SWC Having Rough Day Re Carter Page

Actually, Shipwreckedcrew is having a fairly rough day overall--despite a fine article dissecting Merrick Garland's efforts to intimidate the Arizona senate. My takeaway from one is that Garland could be facing some significantly rough sledding. SWC himself points out that Garland, in his letter to AZ, misrepresented the law. And Mark Brnovich, AZ AG, made it clear in so many words, that AZ is "not amused by the DoJ's posturing.

Ultimately, SWC concludes:

That [Brnovich's response] seems to be a “line in the sand” and an invitation to DOJ to come into Arizona for a little exercise in lawfare over the issue of Arizona’s conduct of elections.

There is no question that Garland made it clear the Biden Department of Justice is going to take up the cause of the Democrat Party in pursuing electoral advantages through the courts.

If not for Pres. Trump’s ability to get dozens of new Appeals Court Justices nominated, and Mitch McConnell’s ability to get those nominees through the Senate, the very existence of the GOP as a viable political entity could have been at risk.

Things have gone downhill from there for SWC. He engaged in a long and abusive exchange with Julie Kelly, before ultimately--after much name calling on his part--having to admit that he had misrepresented what Kelly had written. Ouch!

At the same time, however, he was engaging in another flame war with regard to the Carter Page FISA--and once again demonstrating less than a full grasp of the facts. In what follows I've omitted most Twitter headers.

It started with a fairly tame tweet by Lee Smith (I couldn't see where it was coming from):

He means I believe that Page’s history as a USG informant was erased by an FBI official. The point is not about the Page FISA but rather that the laws and regulations that should be observed are no longer observed by the agencies involved. twitter.com/shipwreckedcre…

SWC immediately launched on an unwise course that--for reasons best known to himself--he has been pursuing for some time: defending the FBI's institutional conduct in the Russia Hoax, writing it off to the incompetence of isolated individuals. And accompanying it with slurs that he's not going to be able to back up. So, he writes:

[Page's history as a USG informant] wasn't erased. It was considered and then dismissed BY ONE AGENT as being untimely.  It only took that one agent to leave it out of the FISA application. The people who reviewed the application had no idea Page had provided information to the CIA -- until Page went public.

Concluding that "laws and regulations ... are no longer observed" because one agent looked at the information from the CIA and said "outdated" is unreasonable and silly.

The big problems are in the first paragraph. Carter Page was a long time CIA asset--up until 2013. At that time--and this is me telling you how these things work--the FBI became aware of a possible case with Russian officials in New York and wanted to use Page against those officials. The way this would have worked would have been like this: The FBI--through standard FISA coverage of the Russian officials--learned that Page was in touch with those officials to one extent or another. When they contacted Page, Page told them he was working with the CIA--we know this from FBI records. The two agencies coordinated, and because of the possibility that the FBI could make a big case against Russians--any criminal case against foreign officials is huge--and because Page was a relatively minor asset for the CIA, the FBI took over with Page. The transition was basically seamless. That also means that Page was an asset or informant of some sort for the FBI, and had a file opened on him. He was in the system, along with his background.

As things developed, this worked out great for the FBI. They made their case, they arrested the Russians, and they told Page to stand by in case he was needed as a witness. That continued up until shortly before Page joined the Trump campaign. Shortly before that event Page took it upon himself to inform Russian officials that he was, in fact, working for the FBI and had been helping the FBI in the case described above. The FBI was understandably outraged--possibly especially so because this may have compromised sensitive investigative techniques.

However, the main point in this is that, as I've been long maintaining, this case was so huge in the big picture of US-Russian relations that there was simply no way that the top most levels of the FBI would not have been following the case closely and probably knew who Page was by name. They would have been briefing the White House on the case--it was a major feather in the cap for the FBI and then Page possibly threatened it.

What happened next is that FBI New York immediately hit the ceiling and began looking for ways to make Page pay a price for what he had done. They opened a counterintelligence case on Page and began exploring the possibility of obtaining a FISA on Page. Those discussions involved none other than Peter Strzok, but in the event no FISA was obtained until the Fall of 2016.

