether Weissmann and others could be in trouble over this. The short answer, of course, would have been: I don't know. But I don't usually do short answers, so I sent an email. I still don't know, but we'll probably be learning more of the facts of the situation. In the meantime:

It sounds at first blush like some kind of obstruction--obstruction of an investigation. What we need to know is whether OIG asked for the phones in connection with a criminal investigation or simply some sort of internal review. If it was criminal, yes, big deal. If not, the penalties are disciplinary and could lead to being fired. Woops! They've mostly all left or been fired anyway.

Here's a link to a document put out by FTC's OIG--but I assume the situation is similar with DoJ's OIG, and it illustrates the weakness of all OIG investigations. The doc goes on about how important it is to cooperate with OIG. Here's the key passage, though:

Failure to cooperate with an OIG request for information or records is serious misconduct and may lead to disciplinary action up to and including removal. Further, furnishing false information or concealing any type of information from the OIG or obstructing OIG investigations, audits, or other inquiries could constitute a violation of law and result in disciplinary action or criminal prosecution.

So, we need to know more.

Shipwreckedcrew says he's working on this, so maybe he'll be able to find out what was involved in the specific circumstances. My belief, however, is that this was not in connection with a criminal investigation.

However ...

If Durham should come up with some sort of indictment in which the operations of the SCO is an issue--say, in connection with the Flynn case, etc.--then the wiping could come in. Perhaps not as direct evidence, that would depend on a lot of evidentiary rules specific to the case, but almost certainly for impeachment purposes if the defendants took the stand.

UPDATE 2: Sidney Powell on fire:

The Mifsud 302

Techno Fog has posted a copy of the FD-302 for the FBI's interview of Joseph Mifsud. That interview took place in the lobby of the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2017. At that time Mifsud had come to DC for some sort of conference.

What will immediately strike the reader will be the perfunctory nature of the interview, if the 302 accurately reflects the interview (which could be a big IF). As presented, outside of background information regarding Mifsud himself how he knew George Papadopoulos, it appears that the interviewing agents--in one way or another, the exact line of questioning isn't made clear--raised the issue of whether Mifsud had discussed Russian possession of DNC emails. Mifsud responded that he himself had no such knowledge and that the topic had not been raised between Mifsud and Papadopoulos. This meeting took place in the UK in approximately September of 2016.

Here are the two views of the 302 that we have. Note that the administrative section is cut off, so we don't see the names of the interviewing agents or the case type (which would indicate what case the interview was conducted under and what type of violation was purportedly invovled)--which I assume would have been redacted in any case:

Clinesmith And The Big Picture Conspiracy

Shipwreckedcrew has a terrific article today, the title of which won't really suggest to non-prosecutors the substance of what he discusses: Andrew Weissmann Wants Kevin Clinesmith to “Stop Snitchin”. What he's talking about is a topic near and dear to me, one that we've discussed here for a long time--the "big picture conspiracy." SWC goes into the way in which such a case is built.

While SWC largely leaves the focus of the Durham investigation as something for the reader to infer, that focus should become apparent very quickly. As I've maintained, the original Crossfire Hurricane (CH) investigation--CH before Team Mueller--is basically small potatoes as compared to the concerted effort of to force Trump from office by hook or by crook. That, of course, is what Team Mueller was all about. I'm not discounting the criminality of what took place beginning in the summer of 2016 up to Trump's inauguration, nor the Flynn setup, but Team Mueller marked the point at which all the resources of the FBI and DoJ could be openly marshalled against Trump. There was no longer a need to hide what was going on. The coup forces were protected from effective counterattack under the color of law. This is why Barr and Durham are so focused on Team Mueller, as I've long maintained.

Thus, SWC begins his article by basically pointing out that Weissmann's entire focus was on Trump. If there was a conspiracy--and there was--Trump was at the heart of it:

Two Must Read Articles Re Andrew Weissmann

It's well known by now that Andrew Weissmann--widely regarded as the moving force behind the Team Mueller witchhunt--is freaking out over the Clinesmith plea deal. It's likely that he's part of a movement in the Deep State to somehow induce Clinesmith to back out of the deal.

This afternoon we have two major articles about Weissmann and his efforts to somehow derail the Barr/Durham investigation.

First up is the indefatigable--and I do use that word advisedly--Shipwreckedcrew:

There Is A Big “CYA” Footnote In The Mueller Report Seeking to Put Distance Between FBI Attorney Clinesmith and Special Counsel Prosecutors

who gives full credit to CTH for this catch. I can't cover the whole thing, but I urge everyone to read it all.

