Blockbust Dialog Between Tucker And GG

It turned out to be more of a dialog than just an interview. Greenwald explains what's going--what's been going on since WW2--lucidly. I really like that he refers to the US as a National Security State in which the Intel agencies hold the whip hand over the Legislative Branch that's supposed to be conducting "oversight". Look, few of us feel much sympathy for any of our rulers, including members of the House and Senate. Nevertheless, if we are to preserve some minimal degree of freedom, we have to have some sort of workable system. As it is, and as this dialog makes absolutely clear, things seem to be spiraling out of control:

.@ggreenwald & Tucker Carlson Discuss The Implications Of The NSA Leaking His Communications To Journalists

Glenn: “It is one of gravest crimes in the US code for the NSA to leak the contents of communications that it intercepts between a foreign official & an American citizen.” pic.twitter.com/pbJB2QgoJa

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) July 8, 2021

Is Chinese Defector Shaking Up USIC--And US Politics?

Earlier this evening commenter AmericanCardigan passed along claimed information from Hot Air that the Chinese defector who's been providing information regarding the Wuhan origins of Covid-19 is the former head of CI for the PRC's Ministry of State Security (MSS). I commented at the time--just a few hours ago: 

[The claim is] tantalizing, but towards the middle mention is made of something that jumped to my mind immediately:

"would a spy-catcher be in position to know what went on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with SARS-CoV-2?"

Never say never, reality can surprise. But there's also the matter of need to know--and a counterintelligence guy would have zero need to know about anything going on at Wuhan. Except concerns about foreign spies. Not the kind of detailed science we're hearing about.

Nevertheless, Red State--which seems to be the conduit for information about this defector--is confirming what hours ago were still rumors--Chinese Defector's Identity Confirmed, Was Top Counterintelligence Official:

Major Update On The Chinese Defector Scoop

Red State is running a brief but explosive article that sheds additional light on Adam Housley's "scoop" regarding a high level Chinese defector who confirms the lab origins of Covid:

EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Chinese Defector Has 'Direct Knowledge' of Several Chinese Special Weapons Programs

While the article doesn't say so directly, the clear inference from what's said is that this defector came initially to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). DIA has been debriefing the defector for the last three months and withheld information from other Intel Community agencies--FBI and CIA are specifically mentioned--because DIA believes those agencies have been penetrated by Chinese "spies or sources".

Presumably the other agencies are now being allowed access to the defector:

FBI Director Christopher Wray was “ambushed” with the information, they say, and Langley [the CIA] was also unaware. Sources say DIA leadership kept the defector within their Clandestine Services network to prevent Langley and the State Department from accessing the person, whose existence was kept from other agencies because DIA leadership believes there are Chinese spies or sources inside the FBI, CIA, and several other federal agencies.

Note that this doesn't necessarily discredit anything that Adam Housley said--Housley was passing on what his FBI sources told him. There are a number of reasons why those sources may have concealed some of the facts.

The information provided to RedState corroborates and clarifies Thursday evening’s reporting by journalist Adam Housley. The defector is considered to be highly reliable--unlike Tony Fauci and other government funded scientists:

Sources tell RedState the defector has been with the DIA for three months and that he has provided an extensive, technically detailed debrief to US officials. In DIA’s assessment, the information provided by the defector is legitimate. Sources say the level of confidence in the defector’s information is what has led to a sudden crisis of confidence in Dr. Anthony Fauci, adding that U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) personnel detailed to DIA have corroborated very technical details of information provided by the defector.

Not So Happy New Year: Barr And The CIA Revisited

I've spent the last 24 hours or so pondering an article that appeared yesterday:

Barr Points to the True Culprit—Comey’s FBI Team

Attorney General William Barr’s statement exculpating the CIA, rather than disappointing, is in fact hopeful for all who treasure equal justice for both sides of the political fence.

The article is by a former federal prosecutor, John D. O'Connor, who can be presumed to know a thing or two about the Deep State:

John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the book, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism.

I remain totally unconvinced by O'Connor. Which is to say, I continue to believe that Barr's "exculpation" of the CIA is false and a basic betrayal of the nation. Equal justice will not flow from covering up the CIA's role in the Russia Hoax and everything to do with the last two decades of Deep State rule.