But then, shortly after all that hit the fan, Page joined the Trump campaign. Now, if Mcabe and Comey didn't know Page's name and his role in the New York case before, they sure did then. Comey was telling AG Lynch about Page, who in the FBI would have failed to brief him on Page?

That's the picture to keep in mind as SWC goes to war with one and all. Various persons challenged SWC on his take, defending the Russia Hoax as the fault of ONE AGENT:

The Halper Memos

Yesterday John Solomon made available the recently declassified asset (Confidential Human Source, or CHS) reports regarding the use of Stefan Halper ("Mitch") in the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) investigation--mostly as it pertained to the Carter Page FISA. Thanks to the actions of disgraced former AG Bluto Barr, this material is essentially only of historical interest at this point. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to readers here for the insights that it offers into how FBI counterintelligence (CI) investigations are run. I say that, knowing that CH is an example of the abuse of the FBI's CI authorities--because what we see in this paperwork is the attempt to make CH *look* normal, even as the investigative guidelines were honored in their breach.

First of all, here's the link to the John Solomon article:

Once-secret FBI informant reports reveal wider-ranging operation to spy on Trump campaign

Goal was to find "anyone" inside GOP campaign tied to Russia who could be get dirt "damaging" to Clinton, newly declassified memos reveal.

Before I go through the actual Halper memos, I'll simply state the big picture that emerges from them. What becomes very apparent is that the background to this series of memos--which begin in mid-August, 2016, shortly after CH was opened--is the Steele dossier. Even though there is discussion of George Papadopoulos as a target--after all, we're supposed to believe that his conversation with Aussie "diplomat" Alexander Downer is what got CH started--the real interest, beyond any doubt, is Carter Page. And that means the Steele dossier, with it's farcical allegations.

Unbelievable

My very bad--I somehow missed this terrific article by John Solomon back on February 5th. While I admit that my interest in the Russia Hoax has flagged due to, well, Barr and Durham, I do follow Solomon. This somehow eluded me, and it offers a picture of just about unbelievable corruption:

FBI's desperate pretext to keep spying on Carter Page: He might write a book!

Newly declassified FISA application shows FBI, without proof, portrayed First Amendment-protected activities as Russian plot.

Solomon is not making that up. Here is the passage from p. 57 of the third renewal FISA against Page in which that pretext is presented to the court:

"The FBI also notes that Page continues to be active in meeting with media outlets to promote his theories of how U.S. foreign policy should be adjusted with regard to Russia and also to refute claims of his involvement with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election. [REDACTED - SENSITIVE INFORMATION] The FBI believes that Page may have been instructed by Russian officials to aggressively deny, especially in the media, any Russian involvement with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The FBI believes this approach is important because, from the Russian government's point of view, it continues to keep the controversy of the election in front of the American and world medium, which has the effect of undermining the integrity of the US electoral process and weakening the effectiveness of the current US administration. The FBI believes Page also may be seeking media attention in order to maintain momentum for potential book contracts."

Where to begin? Let's start with the redaction. Solomon points out that in the copy of the FISA application that was given to the Senate Judiciary Committee just last fall--meaning, it was provided by Trump's FBI Director, Chris Wray--the portion about "the FBI's unsubstantiated theory that Russia had instructed Page to [write a book and do media interviews] was [also] blacked out." On what basis would idle, unsupported speculation have been redacted? It makes you wonder about the "sensitive information" that remains redacted.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: The Deep State Is Laughing At America

Kevin Clinesmith got 12 months probation and 400 hours of "community service"--I think that means he has to work for Dem political campaigns for 400 hours. Or maybe donate the time to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you want a laugh--at your own expense and that of our country--read about it here.

The Dem who performed the ritual wrist-slap on Clinesmith--some guy called James Boasberg--teared up during the circus proceedings:

James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith's sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane. 

Boasberg gave him 12 months probation, 400 hours of community service, and no fine. 

Government prosecutors had been asking for Clinesmith to spend several months in jail. 

No word yet on whether Bluto Barr or Bullsh*t Durham think Boasberg "betrayed his office." Nor any word on whether Boasberg shed a tear for another guy who suffered real financial hardship and found himself in the eye of a true media hurricane--the like of which Clinesmith certainly never experienced but to which Clinesmith contributed by his felonious conduct--Carter Page.