Basically, there is a footnote in the Mueller Report that insinuates that Kevin Clinesmith never worked for Team Mueller, that at all times he was under the supervision of the FBI:

The Meaning Of The Word 'Intent'

As we know, Kevin Clinesmith's lawyer made a statement last Friday to the effect that Clinesmith would plead guilty to making a false statement, but that Clinesmith never intended to do so. Let's take a look at what "intent" is all about in these circumstances.

Generally speaking the law presumes that a person 'intends' whatever the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions are. Simple example: If I fire a handgun into a densely packed crowd and kill someone, it doesn't matter that I may not have *subjectively* intended to kill someone or to kill the specific person who was killed--the reasonably foreseeable consequence of my act was that someone would suffer great bodily harm or death. It's sufficient that my *act* was intentional and that the consequences of that act were reasonably foreseeable. I will be charged with and convicted of some form of homicide regardless of my state of mind (as long as I wasn't legally insane).

Criminal statutes will sometimes specify the type of intent required for a specific violation. Kevin Clinesmith was charged by John Durham with violating 18 USC 1001(a)(3). That section provides that to be found guilty the subject must:

(a) ..., whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

And here, from the information Durham filed, is how Durham plugs the specifics of the Clinesmith case into that provision of "1001":

13. On or about June 19, 2017, within the District of Columbia, the defendant, KEVIN CLINESMITH, did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States. Specifically, on or about June 19, 2017, the defendant altered the [CIA] Liaison’s June 15, 2017 email by adding that Individual #1 “was not a source” and then forwarded the email to the SSA, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, the original June 15, 2017 email from the [CIA] Liaison did not contain the words “not a source.”

Notice the use of the word "materially". For the false statement to be criminal it must be "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent"--in other words the falsehood must "make a difference." We've seen that the statement by Clinesmith's lawyer, as also expanded in the NYT, suggests that the alteration that Clinesmith made to the CIA email was made "in good faith" and that he *thought* his change to the CIA document was "accurate". In other words, he thought his alteration reflected the meaning of the original.

The Meaning Of The Word 'Source'?

We're about to find out how far the reach of the Deep State goes. Judging from the statement made by Kevin Clinesmith's lawyer, Clinesmith now intends to back out of his plea agreement with John Durham. He is claiming that he never intended to deceive anyone when he altered a CIA document--presenting to other investigators and lawyers and to the FISC as a CIA document what had become throught the alteration his own document; presenting as a CIA judgment what was in fact his own preferred interpretation.

He will defend that by claiming that he believed that Carter Page was not an "actual" source. In other words, it all depends on the meaning of the word "source." The CIA and Michael Horowitz and the FBI and DoJ may believe that Page--an "operational contact" of the CIA from 2008 to 2013--was a "source", but Clinesmith knew better and was therefore justified in altering a document produced by the CIA yet presenting as the CIA's actual judgment on the matter.

That appears to be the implication of his lawyer's statement, as also buttressed by the NYT--official spokesman for the Deep State. Here is his lawyer's statement:

"Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility."

No judge can accept a plea of guilty to making false statements framed in those terms. The plea will have to be rejected unless Clinesmith backs away from that statement and agrees that his alteration made the CIA email misleading.

The NYT offers us this parsing of that statement:

Important: FISA Search Of Carter Page Premises

A FISA warrant is usually associated with the collection of electronic communications. However, they often cover much more, such as surreptitious physical entries to premises used by the subject and searches of those premises and everything in them. Carter Page has complained of such searches, including the seizure of sensitive or possibly embarrassing items, that he says were unrelated to any legitimate investigative purpose.

Undercover Huber reminds us:

Has everyone fully internalized that *after Mueller became Special Counsel*, the FBI physically broke into locations used by Carter Page, under FISA warrants that even the DOJ now says lacked probable cause, and the searchers broke FBI procedures too?

3:12 PM · Aug 12, 2020

"After Mueller became Special Counsel" also means months after the Danchenko interview completely debunked any probable cause value that the Steele "dossier" was claime to have. Peter Strzok knew about the Danchenko interview and he became the lead investigator on Team Mueller. Who else should be presumed to know? If I'm John Durham, I really want to know. For example, did Andrew Weissmann know? Who else?

K. T. McFarland On Who's In 'Big Trouble'

Former national security official K. T. McFarland went on Fox this morning with Sandra Smith, who interviewed McFarland about recent activity on the part of the GOP controlled Senate: Lindsey Graham's release of damning FBI notes that show the FBI misled the Senate Intelligence Committee and Ron Johnson's subpoenas to the FBI and Director Chris Wray. Along with the usual talk, McFarland made some important points that should help to maintain perspective as we hear about all the important players in the Russia Hoax getting a pass.