Obviously, O'Connor is correct in his contention that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey played a central role in the Clinton/Obama coverups and the attempted coup against Trump. However, O'Connor's attempt to portray the entire Russia Hoax operation as an FBI operation because most of the main players were assets of the FBI is misguided. Every single one of the people under consideration:

Joseph Mifsud

Stefan Halper

Christopher Steele

Nellie Ohr

Alexander Downer

Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson

fit the profile of CIA assets. They move in circles that are far too rarefied for the FBI--diplomatic officials, high level executive branch officials, persons with obvious connections to foreign intelligence services rather than counterintelligence services. My operative assumption has always been that, to the extent that some of these people cooperated with the FBI they did it on loan from the CIA. And that means that the CIA knew why the FBI needed their services.

Briefly Noted: DoD v. CIA, Constitutional Considerations re Texas' Lawsuit

We'll start with a story from yesterday, in its ABC version:

Pentagon weighs cutting most of its support to CIA's counterterrorism missions

CIA counterterrorism missions rely on military for logistical support, personnel

The basics are short and sweet:

In a surprising move, the Pentagon has told the Central Intelligence Agency that it is weighing an end to the majority of the military support it provides to the agency's counterterrorism missions, according to a former senior administration intelligence official.

It is unclear how the decision would impact the spy agency's worldwide counterterrorism missions that often rely on the U.S. military for logistical support and personnel.

Later in the article we learn that the withdrawal of 700 Special Forces personnel from Somalia is directly related to this proposed move:

Last week, a CIA paramilitary officer was killed in Somalia, according to Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who disclosed in remarks to a think tank that the deceased CIA officer had previously served in the military as a Navy SEAL.

The Pentagon announced last week that President Donald Trump had ordered the withdrawal of most of the 700 U.S. military personnel in Somalia, though it said it would continue to carry out counterterrorism missions against al-Shabab, the al-Qaida affiliate.

Read it all. My guess is that this may have to do with CIA essentially making foreign policy and then wagging the DoD dog. No doubt there are pro-CIA factions within DoD, too, and that may also play into the recent personnel moves at the top of DoD. Trump is seeking control over policy making--let's hope he'll be around to follow this up. Lots to unpack there.

UPDATED: What's Up With That Clinesmith Guilty Plea?

Earlier I quoted Kevin Clinesmith's lawyer from an article by Adam Mill. According to that version the lawyer, Justin Shur, made the following statement:

Clinesmith’s lawyer, Justin Shur, contends his client “did not try to hide the C.I.A. email from other law enforcement officials as they sought the final renewal of the Page wiretap. Mr. Clinesmith had provided the unchanged C.I.A. email to Crossfire Hurricane agents and the Justice Department lawyer drafting the original wiretap application.”

Based on that I assumed that Clinesmith was trying to "share the blame". In other words, he was saying, in effect: "Hey, I changed the CIA email to mean the exact opposite of what it said, but the other agents and lawyers knew it. I'm not the only one to blame."

Now, however, I'm seeing accounts that are quite different, like this one from ABC:

The Steven Schrage Interview

Below I've transcribed Steven Schrage's interview this morning with Maria Bartiromo, and I've also linked to a video of the interview. As I commented earlier, this is mostly stuff we already knew. What it does, to my way of thinking, is to reinforce the conviction that there really was what I refer to as a "big picture conspiracy" to stop Trump. That's particularly clear when you consider the FBI and the CIA sharing the same source (Halper) who is being paid enormous sums of money through what appears to be a CIA money laundering front agency (Office of Net Assessment - ONA), and the connection to MI6. To me, when all the other details are added in, the evidence that there was a conspiracy in place long before Crossfire Hurricane was ever opened is very strong.

Here are a few takeaways:

Note that Schrage believes, based on his contacts with Durham, that this investigation will be continuing.

Note also that Schrage is coming forward to support Flynn "before the hearing," and that he appears to have Durham's blessing in doing so.

Finally, regarding the MI6 connection, while Dearlove and Steele are "retired," that doesn't mean that Dearlove might not have served as a high level--but deniable--connection among Five Eyes intel agencies. Note, for example, the way in which Dearlove's presence seemingly energized and directed Halper, in Schrage's telling of the events. That appears to be the truly main point that Shrage is trying to make--the influence of Richard Dearlove on what transpired and developed into the Russia Hoax. And we know that Christopher Steele consulted with Dearlove on this, as well.