Really--it's almost as if Boasberg wants us to believe that Clinesmith found himself out of his cushy federal job and in the eye of a "media hurricane" by some sort of weird accident or coincidence. He pled guilty to a felony, for goodness sake! And not just any felony, but a felony that strikes at the very heart of our rule of law, our electoral system, our constitutional right to be free of unwarranted surveillance. He did this, committed this felony, in an underhanded, dishonest way--forgery--as an officer of the court. 

Here's an alternative take on this travesty, reported by Paul Sperry--DC Fails To Disbar Anti-Trump FBI Lawyer Despite Guilty Plea:

As the U.S. government seeks prison time for a former FBI lawyer who admitted falsifying evidence to spy on a former Trump aide, the District of Columbia Bar association hasn’t begun an investigation to strip him of his law license, records show.

The defendant, Kevin Eugene Clinesmith, is still listed as an “active” attorney in “good standing” with the Democrat-controlled D.C. Bar, despite his having pleaded guilty more than five months ago to illegally altering a document used for authorization to electronically eavesdrop on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as part of the FBI’s Russiagate probe.

A search of the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel database of "disciplinary proceedings" turns up no such proceedings against Clinesmith, even though his guilty plea was reported to the bar and the bar's board has received at least one formal complaint demanding his disbarment.

“The only appropriate sanction for committing a serious felony that also interfered with the proper administration of justice and constituted misrepresentation, fraud and moral turpitude is disbarment,” the National Legal and Policy Center said in a complaint it filed with the bar on Sept. 10. “Anything less would minimize the seriousness of the misconduct.”

The 38-year-old Clinesmith, a registered Democrat who sent anti-Trump rants to FBI colleagues after the Republican was elected in 2016, awaits sentencing on Friday.

I'm just shaking my head. But Bluto Barr should be hanging his.

UPDATE 1: Perfect:

why doesn’t anyone trust our institutions? it’s a mystery. pic.twitter.com/daW7QBoDVD

— Logan Hall (@loganclarkhall) January 29, 2021

UPDATE 2: From the belly of the beastly Estabishment:

FISA vs. Liberty

A surveillance judge clarifies that the FBI can falsify evidence without much fear of punishment.

The government employees of the “resistance” who never accepted Donald Trump as our president have finally performed a useful public service. Together with the judges of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they have demonstrated for all Americans how easy it is to turn the spying tools of the federal government against domestic political opponents.

Even after the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Department of Justice found “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in a series of approved surveillance warrant applications to spy on Trump associate Carter Page—and even after a criminal conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email to make it appear that the patriotic Mr. Page had never assisted U.S. intelligence—the FISA judges are still refusing to apply any significant punishment to the government officials who misled them.

UPDATE 3: I goofed up somehow (!). I thought that I had quoted Shipwreckedcrew's brief--so far--comment. I guess I was distracted juggling several things. Here's what he says that I found pertinent--Clinesmith never accepted responsibility for his criminal act, and Boasberg only gave him the wet noodle treatment anyway:

Prosecutors from Special Counsel John Durham’s office asked for a sentence of incarceration due to Clinesmith’s position of authority and responsibility as an FBI attorney who was obligated to provide accurate information, and the act of altering the email was inconsistent with that responsibility.  They argued further that by clinging to the excuse that he thought his alterations were consistent with the facts as he understood them, Clinesmith was not “accepting responsibility” for his criminal conduct as required by law to receive any leniency in his sentencing.

 There is simply no question but that Clinesmith committed a criminal act. And yet he continued with a totally BS claim that he "didn't mean to mislead". Nonsense. No sentient person accepts that.

UPDATE 4: From a WSJ editorial--what's not behind the paywall. Everyone is focused on the CIA email--understandably--but as I've been saying for lo these many months, it's just as big or bigger a deal that the FBI failed to disclose to the court that Page was a highly reliable FBI source until Spring 2016. Still, they're right--why should we take the FISC seriously? Or the FBI? Or DoJ? Or the Federal judiciary?