Smith first asks McFarland about the documents that Senator Ron Johnson has subpoenaed from the FBI (as well as Director Chris Wray). McFarland goes over the items that we've all heard about on the news--the documents that were turned over to the IG, the Crossfire Hurricane documents. Then she turns particular attention to a third category of documents, which I hadn't heard were subpoenaed:

But interestingly, he's also asked for all documents that the GSA--Government Services Agency, General Services Agency [sic, it's actually General Services Administration]--had collected during the transition into the Trump administration and asked for what documents were there. I mean, what documents were turned over to whom? Who was turning them over to the FBI? So when I'm looking at this for those three requests, I think some of this is indicating that they're also looking at the Mueller investigation. Not just at incompetence at the FBI or potential wrongdoing.

I've been maintaining exactly that, that AG Barr and John Durham are definitely focusing on Team Mueller from a number of angles. Recall: You can't investigate Crossfire Hurricane without also investigating Team Mueller, which was a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. The same goes for the Flynn case.

Now, the GSA documents that McFarland is referring to were the very first group of documents that Team Mueller went after. It was a very controversial and aggressive move on Team Mueller's part, because these were documents of the Trump transition team, not the Trump administration, and GSA simply turned them over to Team Mueller without informing the Trump administration. It was a typical Andrew Weissmann and inside the DC establishment move. One angle that Durham could be looking at might be whether Weissmann, in demanding these documents from the (all too willing to cooperate) GSA, may have misrepresented his official authority to obtain those documents without process or notification to the persons and the entity that created those documents.

In my opinion, the fact that the Senate is looking at this event does, indeed, mean that they're looking at Team Mueller. But I think you can take this to the bank as well: The Senate wouldn't be doing this unless they knew that Barr and Durham had already done so.

McFarland continues:

In any event, I think Christopher Wray is in big trouble. Because, Sandra, he did one of three things. He either knew what was going on in the FBI and he uncovered it--and he kept it covered, y'know, cover it up. He, secondly, didn't want to know, and so he's just sort of, 'Don't tell me about it, I don't wanna know.' Or, he's just completely incompetent. I mean, either way, all three of those are pretty bad indictments against the current FBI director.

Assuming Trump is reelected--Wray is unceromoniously fired. My opinion.

Sandra then pivots to disgraced former FBI Director, James Comey, noting that McFarland also thinks that Comey is in 'big trouble'. McFarland responds:

Yeah, because, not just particularly with this subpoena that you just referred to, but it's the testimony that's happened in the last couple of weeks. So you had Sally Yates saying last week, 'Well, the FBI Director, Jim Comey, he went rogue--I didn't know what he was doing.' And then Rod Rosenstein, who testified a couple of weeks ago, he was the Attorney General, acting Attorney General, he said, 'I didn't know anything about it, I would never have signed those requests coming from the FBI if I knew now what I knew then [sic].' And so Comey has a lot to answer for. Either he was rogue and he was running a rogue operation in the FBI--Comey, McCabe, and his senior officials--or he's being set up to take the fall, if in fact it was not a rogue operation, if it has origins that were higher up.

And the other thing, Sandra, to remember, is that Susan Rice wrote herself a memo for the record on Inauguration Day, saying, 'President Obama wants everything done exactly by the book.' So, in other words, 'Jim Comey, if he does something that's not by the books, it's not on us!'

If you watch the video, you can tell from McFarland's body language that she doesn't necessarily believe Yates and Rosenstein, but whether they're telling the truth isn't the real issue. The point is simply that nobody's going to bat for Jim Comey, nobody's arguing--as Chris Swecker recently did--that, gosh, it's so hard to prove intent. They'd all be happy to have Comey take the fall. And, in fact, if he turns out to be the fall guy he'll certainly have earned the distinction. But I think Durham's looking at others, too.

The interview ends up with some general remarks riffing off Lindsey Graham's call for people at the FBI--or who were formerly at the FBI--to go down. IMO, McFarland's remarks here will resonate with any jury, and that dirty cops will receive no sympathy:

Now what we're finding out, whether they lied to the FISA court, whether they lied to Senator Graham, whether they lied to even President Trump, or that they lied to the American people--there were documents being falsified, there were people who were lying, senior officials of the FBI. And I think Lindsey Graham is saying, 'I wanna get to the bottom of it.' These are actual crimes. This is not just leaks to the media. These are actual crimes where people knowingly lied to other government officials and to people.