Finally, in his companion article--The Spies Who Hijacked America--Schrage maintains that Halper's FBI handler was Stephen Somma. That's something I'll need to look into. Somma--the case agent for the Carter Page NYO investigation--is said to be in hot water over critical omissions from the Carter Page FISA.

All this maintains my belief that Barr and Durham are determined to get to the bottom of what looks increasingly complex.

Here's a link to a previous post in which I discuss Schrage--and quote extensively from a delicious Mark Steyn article that goes into detail regarding the Cambridge meeting that Schrage is now talking to the world about.

Here's the inteview:

DiGenova On The Flynn/Kislyak Call

Appearing on the Howie Carr show this week, Joe diGenova weighed in on the non-unmasking of Michael Flynn with regard to the famous Flynn/Kislyak call. DiGenova comes down on the side of those who say that the the monitoring of the call was not done by traditional FISA means as I've described them--picking Flynn up on the FISA for the Russian embassy. You can get a good link here, with the relevant portion near the end. Here's a word for word transcript of what Joe says:

I think it's going to become pretty clear that Michael Flynn was NOT unmasked but was rather the subject of a separate intelligence electronic surveillance by a foreign intelligence service at the request of John Brennan. Most likely the United Kingdom GCHQ, which is their NSA. When you look at the timeline in all the of the unmaskings of Flynn, those were done within a timeline that shows that the Kislyak conversation was not conducted in the United States. The Kislyak conversation was when Flynn was in the Dominican Republic and Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd. And so that means that in order for them to be wiretapped and have their calls intercepted that had to be done by a foreign power. And if you do that at the request of the United States, and you know that a US person is your target, and not Kislyak, that is a crime. That is a violation of federal law. You cannot wiretap an American citizen overseas under circumstances like that.

I want this on the record so that, if I turn out to be wrong, anyone who wants to rub my nose in it will have a good point of reference. Sitting here right now I see many problems with what Joe says.

First, what Joe has right--and I don't mean to sound flippant when I say that. He's right that to have targeted Flynn while he was overseas (in the Dominican Republic) in the absence of a FISA order on Flynn would have been illegal.

The problems start with the statement that "Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd." The Russian Orthodox Christmas is NOT on January 2nd. The Russian Orthodox Christmas is actually on January 7th--about nine days after the phone call, which was on December 29th.

Michael Sussman Should Probably Be Concerned

Michael Sussman is getting what I'm sure is, for him, unwanted attention in the wake of the release of transcripts of House interviews of persons connected to the Russia Hoax investigation. I've mentioned Sussman before--many times. Pay particular attention to James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited, and recall that James Baker is now said to be cooperating with John Durham's investigation. Here's a brief intro to Sussman, which should leave no doubt as to why he's important for the Russia Hoax investigation:

Michael Sussmann, formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is a nationally-recognized privacy, cybersecurity and national security attorney. He is engaged on some of the most sophisticated, high-stakes matters today, such as his representation of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in their responses to Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential election.

However, Sussman's involvement goes far, far, beyond that. It was Sussman who connected Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS with the Clinton campaign--laundering that connection through his Perkins Coie law firm (a possible election law violation). Anyone who thinks Sussman wouldn't have vetted Simpson hires for the Russia Hoax--such as Nellie Ohr and Chris Steele--should immediately reconsider. In fact, we now know from Steele's London testimony that Steele did meet with Sussman personally.

It was also Sussman who personally went to FBIHQ to meet with his friend James Baker and peddle the fake Alfa Bank story. And the FBI did, in fact, open an investigation into that hoax, with Baker fully aware of Sussman's deep connectins to the Clinton campaign. Here's how Kim Strassel characterized that meeting (Who Is Michael Sussman?):

NYT To The Defense!

Of the CIA. Who'd ya think?

Just out this evening, a major NYT story all about John Durham's wrongheaded investigation of the CIA's role in propagating the Russia Hoax. And, of course, central to Durham's inquiry is the whole question of the Intel Community Assessment (ICA) that claimed Russia pervasively "meddled" in the 2016 election:

Justice Dept. Is Investigating C.I.A. Resistance to Sharing Russia Secrets

The prosecutor was assigned by the attorney general to scrutinize the agents and analysts who sought to understand Russia’s covert operation to help Donald J. Trump win the 2016 election.

There's actually some useful information about the direction Durham's investigation is taking, once you get past the disinformation. You can also see how complex it is. Some highlights:

Angelo Codevilla: Abolish CIA & FISA

Today an emailer sent me a new article by Angelo Codevilla: Abolish CIA & FISA--How to defend the Republic against the Deep State. It's been a slow news day, and Codevilla's topic is very much to the fore these days, as the Durham investigation and new revelations about FBI law breaking are offering ever deeper perspectives on the threat that the Deep State poses to the Republic. Therefore, as I have in the past, I'll offer a sizeable excerpt. Actually, the article itself is quite lengthy, and this excerpt is simply the opening summary. A fair amount of the article covers ground that we've already seen--much of it summarizes views on FISA that Codevilla has published previously. Which, of course, in no way diminishes their interest--I hope this excerpt will lead readers to go to the full article.

The title is the short version of Codevilla's recommendations. He also addresses the role of the FBI, recommending that the FBI's investigations be strictly limited to violations of the criminal law. I found much of Codevilla's argument--in which he justifies his recommendations--pretty compelling, so see what you think.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Briefly Noted: Stefan Halper Update

There are a number of blogs out this morning that build of information gleaned from the OIG FISA report to shed interesting new light on the activities of two key intel operatives: Chris Steele and Stefan Halper. What the new information strongly suggests is that there was close coordination between the John Brennan's CIA and the Clinton campaign, using Fusion GPS, the Clinton's oppo research firm that was secretly funded through a DNC connected law firm. Some of this general thrust of new revelations can be seen in Mike Sylwester's article yesterday, Steele's Reports About Putin's Presidential Administration.

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist focuses on Stefan Halper's interaction with Carter Page: Exclusive Carter Page Interview Raises New Questions About ‘Inaccuracy-Laden’ IG Report. Here's what I see as the essence of what Cleveland is saying:

According to the IG report, after the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI tasked Halper as a confidential human source to target Page, George Papadopoulos, and another unnamed, high-ranking Trump campaign official, widely known to be Sam Clovis. 

Halper’s handling agent told the IG it was “serendipitous” that Source 2 — the moniker used for the unnamed Halper — “had contacts with three of their four subjects, including Carter Page.” They “couldn’t believe [their] luck,” the handling agent noted, upon learning that Halper knew Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, and had crossed paths with Page just weeks before. 

After asking Halper about Papadopoulos, whom “he had never heard of,” the case agent told the Office of the Inspector General that Halper “asked whether the team had any interest in an individual named Carter Page.”

Cleveland is rightly skeptical about the serendipitous nature of all this, and asks the obvious questions:

It's All Good News

CTH has linked to an important article at Politico, and it's all good news. Very good news.

The CTH post is quite amusing--for what it doesn't say. We all know that sundance has been pushing the line that his controllers feed him: AG Barr is a bad guy, a swamp dweller looking to double cross all right thinking Americans. So, it's funny to read the CTH subject line, Dirty Spooks Concerned About Barr and Durham. You might expect from the subject line that there would be some mention of Barr, and maybe even an apology of sorts--given that if the Dirty Spooks are concerned about Barr then Barr has to be doing something right. Right? You'd be wrong if that was your expectation. Instead there's only one additional mention of Barr by sundance:

Apparently, if the article is semi-accurate, John Durham and Bill Barr are working around ICIG Michael Atkinson. That would be good news because Atkinson is a dirty cop, completely compromised.

Sundance even manages to quote at length from the Politico article (authored by Natasha Bertrand), while carefully excising all mention of Barr. Well, in fairness, he does omit his usual Bagpipe Bill photo from the post.

You may remember when Barr was nominated that I quoted from profiles of Barr, in which lawyers who had either worked with Barr or against Barr related how shockingly aggressive Barr is as a litigator. A portrait so much at odds with Barr's seemingly genial public persona. But those lawyers were guys like Barr--at the top of their profession--and if they were shocked you can imagine just how tough a litigator/prosecutor/investigator/political operator Barr is. Moreover, not only does Barr have plenty of experience in the Intel world, but he also likes to make his own mind up--which must be extremely unsettling for those under his microscope.

Keep that in mind as you read the following excerpts from a very heartening article, written by an author who is a determined opponent of Barr and a Deep State propagandist. And just imagine the dismay, and fear, being experienced by Deep State actors as they increasingly come face to face with Barr and his chosen bulldog, Durham. Any illusions that this nightmare will somehow just go away must have been dispelled long ago. That part is all over except for the squealing that we're hearing:

Is Guccifer 2.0 A CIA Creation?

We've all heard about the deep interest that Barr/Durham have in the basis for the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)--the IC "analytical" product that established the narrative that "the Russians" tried to throw the 2016 election to Trump. Today former CIA analyst Larry Johnson examines the sourcing for the key claim in the ICA, which is that an internet persona and entity called, respectively, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were GRU (Russian military intel) operations that relayed DNC materials to Wikileaks.

Johnson's article is long and detailed, yet pretty readable: Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks? I'll paste in the beginning to give you a flavor for where Johnson is headed, but don't stop there--read it all:

Events Leading to the Russia Hoax Tipping Point

What follows is a blog by commenter Mike Sylwester. While I don't ordinarily do this, I've been pulled in a number of directions recently. Mike has done a lot of research on the Downer-Papadopoulos aspect of the Russia Hoax and I believe his blog here will provide a useful framework for discussion on a topic that has become somewhat controversial.

Obviously, we don't know the whole story yet--that has become apparent in the last few days. Mike's focus on the process helps draw attention to the anomalies in the way Downer's "information" was handled. In any bureaucratic setting, anomalies in process must lead to suspicion.

As you read, you may wish to keep the Carter Page matter in mind, since at the same time that the Papadopoulos matter was being used to open Crossfire Hurricane--as the story goes--Bruce Ohr was conveying Chris Steele's Carter Page narrative to Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, and Peter Strzok.

Here's the distinction I see between the use of the Papadopoulos material and the Carter Page material.

Obviously, any domestic investigation would need to be handled by the FBI. The advantage to using the Papadopoulos material--which seems clearly to be a CIA operation--is that it insulated both the CIA and the FBI by inserting a supposedly independent operation by a "friendly" foreign power: Australia. In that way the CIA and FBI could pretend to be merely conduits of foreign intelligence rather than the primary gatherers.

By contrast, while the Carter Page narrative of "Russian collusion" is superficially attractive, it falls apart as soon as Page's relationship to both the CIA and the FBI is known. Worse, concealing that relationship to maintain the credibility of the narrative can only be done by lying or hiding the ball. This, to me, explains why the FBI and CIA would have preferred to base all on the very lame Papadopoulos narrative. When DoJ turned down the idea of a FISA on Papadopoulos, however, the FBI had to turn to Carter Page.

Mike's blog follows:

Svetlana Lokhova On Stefan Halper's Spying

Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian born Cambridge historian who was smeared by the very creepy Stefan Halper with regard to Michael Flynn, has two Twitter threads up that provide extensive detail that strongly indicates that Halper was feeding "information" to Steele. Lokhova also illustrates that Halper's reporting was essentially laundered through Steele, almost certainly to make it appear that information was being provided by the former MI6 officer rather than by a CIA/FBI asset who was targeting the Trump campaign and Trump associates before the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened. I want to highlight just a few of Lokhova's points from her detail rich threads.

In the first thread, Lokhova begins from a letter that Senator Grassley sent to the DoD IG, Glenn Fine. In the letter Grassley asks for information regarding the "loose accounting" of the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and, in particular, the dates and amounts of money paid by ONA to Stefan Halper for alleged "reports" Halper was providing to ONA. So, Lokhova writes:

Halper gets first Spygate contract from DoD in Sept 2015, draws expenses in Dec 2015, incl. trip to London. He is claiming he’s going to speak with “former Russian intelligence officers”, likely to manufacture lies about Flynn who previously cooperated with Ru intel under Obama/2

That's very interesting, in that it demonstrates that Halper was being targeted against Trump associates as early as September, 2015. Lokhova is probably correct in assuming that Flynn was the target at this point. By September, 2015, there was almost certainly a CI investigation already open on Flynn, but note: 1) Trump would not have been warned about this--whereas Clinton would have been warned in similar circumstances; 2) the predication for the investigation would have been bogus (nonsense like Flynn attending the RT dinner, etc.); 3) while this was probably part of the Intelligence Community's (and especially John Brennan's) jihad against Flynn, the notion of pursuing someone associated with a presidential campaign in this baseless way should give any reasonable person pause.

But the really interesting question is, who exactly were these "former Russian intelligence officers" that Halper was going to speak with? Cambridge can't be crawling with high level former Russian IOs. One suspects there was only one who would ever be named, and that would be Vyacheslav Trubnikov. Trubnikov co-taught a seminar with Halper and later shows up in Steele's dossier. But Trubnikov is really just a name. Naming him doesn't necessarily even mean that Trubnikov knew how he was being used, nor that Halper ever discussed his real business with Trubnikov.

Lokhova is understandably focused on Halper's Flynn-related smears against her, but she does also raise some fascinating points with regard to Carter Page's role in the Steele dossier. In the past I've pointed out how Page doesn't appear to have generated a huge amount of interest from the Deep State--until he flew to Moscow in mid July, 2016, to deliver a commencement address (was that a setup?). Halper and Page were long time acquaintances. On his return from Moscow Page traveled through the UK, where he met with Halper. Presto! Within days, Steele is suddenly all over Page as the connection between the Trump campaign and "the Russians," and the WSJ contacts Page about his supposed contacts in Moscow with Putin allies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to suspect that it's Halper feeding both streams of reporting--overt and covert. Moreover, in a WaPo article by Deep State operative/reporter David Ignatius (of Flynn leak fame) the former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, praises both Steele and Halper, seeming to associate them.

Regarding all this Lokhova makes two observations:

UPDATED: Bongino: Was Stefan Halper Part Of The Steele "Dossier" Team?

Dan Bongino, last Friday, put out a story on his show that has serious support. It's based on information that is now largely public source--he says he heard it before, but now that it's out there he can talk about it openly. Elizabeth Vaughan at Red State has an excellent summary of what Bongino and others (Stephen McIntyre, Sara Carter, ...) have been talking about--Dan Bongino Deconstructs Latest NY Times Attempt to Sterilize IG Report and Makes a Stunning Connection.

The basic idea is simple enough. We'll take it one step at a time.

Stefan Halper is a CIA operative, paid at least in part through money he gets for doing "research" for the Office of Net Assessment (ONA). He flits (if that describes the movements of someone as fat as Halper) back and forth between Cambridge University and the US--conducting intelligence related seminars as an "academic" and doing "research" for ONA. In that capacity he's known to have contacts with Russian emigres in England.

Christopher Steele is reported in the new Glenn Simpson/Peter Fritsch book--Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump--to have received information that found its way into Steele's "dossier" on Trump from 2nd and 3rd hand "sources." That of itself isn't news. I recently raised again the point that the FBI, back in January, 2017, knew that the Steele dossier was bogus because they had interviewed some of Steele's sources, and the different accounts they received didn't hang together. With that in mind, Vaughan calls our attention to Bruce Ohr's testimony:

Turning Over The 2016 Rocks

That's the theme of Holman Jenkins' column in today's WSJ: "Who Will Turn Over the 2016 Rocks?" Jenkins, in line with his NeverTrumpism, buys into the idea that James Comey--among others--was "played by the Russians" (re a supposed forged email chain), even while backhandedly acknowledging the difficulties of that position:

"Making further mincemeat of Mr. Comey's rationale [the supposed email chain], the inspector general has revealed that his FBI colleagues judged the Russian intelligence to be 'objectively false' and possibly a Kremlin plant."

Nevertheless, Jenkins finishes off with some big picture observations of the lay of the land facing the Deep State and its Fourth Estate lackeys. I offer them here as food for thought for the Thanksgiving weekend, as we await solid news in the coming weeks:

Wafting above all is an odor of 1963, when the press deliberately ignored Lee Harvey Oswald's communist affiliations in favor of a distracting talking point about right-wing extremism in Dallas. Do I think the republic today can survive a full airing of the US intelligence community's inept actions in the 2016 race? Yes, and with minimal shock at this point. It's the FBI and CIA that are unlikely to survive without undergoing a sweeping institutional housecleaning. 

Which brings us to the latest inspector general's report due in a couple weeks, itself a down payment on a criminal investigation now in the hands of US Attorney John Durham. Because Washington is seldom keen to prosecute even plainly illegal leaks when Republicans are the victims, and because unprofessional credulousness in the face of dubious "intelligence" (like the Steele dossier) is not about to become a crime, the cathartic prosecutions of Obama intelligence officials that some Trump loyalists crave are unlikely to happen. 

Many of us avidly await the coming revelations for a different reason: to see if the mainstream media will finally interest itself in the truths of 2016.  Looming over the fourth estate is a quietly important question: whether continuing to collude in a coverup can remain consistent with commercial survival.

My reactions:

Looks Like Durham's Doing A Deep Dive On The Deep State

Sara Carter is reporting this afternoon that Barr's Russia Hoax prosecutor of choice, John Durham is questioning personnel at the Office of Net Assessment about Stefan Halper (Carter misspells Halper's first name). The ONA is about as Deep State as it comes. Here's Wikipedia's description:

The United States Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) was created in 1973 by Richard Nixon to serve as the Pentagon's "internal think tank" that "looks 20 to 30 years into the military's future, often with the assistance of outside contractors, and produces reports on the results of its research". The Director of Net Assessment is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on net assessment.

Apparently ONA was used to launder payments to high level, or supposedly high level, CIA operatives. Like Stefan Halper, who was paid over a million dollars by the Obama administration through ONA for doing only God knows what.

This could signal a major expansion of Durham's investigation, as Carter suggests: Durham Probe Expands to Pentagon Office That Contracted FBI Spy Stephan Halper, although "FBI spy" is probably not the most accurate characterization. I suspect Halper was more or less on loan to the FBI. Here's what Carter's sources have told her:

Justice Department prosecutor U.S. Attorney John Durham is questioning personnel connected to the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, which awarded multiple contracts to FBI informant Stephan Halper. Halper, who was informing the bureau on Trump campaign advisors, is a central figure in the FBI’s original investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, SaraACarter.com has learned.

These latest developments reveal the expansive nature of what is now a Justice Department criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign. ... 

Multiple sources confirmed to this news site that Durham has spoken extensively with sources working in the Office of Net Assessment, as well as outside contractors, that were paid through Pentagon office. 

Senator Chuck Grassley is also in on the action. Grassley now heads the Senate Finance Committee, which has learned that--get ready for this--ONA kept sloppy records about their payments. As if a money laundering operation for CIA sources would keep in depth and accurate records! That would violate deniability, which is a far higher bureaucratic principle than the Constitutional principle of Legislative oversight. Carter reports:

Brits: Barr Wants To Do A 'Hatchet Job' On CIA/FBI

Well, that's an interesting concept! It derives from a highly tendentious article in the the The Independent--a UK newspaper owned by a Russian oligarch: ‘It’s like nothing we have come across before’.

The attorney general is focusing on the theory, aired on far-right conspiracy sites, and raised by Trump and Giuliani, that Ukraine framed Vladimir Putin over the US election in a complex triple-cross operation by impersonating Russian hackers. 

Trump and Barr have also been asking other foreign governments for help in investigating the FBI, CIA and Mueller investigators. The US president has called on the Australian prime minister Scott Morrison for assistance, while the attorney general has been on similar missions to the UK and Italy. 

And the information being requested has left allies astonished. One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services”. 

The UK, in particular, has been viewed by Trump followers, especially far-right conspiracy theorists, as a deep source of woes for the president.

Obviously I was attracted by the bit about Barr investigating "Mueller investigators." I've been saying all along that investigating Team Mueller is a sine qua non for any credible investigation of the Russia Hoax, since the Team Mueller witchhunt was no less than a continuation of the original FBI Russia Hoax. And we know the Big Lie behind the Russia Hoax is the narrative of Russian hacking--which is also what Barr is targeting by focusing on the Intel Assessment.

I have to say, I find it reassuring that we have an AG who understands who the enemies of our constitutional order are, and wants to do a 'hatchet job' on them. Things have gone so far that a 'hatchet job' is absolutely what's called for.

Is this report credible? It's true we have to consider the source, but from everything I've heard about Barr, I'd say, Yes, it's credible. And it totally explains the desperation bordering on hysteria that we're seeing from the Left and the Deep State.