How can the American people take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seriously when it doesn’t do so itself? That’s our view of Friday’s sentencing of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to falsifying evidence submitted to the court for a warrant to spy on onetime Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page.

Federal Judge James Boasberg spared Mr. Clinesmith prison in favor of 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service. The judge said the evidence persuaded him that “Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true.”

In their brief, prosecutors made clear how unlikely this is. The evidence of Mr. Clinesmith’s animus toward Donald Trump is considerable. As for being an honest mistake, remember that Mr. Clinesmith changed an email confirming Mr. Page had been a CIA source to one that said the exact opposite, explicitly adding the words “not a source” before he forwarded it.

In their brief arguing for prison time, prosecutors contended that Mr. Clinesmith’s behavior “struck at the very core” of the candor the FISA court “fundamentally relies on” and “allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on a U.S. citizen based on a FISA application that the Department of Justice later acknowledged lacked probable cause.” Prison time for Mr. Clinesmith, they said, was also necessary to “deter others from committing similar crimes.”

Friday’s sentencing will fuel cynicism about two-tiered justice. While George Papadopoulos served time in prison for making false statements to the FBI, and a federal judge refused to drop charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn after the Justice Department said they had no basis, a top law enforcement official who abused his police powers while operating in secrecy escapes with probation.

The Carter Page Lawsuit--Clarification And Speculation

I spent part of today reading the complaint in the Carter Page lawsuit, which I discussed in passing yesterday (Paul Sperry: Whither John Durham?). Overall, as I expected, the complaint is a fine piece of legal writing. However, I want to discuss some important points regarding FISA--which, of course, is the heart of the lawsuit. I'm spending some time on this because I'm more optimistic that Page's suit will be successful than I am that Durham will forge ahead with additional important criminal prosecutions after the Clinesmith sentencing on Friday.

While the complaint is, as I said, well written and presents the case clearly, even to readers not familiar with FISA's technical legal requirements, it's not perfect, from my standpoit. What I'll do is draw attention to a certain laxness in paragraph 8 of the complaint. I'll then explain why the matters discussed in that paragraph have always fascinated me and raised suspicions that I think are significant. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence that those suspicions have attracted any investigative attention.

So, paragraph 8 of the complaint is key to the whole lawsuit--it sets out the legal requirements for obtaining a FISA surveillance warrant:

8. In accordance with core principles of the U.S. Constitution, reinforced by the nation’s legal and cultural aversion to spying on its citizens, Congress and the executive branch have enacted rigorous requirements that must be met before electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen is legally permitted. To surveil an American citizen, the FISA requires that there be probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In short, to legitimately obtain a FISA warrant against Dr. Page, the FBI had to demonstrate that he was a Russian agent who was knowingly engaging in intelligence activities on behalf of Russia.

Here's the 'laxness' that I object to in this paragraph. The requirements for obtaining a FISA warrant are incompletely stated in the first bolded portion.

SWC: Get Over It, Russia Hoax Conspiracy Theorists!

Shipwreckedcrew makes no pretense of hiding his disdain for those of us who believe--based on evidence--that candidate and then President Donald J. Trump was the victim of a "grand conspiracy":

Clinesmith Sentencing Statement Filed by Durham -- No Grand Conspiracy Revealed Regarding Clinesmith's Crime

The article curiously ignores key facts and shows little concern for the damage done to the credibility of the American federal justice system--which, he likes to remind us, he served for 22 years.

Here's how he begins:

This is sure to break the spirit of some, and reinforce the views of others that Attorney General Barr and now Special Counsel Durham are actively engaged in grand cover-up along with FBI Director Chris Wray regarding the FISA warrant obtained against Dr. Carter Page.

Why, one might ask, does SWC choose to frame the views of those who may disagree with him in such a harsh light? I have recently harshly criticized Barr regarding his actions, both as to his comments on the election as well as his curious appointment of John Durham as a Special Counsel. I haven't alleged a "grand cover-up"--more like a lack of courage or misguided concept of "healing wounds" by ignoring the cause of the wounds to the body politic. I'm sure there are many others who would share my point of view.

To SWC the "simple facts" are and have always been obvious: Clinesmith honestly, if mistakenly, believed that Trump was a "Russian operative":

Briefly: Carter Page Sues All The Bad FBI Boys And Girls

I'll give a link to FR (wink, wink), and you can go from there to Twitchy if you want:

BAM! Carter Page files $75 million lawsuit against James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and others

Page is being represented by Leslie McAdoo Gordon, with whom you'll be familiar. Perhaps as significant as this announcement is this:

Yep.

One of two big projects I'm working on. Second one drops in January. https://t.co/UVX0Lx1W24

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) November 27, 2020

For details on the lawsuit, consult Margot Cleveland.

Or Maybe THIS Is What Lindsey Was Talking About?

Lindsey Graham's office today released an unclassified summary of an FBI Counterintelligence investigation of an individual who was believed to be cooperating with the Russian intelligence services--a Russian 'asset'. It's the kinda stuff that's hard to make up. The Counterintelligence investigation was of Igor Danchenko--Christopher Steele's so-called 'Primary Sub-source (PSS).' The investigation began in 2009 as a Preliminary Investigation, but was upgraded to a Full Investigation. The investigation was closed in 2011. 

When the FBI learned in December, 2016, that Danchenko was Steele's PSS they searched their records and learned about the investigation. In other words, they knew all this when they interviewed Danchenko in late January, 2017, regarding his role in providing material to Steele for the 'dossier.' Danchenko was not questioned about his relationship with the Russian intelligence services at that time, and the FBI continued to claim that Danchenko's 'dossier' material was reliable as they sought three renewals of the Carter Page FISA. They apparently saw no reason to inform the FISA court that the probable cause for Carter Page FISA was heavily based on material provided by a person they suspected of being a Russian spy.

Interestingly, the FBI sought a FISA on Danchenko in the second half of 2010. However, before the FISA could be processed Danchenko left the country. Here's how the investigation was left:

Because the Primary Sub-source had apparently left the United States, the FBI withdrew the FISA application request and closed the investigation. The record documenting the closing of the investigation stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States. 

In other words, as of the last time the FBI was involved with Danchenko before they interviewed him in January, 2017, they believed they had probable cause to believe that Danchenko was an agent of the Russian government--a spy. Apparently the FBI lost track of Danchenko, who later reentered the US. 

The details of the investigation itself aren't terribly important--read them for yourselves. From my perspective Danchenko comes across as rather clumsy and probably not terribly stable--which fits in with what we've heard about him to this point.

The real point is that the FBI knew all this about Danchenko and their own past concerns that he was a Russian spy. They knew this by December, 2016, and knowing this they failed to inform the FISA court and probably also withheld this information from DoJ as well. They should have terminated the Carter Page FISA at that point. Instead, they fraudulently renewed the FISA three times.

I have to say, I'm flabbergasted. 

On the other hand, this certainly looks more and more like Durham has a legitimate shot at proving a big picture conspiracy--a conspiracy on the part of FBI management to defraud the government of the FBI's honest services in furtherance of the attempted political goal of ousting the President of the United States from the office of the presidency on false pretenses through the means of criminal false statements to the FISA court. And they did all this while utilizing material provided by a suspected Russian spy which was known to be unreliable, but which they presented to the court as highly reliable.

What's Up With The Carter Page Woods File?

A few days ago, September 1st to be exact, Sara Carter broke a story about the Woods file re the Carter Page FISA going missing, and having to be recreated by Team Mueller. Or something like that:

Carter Page’s FISA Related ‘Woods File’ Docs Disappeared, Was It ‘Malice Or Incompetence’

Unfortunately, from Carter's account it's difficult to be sure exactly what the story is. Here's how Carter explains it:

The original Woods file on former campaign advisor Carter Page went missing more than two years ago, and according to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com, those documents had to be recreated by the FBI and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2018 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application used by the bureau to obtain the warrant on Page.

In other words, Carter is saying that the entire Woods file went missing and had to be recreated. The way that would work would be like reverse engineering: You look at the actual FISA application, figure out what statements needed to be supported with a reference to a case document, and include that document.

Joe Pientka To The Senate

As a witness, apparently. TGP is full of speculation about former Peter Strzok sidekick Joe Pientka and his wife, Melissa Pientka. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I believe there are simpler explanations. The original twitter thread by Catherine Herridge is sober enough, however.

My assumption from Herridge's account is that Pientka is cooperating with the Senate investigators voluntarily--unlike former head of FBI counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, who will only appear if subpoenaed. My takeaway from this is that it almost certainly means that Pientka has already cooperated fully with both IG Horowitz's FISA related investigation as well as with John Durham's more wide ranging investigation. Signs have, IMO, always pointed in that direction--it has long been apparent that Pientka disagreed with the framing of Flynn and, in the wake of that "awakening," may have realized the full scope of the Russia Hoax.

Thus, I assume that Pientka's period of cooperation with the Durham investigation is now complete and Pientka has been made available to the two Senate committees. More to the point, this almost certainly also means that Durham believes he has no further need to keep Pientka's cooperation confidential--Pientka's cooperation has already been put to whatever use it could have for investigative purposes. And that's another sign that an important phase of Durham's investigation--the pre-inauguration phase--is drawing to a close. A fact that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey is, no doubt, painfully aware of.

Herridge (edited only to form a continuous narrative):

Here's A Guy Who Gets It

He gets what I've been saying all along--most recently in Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying:

Not only had Carter Page been in contact with Russians at the direction of the CIA, but he had also--as recently as 2013--been doing so at the direction of the FBI itself. He had been a cooperating witness for the FBI in a very important case against Russian IOs--one which, unlike virtually all other such cases, actually resulted in a prosecution. That case culminated in early 2016, just before Page joined the Trump campaign. It might be one thing for the FBI to somehow misunderstand and misrepresent Page's relationship with "another government agency," but how to explain away such a misrepresentation of his relationship with the FBI itself?

This guy gets it:

@EuphoniusNuts 

What are the chances that a couple of months after the Buryakov spy ring is busted in the Spring of 2016, the Rooskies would make Carter Page, the guy who busted said ring, the linchpin of the world’s most audacious double-naught spy caper? 

1:55 PM · Aug 25, 2020·

Really. Think about that. The whole thing is ridiculous. 

Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying

That's the contention of Andy McCarthy's latest:

Clinesmith’s Guilty Plea: The Perfect Snapshot of Crossfire Hurricane Duplicity

McCarthy contends that, while Clinesmith's guilty plea allocution may have been legally sufficient, it was just barely so. McCarthy's expressed hope is that DoJ will have much more to say about that when it comes time for sentencing. In McCarthy's view it was only a "sort of" guilty plea.

In “admitting” guilt, Clinesmith ended up taking the position that I hoped the judge, and especially the Justice Department, would not abide ... 

... in my view, Clinesmith is lying about lying. His strategy is worth close study because it encapsulates the mendaciousness and malevolence of both “Crossfire Hurricane” (the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation) and the “collusion” never-enders who continue to defend it. A defendant’s lying about lying does not necessarily make a false-statement guilty plea infirm as a matter of law. The bar is not high. Still, his story is ridiculous, in a way that is easy to grasp once it’s placed in context.

And so McCarthy proceeds to provide the context in masterful fashion. I highly recommend the article.

For our purposes, I want to point out just a few things.

First, McCarthy makes this very important point:

Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ Motives

Stephen Somma Again

Commenter Bebe drew my attention to Margot Cleveland's excellent article today (I was at the dentist):

FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea Suggests Spygate Corruption Goes Way Higher 

FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith’s guilty plea suggests another area ripe for inquiry: FBI Agent Stephen Somma’s misrepresentation of Trump campaign details to a secret federal court.

Cleveland's article largely focuses on the Horowitz FISA report and, specifically, the role of Case Agent 1--Stephen Somma--in persuading DoJ Office of Intelligence attorney Stu Evans that Carter Page's past cooperation with the CIA wasn't relevant to the FISA application targeting Page. Stu Evans, not entirely coincidentally, was a thorn in the side of Peter Strzok and the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) Team in their quest for a FISA on Page, but Evans is now reported to be cooperating extensively with John Durham.

I won't repeat the details that Cleveland provides, but I do want to suggest a line of inquiry that Durham may be looking into--or, more likely, looked into long ago.

The FISA Double Standard

I refer, of course, to Chuck Ross' fine article, FBI Agents Pushed For A FISA To Investigate Foreign Government Targeting Hillary Clinton. Ross is working off Lindsey Graham's recent revelation of internal FBI debates that concerned a FISA in an investigation that would have targeted an agent of a foreign government that was seeking to influence the 2016 election. That foreign government was reported--as early as early 2015--to be targeting the Hillary campaign even before its formal announcement.

It's impossible to be certain of the identities of the agent or the foreign government. However, Senator Graham maintains that this incident illustrates that the FBI had a double standard for seeking FISAs in the context of the 2016 electin: one standard when the FISA might impact Hillary, and a very different standard when the FISA was pretty much guaranteed to impact Trump--since the so-called 'probable cause' in the case of the Carter Page FISA was known by the FBI to have originated from the Hillary campaign. In such circumstances, the Page FISA and its rationale as regards the Trump campaign was bound to be leaked--as indeed it was.

There are some key differences in the two situations that we should be clear about. Most importantly, the agent of the foreign government targeting the Hillary campaign was not a US Person. Here's the key sentence from one of the internal FBI docs. I'll break the sentence up into bullet points:

UPDATED: What Actually Is Sundance's Big Theory?

Commenter Mike Sylwester explains sundance's theory pretty well. Here's Mike's statement of the facts as I understand sundance to be presenting them. I'll add a bit more:

It seems that Senator Mark Warner told James Wolfe to leak the Page FISA warrant to the New York Times. Wolfe (and Warner) were caught by the FBI, but then DOJ/FBI covered up the crime. Wolfe was not charged for leaking the top-secret FISA warrant. Rather, he was charged only for lying to the FBI.

Exactly who made the decision to reduce the charge against Wolfe from leaking to merely lying? Who approved that decision? What was the justification?

There are three additional contentions that sundance is making in connection with the Wolfe case, and they all suffer from the same problem.

First, sundance also maintains that DoJ/FBI have an official position that the Page FISA wasn't leaked by Wolfe. To support that he cites the Wolfe sentencing memo:

The very obvious problem with this--as Shipwreckedcrew is quick to point out--is that the FBI (and DoJ) are NOT saying they don't believe Wolfe did the leak. They're only saying, in effect, that they don't have the evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I happen to believe that sundance is right, that Wolfe did the leak. The circumstantial evidence is very strong. And although I'm not a betting person, I would happily bet that every single FBI agent who worked that case also believes Wolfe did it. The problem is the lack of physical evidence--destroyed by Wolfe. Here's SWC's explanation:

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?

Sally Talks To The Senate--What Was That About?

Sally Yates performed pretty much as expected--and I use the word 'peformed' advisedly. She was putting on a show, reprising all the worn out and discredited Russia Hoax talking points, smearing once again people who did nothing wrong but were framed by the DoJ and the FBI for political purposes.

How did the GOP senators do? Josh Hawley--a very smart lawyer but without prosecutorial experience--got high marks for aggressively challenging Yates' non-credible denials that she knew, well, anything.

Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, has had extensive prosecutorial experience and has demonstrated that he's an adept cross examiner when he wants to be. After rewatching a portion of his questioning it strikes me that we need to ask ourselves exactly what Graham--as, in my view, the lead questioner--was trying to accomplish.

I have in the past suggested, repeatedly, that Graham coordinates his committee's activities with regard to the Russia Hoax with AG Bil Barr. In other words, Graham makes sure that he does nothing that might involve stepping on John Durham's toes in any way. And that means that Graham calls no witnesses until he gets a go ahead from Barr and Durham.

From this standpoint, what would be the purpose of these witness inteviews and, in particular, the Yates interview. Obviously it satisfies the senatorial need for a certain amount of grandstanding for their constituents. Beyond that, I suggest the serious purposes are strictly limited--no one should expect any witness before the senate to break down and abjectly admit to criminal wrongdoing. That happens in movies or on TV, and it may happen in plea negotiations, but Graham's goal in questioning Yates yesterday were likely more modest and closely circumscribed after consultation with Barr. Those purposes may well have been achieved in Graham's questioning.

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.

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

How's This For Predication

Regular readers will recall that, according to the Attorney General Guidelines for the FBI's National Security Investigations, in order to obtain a FISA warrant the FBI must first have a Full Investigation opened. Once again, below is the required predication for opening a Full Investigation. Note that the difference between a Full and a Preliminary Investigation is that in the case of a Full the FBI must be able to cite "specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a [described] circumstance ... exists." Meaning, specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that the circumstance actually exists. In a Preliminary Investigation the standard is that the circumstance may exist. Among the practical differences that arise from this distinction is that in the case of the Full Investigation the FBI is allowed to use more intrusive investigative techniques--specifically, FISA.

Here are the relevant parts of the Guidelines, and I've highlighted the portions that would logically apply in the circumstances that the FBI claimed gave rise to the Crossfire Hurricane Full Investigation:

FBI Headquarters or a field office may initiate a full investigation if there are specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a circumstance described in Part II.B.l of these Guidelines exists.  

Part II.B. 

1. Circumstances for Opening an Investigation 

The circumstances on which the initiation of a ... full investigation may be based are: 

a. An individual is ... an international terrorist or an agent of a foreign power.

b. A group or organization is ... a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,c. ...

d. An individual, group, or organization is ... engaging, or has ... engaged, in activities constituting a threat to the national security (or related preparatory or support activities) for or on behalf of a foreign power.

e. A crime involved in or related to a threat to the national security has ... occurred, is ... occurring, or will ... occur. 

f. An individual, group, or organization is ... the target of a recruitment or infiltration effort by an international terrorist, foreign power, or agent of a foreign power under circumstances related to a threat to the national security. 

g. An individual, group, organization, entity, information, property, or activity is ... a target of international terrorism, espionage, foreign computer intrusion, or other threat to the national security. 

For a long time I was absolutely convinced that Crossfire Hurricane could only have been opened based on the Steele dossier's claims with regard to Carter Page. I assumed that the FBI had had access to the early "reports" from the dossier, in which Steele stated that Page was coordinating with Paul Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign with high level Russian officials to obtain collusive electoral assistance from the Russians. The FBI claimed for a long time that it hadn't had that access, but that now appears to be yet another, um, misstatement:

The Beginning Of Wisdom

When I was first starting out in foreign counterintelligence--FCI, as we called--back in 1982, one of the first things I was told was: The begining of wisdom is distrust of The Agency, meaning, the CIA. The wisdom wasn't presented in quite that form. It was more along the lines of: Don't believe anything they tell you; they always lie. It was good advice then and it's good advice now.

The hot narrative this morning is this one via Undercover Huber:

NEW: The FISA warrant applications on Carter Page directly relied on information sourced to Vyacheslav Trubnikov, former head of Russia's SVR foreign intelligence agency and "good friend" of FBI CHS Stefan Halper. 

Note: This is still redacted in the FISA applications. 

—Trubnikov's allegation used in the FISA is of a "dossier [on Clinton] [that] had been compiled by the RIS over many years, dating back to the 1990’s".

—Truvnikov [sic] is described in a footnote, as a "Sub Source" of Steele.

Recap: Steele already told Kathleen Kavalec at the State Dept. in Oct 2016 both that Trubnikov was a "source" of his dossier, and that he was also "involved" in the Collusion conspiracy with Trump and "kompromat". 

A conspiracy that didn't exist of course...  

So yeah, the FBI/DOJ were using unverified information from a "former" Russian head of the new KGB in order to spy on an American citizen [Carter Page], who was actually a CIA asset. Great work everyone!

Caveat: Until these sections of the FISA are fully declassified, you can't confirm this for yourself 100%, so bear that in mind, but I spent a lot of time working this out. Will share more when possible. 

/ENDS 

You have to read this very carefully. There are a lot of folks out there saying the usual thing: Aha! The FBI was fooled by Russian disinformation! The Russians were feeding disinformation to the FBI by [specify your favored theory].