Uh Oh! Is This Why Andrew Weissmann Is Freaking?

I can't recommend highly enough that you read Shipwreckedcrew's latest:

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:

Andrew Weissmann Is Freaking--And That's Good!

I actually saw this story yesterday but, quite frankly, it all seemed so obvious that I thought: What's the point? Of course Andrew Weissmann--generally considered the true leader of Team Mueller--is freaking! Who, in his shoes, wouldn't be freaking? Bill Barr just attended a hearing in the Dem's House. True, he mostly just listened, but in the intervals of unhinged harangues, Barr did manage to get in a few words edgewise. One of those words was: "No." No, he would not commit to not release a report before the election in November. I take that to mean that Barr also will not commit to not indicting anyone before November--and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Weissmann took Barr that way, too. Reason enough to explain Weissmann's op-ed in the NYT:

James Comey Wrote a Letter in 2016. What Will Bill Barr Do?

Two investigations appear to be potential fodder for pre-election political machinations.

I won't keep you in suspense. The title of the article may be a bit coy, but there's nothing coy about the article itself. It's an extended rant about how evil Bill Barr is because he just might do something that could lead people to, well, reconsider voting for a Dem. Because Dems would never do anything like leaking false "information" to influence an election, such as a midterm election. Barr is on to that little game. He'll have no compunctions whatsoever about doing the right thing by the American people. How Weissmann ever mistook Barr for a guy who would give a sh*t about an op-ed in the NYT by someone who is clearly in Barr's crosshairs is anyone's guess. Dems have this notion that words repeated like an incantation can somehow work magic, change reality. That's not gonna work with Barr. He's seen it all before.

So, why should Andrew Weissmann in particular be worried?

More On What The FBI Primary Subsource Debriefing Documents Mean--Going Forward.

First, to be clear, the FBI memo detailing their debriefing of Christopher Steele's "Primary Subsource," the supposed source of most of what appeared in the Steele "dossier," is only part of what DoJ has released--albeit by far the longest part. There's a good account of the highlights of this document dump here: Senate Republicans release files they say 'undercut' Steele dossier.

Included in that article are comments by Senator Graham--a former prosecutor--that are important for assessing the significance of what we are having confirmed:

Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was “very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents,” and thanked Attorney General Barr. 

“What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page,” Graham said. “Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017.” 

Recall, I recently pointed out that a FISA can--and should--be terminated before it has run its full course if the FBI learns that the information used to obtain the FISA warrant was, in fact, unreliable. Of course, an entire investigation can--and should--be terminated for the same reason. That's exactly what Graham is getting at when he states that the interview of the primary subsource "should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page." That's especially true given that the case against Page was bogus--lacked predication--to begin with. However, there's more to this, because we know that in the real world the true target wasn't Carter Page but Donald Trump. Senator Graham isn't a dummy--he gets that.

Implications Of The 40 Page FBI Memo

Earlier today I wrote a brief post regarding remarks that Lindsey Graham made yesterday in an interview with Trey Gowdy. While the 44 minute interview ranged over a wide variety of topics, what caught the eye/ear of several reporters as well as myself was a brief minute to a minute and a half explanation by Graham of regarding the 40 page FBI writeup of their debriefing of Chris Steele's "subsource," a Russian expat who was claimed by Steele to be the source of all the BS in his "dossier." While Graham's staff has only recently been given access to the actual memo, we've all known from IG Horowitz's FISA Report that the debriefing basically debunked the "dossier" as the basis for the Carter Page FISA and its three renewals--the last of which renewals came after Team Mueller was set up.

What I want to do know is spell out the implications of all this, which will also suggest the significance of the timing of this coming declassification--because I assume (for reasons I'll spell out below) that the declassification will happen.

First, let's simply review what I wrote earlier, including my transcript of the entirety of Graham's brief remarks.

============================

Yesterday Sen. Graham did a 44 minute interview with Trey Gowdy. Among other topics of interest, Graham mentioned that he has finally been able to review a classified FBI memo--40 pages long--that was referenced by IG Horowitz in his FISA report. Graham states that he is working to get that memo declassified.

The memo in question documents the three day debriefing of Christopher Steele's supposed "subsource." The relevant portion of the interview can be found between the 9:50 and 11:15 minute marks. Here is my transcription of that portion:

... I believe that the FBI was on notice that it [the Steele dossier] was unreliable, continued to use it anyway. I believe that they misled the FISA court, and here's the key question. 

On January 21st through the 24th the Russian subsource, the guy who provided ALL the material for the dossier, is interviewed by the FBI for three days. He's interviewed again in March. There's a memo about that interview. Horowitz found it. It was 40 pages. My staff has finally got to look at it--it's classified. I'm gonna try to get it UNclassified. The Horowitz Report suggests that the result of the Russian subsource interview put great doubt into the reliability of the dossier in terms of being able to get a warrant.  

Here's the question. Is it possible that an interview of that magnitude--that basically shredded the key document to get a warrant--that the people at the top, McCabe and Comey, were never told, 'Oh, by the way, our entire case has collapsed.' I'm looking at that.

I believe I can answer that question: No. That's not possible.

=============================

Super Takedown Of NeverTrumps And Team Mueller

Right, that's a pretty broad title. What I'm talking about is shipwreckedcrew's brutal deconstruction of a David French article on the supposed scandal of Trump commuting Roger Stone's sentence:

David French Reveals The Depth Of Intellectual Dishonesty Needed For The NeverTrumpers’ Vituperation of Roger Stone

The article is an absolutely brutal evisceration of French, but it also gets into the dishonesty of the Mueller Report and everything that flowed from it. Here's how shipwreckedcrew starts out:

David French has written a deeply dishonest story today about the prosecution of Roger Stone, and how the commutation of his sentence by Pres. Trump doesn’t change the “facts” of the case. 

Well, if you’re looking for “facts”, David French’s “story” isn’t the place to start. 

“Mueller’s investigation revealed Stone’s contacts with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and hacker Guccifer 2.0 during the 2016 campaign.” 

So, what did Mueller’s investigation “reveal” on this question?

The answer to that question, as shipwreckedcrew demonstrates in detail, is that Stone had NO contacts with Julian Assange--not even through intermediaries such as Jerome Corsi. As for the supposed GRU hacker Guccifer 2.0, those contacts amounted to the merest handful of texts--initiated by the Guccifer persona--culminating in Stone stating that he was unimpressed with the material Guccifer had released. Quoting the Mueller Report (p. 44):

On September 9, 2016, the GRU – again posing as Guccifer 2.0 – referring to the stolen DCCC documents posted online and asked Stone “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for democrats entire presidential campaign.”  Stone responded “pretty standard.”

And having untangled all the various stories surrounding these supposed but actually NON-events, shipwreckedcrew concludes:

Michael Gaeta's Bombshell Lands Right On Bruce Ohr

Eric Felten has a very good article today that, while focusing on what might at first seem like one small data point in the Russia Hoax, actually opens up major vistas into the overall conspiracy. The article is at Real Clear Investigations, and concerns Michael Gaeta's recently released testimony, comparing it to Bruce Ohr's previously released testimony: FBI's Man in Europe Undercut Ohr's Claim of Limited Russiagate Role.

You'll recall that Michael Gaeta was, in the summer of 2016, stationed at the FBI's Legat office in Rome. He had in the past been Chris Steele's handling agent and when, at the beginning of July he got a call from Steele telling him that he (Steele) had some very hot but unspecified info for him, Gaeta dropped everything and rushed off to London.

That raises all kinds of questions in my mind for which I have no convincing answer at this point. The FBI has numerous Legat offices around the world, but London is certainly one of the largest and most prestigious. They operate on a regional basis, just as FBI Field Divisions in the US operate territorially. Just as an FBI agent would never travel to another Field Division in the US to conduct investigation without notification (there are exceptions to the general rule), likewise no agent at one Legat would simply fly to the territory of another Legat to conduct investigation. In fact we do know that Gaeta sought and received permission for his jaunt from no less a high DoS official than Victoria Nuland, but why an agent stationed in London could not have visited Steele remains unclear to me--as does who at FBIHQ would have been aware of Gaeta's trip.

That said, the main point of Felten's article concerns Bruce Ohr.

Save The Date!

Some brief Russia Hoax updates.

Toward the end of an interview yesterday (May 3, 2020) with Breitbart News Sunday, Sidney Powell was asked when this injustice against Michael Flynn would finally end. Joel Pollak did the interview and Powell's response was unambiguously straightforward:

BREITBART: So, why are they still prosecuting this man? Why is the Department of Justice not simply saying: You know what? We don't have a case any more. Your honor, we're just gonna throw this one away. 

POWELL: I think they're gonna hafta do that. I think they're gonna hafta do that by May 11th at noon at the latest. 

BREITBART: What makes that date particularly special? And that would be next Monday. 

POWELL: Because Judge Sullivan ordered them to respond to our supplement to the motion to dismiss by that day.

Save the date!

BTW, while the Breitbart web site transcribes much of the interview, that part is not included.

Another bombshell that is transcribed is this one: