Adam Housley's Scoop: True - Not True?

Yesterday in a comment exchange I expressed reservations about sundance's theory regarding Fauci being hung out to dry. That didn't mean that I didn't read his post with interest, nor that I disagreed with all of it. For example, Fauci is surely not at the top of the Covid cover-up food chain, so from that standpoint he should be eligible for being hung out. However, Fauci unquestionably knows an awful lot--not facts or science or stuff like that, but the people involved and their overall motives. So, just as in the Russia Hoax, where Comey and McCabe may know too much to be made scapegoats, the same may be true regarding Fauci.

But, then, what about sundance's very valid point--all the leaks lately, don't they point toward a scapegoating role for Fauci. My reservation in that regard is that--for now--the occupants of the White House seem to be circling the wagons to protect Fauci from these devastating reservations. Fauci himself appears to be returning to his original position--hadda be a natural origin for Covid, couldn't have been Gain-Of-Function experiment released by accident from a lab in Wuhan. Of course, it's possible that the White House occupants are still assessing the risks involved in making Fauci a scapegoat, so Tony can't rest easy.

My point is raising these issues is to simply exercise some caution. There are other things going on, too, and those developments may point in a slightly different direction--a direction that could be difficult for the White House occupants to control. It may prove impossible to protect Fauci for the long run. Those "other things" may also shed some light on the leaks we're seeing.

Before we get there, to Housley's scoop--if it is a scoop--let's review a few important bits of information.

The other day when the Fauci emails came out I--and, of course, others--put a lot of emphasis on Fauci's email exchange with a top level virologist at Scripps Research, Kristian Andersen. That exchange took place very near the the beginning of the Covid panic--Jan 31 - Feb 1. What Andersen wrote to Fauci--citing support from several other scientists--blows the "natural origins" argument out of the water. Now, later Andersen--who is associated with Peter Daszak, a major promoter of GOF at Wuhan--tried to walk back his original view, to make it conform with the official "natural origin" narrative. But now we have his original email, in which he states categorically:

Will Trump Fire Chris Wray?

I have a reason for asking that question. That reason is this--the NYT is reporting that Wray will stay on under a Biden presidency if Trump doesn't fire him. That should give pause for thought but, I expect, will pass largely unremarked:

Wray Stays: Biden Plans To Keep FBI Director Installed Under Trump

FBI Agents Association To Honor Fauci

They're giving him their "Distinguished Service Award." Read about it here. Not The Onion. And, No, I don't belong.

“We are honored to present our highest award to Dr. Fauci and thrilled that Director Wray will join us and speak ..." yada yada yada.

 

Larry Johnson On The Scytl "Raid"

Briefly, here's what I maintained regarding the purported "raid" in Germany in which servers said to be relevant to the 2020 US election were seized from a Scytl facility in or near Frankfurt. My view was that such an operation--in which private property on German soil was seized--would have had to have been handled through legal channels between the US government and the German government. Since the private property would have been seized for use as evidence in a criminal investigation, proper US warrants would have had to have been obtained and those warrants would have had to conform to German law, as well. To me, that meant that DoJ/FBI--both of which have considerable expertise in such matters--would have taken the lead, which possible assists from DoS. 

The question remaining, of course, was: Did any of this actually happen in the real world? The persons supporting the narrative that this did happen--including Sidney Powell--appeared to me to be credible, yet one would have expected some further confirmation. So far there really hasn't been any.

This morning Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst, has weighed in with a thought provoking account in which he claims he was "reliably informed" of what he says--presumably by former colleagues: Unraveling the Deep State Coup. (h/t "j") I refer you to the full blog for all details, but here's the short version.

The core of Johnson's account is that the servers in question were not owned by private companies: Dominion or Scytl, or anyone else. Rather, they were owned by CIA. That, of course, would put an entirely different light on the legalities that would have been in play. If the Scytl facility were US government property, and if the personnel effecting the seizure of the servers were proceeding in accordance with valid orders, there would have been no need for German government involvement. Here's how Johnson puts that:

Adam Housley On Biden Inc., Wray, Durham

I'm going to do something a bit different. Adam Housley--who claims to have multiple FBI sources able to tell him what's up with the Biden investigations and other matters--did a brief two-tweet thread. That led to quite a few comments, which Housley in turn responded to. Many of the comments mirror the impatience and other things I see in comments here, so Housley's thread may serve as a useful vehicle to address those matters.

What I'll do is first reproduce Hously's thread, but then I'll insert the comments and Housley's responses in Q & A format. I'll also insert some comments of my own. There may be some minor editing. As you'll see, Housley begins with the business about the FBI supposedly "dropping" any Biden Inc. investigation, but the discussion branches out a bit to Durham. So here we go:

Oh, I Like This! Trump's Post Election Execution List!

Nope, there are no surprises on Axios' list of likely heads on the chopping block. It's headed (!) by Chris Wray at FBI, Gina Haspel at CIA, and with Mike Esper anchoring the third spot: Scoop: Trump's post-election execution list. Pretty much every patriot's dream list. If you're standing, don't bother sitting down for this next bit:

Wray and Haspel are despised and distrusted almost universally in Trump's inner circle. He would have fired both already, one official said, if not for the political headaches of acting before Nov. 3.

 

Let me count the reasons!

How does AG Bill Barr figure in all this? This is an article that you really have to filter carefully. Wray and Haspel seem like no brainers. However, here's what the article says about Barr:

Be smart: While Trump has also privately vented about Attorney General Bill Barr, he hasn't made any formal plans to replace him, an official said.

• Trump is furious that Barr isn't releasing before the election what Trump hoped would be a bombshell report by U.S. Attorney John Durham on the Obama administration's handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.
• Durham's investigation has yet to produce any high-profile indictments of Obama-era officials as Trump had hoped.
• "The attorney general wants to finish the work that he's been involved in since day one," a senior administration official told Axios.

I'll make no secret of it. I think removing Barr before Barr is ready to go would be a major misstep--an own goal. Barr wants to stay on and finish the job and Trump would be well advised to leave well enough alone. Maybe the result of Durham's investigation haven't come in on Trump's schedule, but Barr has a list of significant accomplishments that would be the envy of any AG--starting with his masterful handling of Team Mueller, and continuing from there. I know of no one else who could do that job and handle the political heat like Barr has--and I'm quite certain that there is a long list of GOP senators ready to tell Trump the same thing. Nor can I think of anyone else with comparable stature and credibility, and who has the temperament to handle the heat in DC and in a Trump administration.

Read the rest. It's entertaining and overall encouraging.

UPDATE: And admit it--who else would have the moxy to go in front of Congress and pull this off?

My politics in 2020: pic.twitter.com/W0umd6Qiv5

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) October 26, 2020

NYT News Flash For Chris Wray: Antifa Is A Thing

Waste of space FBI Director for the nonce, Chris Wray, made news recently by announcing that Antifa isn't an organization. Wray was even quoted to that effect by Joe Biden in one of his rare appearances--contradicting AG Bill Barr.

Mirabile dictu, today in the NYT (h/t Steve Sailer) Farah Stockman--a member of the NYT editorial board, no less--goes all counter narratival. Stockman actually confirms that, yes, giving the devil Bill Barr his due, Barr was on to something when he called certain cities "anarchist jurisdictions":

The Truth About Today’s Anarchists

“Insurrectionary anarchists” have been protesting for racial justice all summer. Some Black leaders wish they would go home.

According to Stockman, Antifa isn't just an idea. It's a thing, and a highly organized thing--as anarchic things go. She begins her story with an unemployed photographer, Jeremy Lee Quinn, snapping photos of peaceful protests that somehow continually devolved into riots and looting. Quinn noticed that mysterious black clad whites kept showing up and instigating the events. Curious, Quinn decided to don black himself and find out what was up with that. Here's excerpts of what he learned:

DiGenova: Brennan A Witness Against Comey?

Joe diGenova gave a very interesting interview this past Monday on WMAL. In the interview--for which I've transcribed most of his remarks--he touches on a number of important points, some of which we haven't heard much about and some of which also contradict the conventional wisdom:

1. Joe argues strongly that Brennan is probably in the clear--unless he lied to Durham. But, he also argues, that almost certainly means Brennan will now, willy nilly, be a witness against Comey.

2. Joe also believes that Bill Priestap--who I previously thought may have cooperated with the investigation--is now in the crosshairs, because it was Priestap who lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. The fact that Priestap has refused to testify voluntarily seems to confirm this.

3. Joe further believes that John Carlin, who presented false certifications to the FISC, is also a target. I have to wonder whether that is just the tip of the DoJ iceberg in this Durham investigation.

4. Finally, Joe offers his view on the Chris Wray situation, arguing that Trump can't afford to fire Wray--much as he undoubtedly wants to. I think his position on this is pretty sound. It's one thing for the Dems to invent one hoax issue after another, all of which are pretty transparently bogus  to the bulk of the public. It's another thing for Trump to initiate a brouhaha when he's trying to focus on his positive achievements. That's been my position in the past--that Wray is safe through the election--and it still seems the best bet. After the election, all bets are off.

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.

USA Jensen To Join Powell: Release The Docs!

USA Jeffrey Jensen is AG Bill Barr's handpicked "reviewer" of the Flynn case. Jensen made waves when he released to Flynn's legal team 5 pages of frankly, IMO, incriminating notes from FBI planning sessions in preparation for the attempted framing of Flynn. Those notes are said to have been taken by Comey's right hand man and top FBI lawyer, James Baker, who is said to be cooperating with the Durham investigation.

Now we learn that Jensen will join Sidney Powell in calling on Judge Sullivan for those records to be unsealed--presumably the first 5 pages. There are now reported to be 11 more pages of related records being redacted.

Catherine Herridge
@CBS_Herridge

#FLYNN DOJ official confirms @CBSNews US attorney will join Flynn Attorney @SidneyPowell1 calling for new records to be unsealed. AG Barr directed US attorney Jeffrey Jensen to scrutinize Flynn case. First batch docs small, including handwritten notes.  But review delivering more 

2:48 PM · Apr 29, 2020

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber 

DOJ provides 11 pages of additional materials to Flynn’s defense team, material “even more appalling” according to Sidney Powell
Quote Tweet

Sidney Powell 
@SidneyPowell1 

While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even more appalling that the Friday production.  We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.
@GenFlynn
@BarbaraRedgate

4:25 PM · Apr 29, 2020

It seems significant to me that Jensen is joining Powell in calling for the unsealing of these documents--for two reasons.

1) It appears that Jensen has not only reviewed the Flynn case, he also seems to have taken over the handling of the case. Brandon Van Grack does not appear to be playing any role in what's now unfolding. Perhaps he's too busy answering questions that various investigators are putting to him.

2) In these circumstances it's difficult to understand how the government would oppose Powell's motion to dismiss the prosecution. It's conceivable that Jensen is simply doing the right thing in releasing clear Brady material to the defense, but joining in in calling for the material to be unsealed immediately suggests that he agrees with Powell's view as to the nature of the material. It's also always possible that there could be some procedural reasons for delay, but it's very difficult for me to conceive that this charade of justice is not coming to an end. And that eftsoons or right speedily.

It's also difficult to believe that, given what we're hearing about the nature of these documents, that John Durham doesn't have a number of people in his crosshairs for their role in the Flynn case, some of whom may already be cooperating: James Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Joe Pientka, Lisa Page, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, David Laufman, Rod Rosenstein, Team Mueller generally, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, Brandon Van Grack. And possibly more.

What's Next: Intel, Lawyers, And The Rot At The FBI

I want to highly recommend two video interviews with Tony Shaffer. They're fairly lengthy--the first is about 41 minutes long and the second is about 30 minutes--but there's really no down time. It's all substance. 

Shaffer understands the legal and constitutional undergirdings of our Intelligence Community. In my own posts here I've tended to emphasize statutes and guidelines, but Shaffer goes behind that and relates it to Executive Order 12333, which controls most of our intelligence and counterintelligence activities. Without an understanding of this it's difficult to understand what AG Bill Barr means when he refers to the Durham investigation as "sprawling." I've drawn attention to Barr's choice of words several times because the scope of Dem criminality is far, far beyond what most people can readily imagine. It's, well, sprawling. It sprawls across eight years at a minimum in which the structure of government combined with the Left's control of key societal institutions to wage war on our entire constitutional order.

The first of these interviews is one that I've recommended in the past:

‘No Way Obama Was Not Told’ - Former Intel Officer Tony Shaffer on Spying on Trump Campaign

This is the interview that relates what went on in the Obama Administration to Executive Order 12333. An understanding of EO 12333 is necessary in coming to the realization of why Obama would have needed to know about far more of the details than is commonly imagined. As Shaffer shows, the FBI needed authorities for the actions it undertook, especially overseas activity--remember those "OCONUS lures" from the Strzok/Page texts? OCONUS means: Outside the Continental US. As in: In the UK, in Rome, in concert with foreign intelligence agencies. If you want to understand what's coming up in the next few months, do yourself a favor and relisten.

The second interview has a title that doesn't really communicate the breadth of the topics covered. For that reason I've transcribed about 11 minutes, below--despite the title, there's not a single mention of FISA in that transcript.

Before we get to the transcript, however, I want to offer some comments on the substance of what Shaffer has to say.

Babysteppin': "Illegal"

Yep, this is progress, one small step at a time, slow but sure--FBI Director Chris Wray confirms that the Carter Page FISAs were "illegal." It's important to use the proper word. Now conservatives can tell the whole world--Trump was spied on ILLEGALLY:

FBI Director Wray confirmed to @RepRatcliffe that the correct wording for those FISAs is “illegal”, as used in this thread 👇https://t.co/R1tlCSNDRD https://t.co/IBsq64bmk0

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) February 6, 2020

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:

Director Wray Speaks, President Trump Responds

It's all fairly self explanatory:

BREAKING: FBI Dir. Chris Wray "The inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening" of Russia probe, "or the decision to use certain investigative tools."@PierreTABC: "Included FISA?"

Wray: "Including FISA." https://t.co/Xl47zHIj6X pic.twitter.com/tKxYqXbvTU

— ABC News (@ABC) December 9, 2019

Why Wray thought it would be a good idea to take on Donald Trump publicly is anyone's guess. The response he received will do nothing for Wray's standing within the organization he's supposed to be leading:

I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2019

I like Don Surber's take:

The inspector general's report came out and showed the FBI lied repeatedly to get permission to spy on Donald John Trump's campaign. 

Instead of remorse, the fellow who headed the FBI at the time celebrated. 

He tweeted, "So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America." 

Another lie. Jimmy the Weasel Comey has no shame. His successor also has no shame. The good news is President Trump likely will cashier the man.

Maybe Wray wants to be fired.

Briefly Noted: Eric Ciaramella, Tashina Gauhar, Dana Boente

A few brief, but nevertheless important, stories today.

First, Larry Johnson makes a compelling case that, given Eric Ciaramella's known contacts, it's highly probably that Ciaramella was part of the John Brennan's "Task Force" that ultimately produced the Intelligence Assessment that was so instrumental in launching Team Mueller and maintaining the Big Lie of the Russia Hoax: Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force. Peter Strzok, of course, was the FBI rep on that Task Force and did further duty running back and forth, to and fro, and amongst and between Brennan, Comey, and Clapper. That Task Force is also a central focus of the Barr/Durham investigation--as it should be. Presume that Durham has had his eye on Ciaramella for some time now.

Next, CTH relays rumors of a possibly significant personnel move at DoJ: Tashina Gauhar is said to have left. Gauhar worked on FISA applications during all relevant periods of the Russia Hoax. And what's especially significant about her move is the timing:

Rumor in the DC grapevine is that a few weeks ago Tashina Guahar [sic] was quietly removed from her position as lawyer for the DOJ National Security Division (in charge of FISA applications).  This removal happened immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft report to Attorney General Bill Barr for classification review.   Ms. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing.

If confirmed, Guahar’s [sic] exit in advance of the IG report could indicate helpful participation, or DOJ Main Justice may be providing cover to protect Tash Guahar [sic] as they did with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.

Sundance is absolutely correct that the timing of Gauhar's departure most likely indicates that she has been kept on while cooperating with internal investigations related to her duties. Which is to say, the Russia Hoax, especially from the FISA standpoint. Gauhar would have had contact with anybody who touched a FISA application at DoJ, and with many at the FBI.

Bearing in mind that another DoJ/FBI attorney who worked in that field, Trisha Anderson, testified that the Carter Page FISA was pretty much pushed through over the heads of everyone else by Andy McCabe and Sally Yates, it's interesting to go over a list of people we know that Gauhar would have interacted with on a regular basis and concerning whom she would have been questioned:

Sally Yates, David Laufman, John Carlin, Trisha Anderson, James Baker, Andy McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page.

We also know that Gauhar was among the DoJ attorneys who persuaded Jeff Sessions to recuse himself, so we can add two more names to that list:

Rod Rosenstein and Dana Boente. 

Dana Boente, of course, is the top in house counsel at the FBI for Chris Wray, but before he did that he was at DoJ as Acting AG and Acting DAG. He also signed off on a renewal of the Carter Page FISA.  No doubt Boente has also had long, interesting conversations with DoJ investigators.

You can imagine that both OIG and the Durham team have been very busy.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Trump Doesn't Blame Barr

President Trump tweeted this evening that the nation is "disgusted with the FBI. We have a crisis of confidence in the number one law enforcement agency in this country (thanks Comey!)." Well, that sounds about right. But note one thing--Trump doesn't blame AG Barr for this unhappy state of affairs. On the other hand, of course, neither does he blame himself. He seems to blame James Comey and, by implication, the president who appointed Comey--Obama. As for Chris Wray--the FBI Director that Trump himself appointed, well before Barr became AG--well, it seems that Trump's policy at this point amounts to: the less said the better (image courtesy of CTH):

Something's going on here, but don't ask me to explain it--nor the really rather restrained tone of the tweet. All I can say is that Trump appears to be perfectly satisfied with the job Barr is doing.

UPDATE 1: Lou Dobbs last night interviewed former Acting AG Matt Whitaker. Clearly, Whitaker's spate of recent appearances must be part of a strategy to maintain support for what Barr is doing--so it seems to me. And yet sundance at CTH is absolutely right that most of the interview is consumed by Whitaker deflecting Dobbs' demands for transparency and challenges to the lack of transparency.

Dobbs focuses on Rod Rosenstein's three "Scope Memos"--Whitaker confirms that such memos exist but declines to even confirm the number of the memos! Dobbs' focus is well chosen, because the Scope Memos define the scope of the Team Mueller operation, which in turn arises from the FBI's illegal Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the later machinations of James Comey, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein (and others). The only defense Whitaker seems to offer for the lack of transparency regarding the scope memos is that it would be unfair to declassify them at this point because that would reveal the names of people who were unfairly accused. The problem with that response is obvious. For starters, the DoJ regulations that govern Special Counsel appointments require a specification of criminal charges--Rosenstein violated that requirement. Further, revelation of persons falsely accused would educate Americans to the scope of the perversion of justice that was the Team Mueller operation--beginning in the FBI and continuing with Rod Rosenstein's DoJ. Does Barr not believe that the American people should have this knowledge? Note this brief exchange:

Whitaker: This is what Bill Barr's biggest challenge is--is restoring the trust in the Department of Justice ... 

Dobbs: You can't do it unless you're fully transparent ... 

Dobbs: It's time to raise hell and raise the roof!

But where, I have to ask, is Trump in all this? And please note--Dobbs' challenge has nothing to do with making unreasonable demands (as far as I can tell) on Bill Barr to reform the entire DoJ with authorities that he doesn't actually possess. My belief is that Barr does in fact have the authority to release these scope memos to the public, along with unredacted versions of the FISA applications--at least as regards the probable cause. And I don't doubt that there's more such documentation. The bottom line seems to me to be that, if the documentation is basically fictitious, what harm could there really be in the public disclosure of fictions?

UPDATE 2: I just read sundance's full comments. Sundance is suspicious that the reason for the lack of transparency regarding the Scope Memos is that Rod Rosenstein's role is being protected. I've never made any secret of my belief that Rosenstein was a co-conspirator in the Russia Hoax during his time at the head of DoJ. If Rosenstein is now a key cooperating witness, Is Barr seeking to protect Rosenstein from scrutiny at this point? That's been my (hopeful) speculation, but the nonsense about not even confirming the number of Scope Memos seems absurd. Time will tell.

UPDATED: Did Giuliani Just Drop A Bomb On Chris Wray?

Tonight on Hannity, Rudy Giuliani had a lot to say (h/t GP):

Rudy Giuliani: Sean we’ve known this for a year… You can’t BELIEVE what’s going to come out! And this is dramatic revelation now. But Bruce Ohr should have been prosecuted and his wife for conflicts of interest ten months ago because we had a Justice Department that was completely warped. The fact is that these are crimes that are shocking! These are crimes that go to the very heart of our republic. These people had a plan to stop the Republican candidate from getting elected and then they executed a plan to remove from office on false evidence, false testimony. The whole thing was made up from the very beginning and they sold it to 90% of our media! It’s a tragedy… The dimensions of it you still don’t realize. There’s plenty of evidence of what happened in Ukraine. Plenty of evidence of what happened in UK. In Italy. This was a massive conspiracy!

DoJ was completely warped? I think he's talking about Rod Rosenstein, isn't he? That's pretty amazing, but then he added even more:

 Sean Hannity: Was there outsourcing of techniques that are illegal. In other words, did our top intelligence officials, did they outsource spying on American citizens for the purpose of hurting President Donald Trump or candidate Trump or transition to be President Trump? Did they outsource intelligence gathering methods to spy on Americans to circumvent US law and outsource it to even allied countries. Did that happen, sir? 

Rudy Giuliani: There is plenty of evidence that it happened, Sean. Plenty of evidence. Some of it documentary, some of it already recorded. And for a year people in Europe have been trying to get this to our FBI. And they have been thwarted and ignored and pushed aside. It was a deliberate effort to cover this up. It didn’t just happen. Even during the Trump administration there was a deliberate effort to cover this up to protect the prior wrongdoing. That’s really sick.

I don't think there's any other way to understand that than that Giuliani is saying FBI Director Chris Wray has, for at least a year, been deliberately covering up the prior wrongdoing. That's pretty big.

I assume that the Dems are very well aware of what's going to being coming out--as early as September, if Joe diGenova is right. Nadler's impeachment theater is a desperate attempt to deflect attention, but I don't see any way that will succeed.

UPDATE: I see that sundance has done a brief post re Giuliani's remarks last night, and he highlights something important that I noted but neglected to include above:

Giuliani drops a few bombshells, including an apparent lengthy amount of time that U.S. Attorney John Durham has spent in Europe investigating the FBI and CIA operations against the Trump campaign.

You can imagine that the process of securing cooperation, arranging interviews, etc., with subjects and witnesses who are overseas and under the jurisdiction of other countries is a time consuming process--but crucially important.

Is Kama Sutra Harris A Domestic Terror Threat?

Yesterday we noted the FBI "study" that identified conspiracy theories as "very likely" to "emerge, spread, and evolve" and to inspire acts of domestic terror. We noted that perhaps the conspiracy theory that is the most well documented as false is in fact the Russia Hoax, yet it went unmentioned in the FBI "study". (Is It Possible The FBI Genuinely Believed The Russia Hoax?) In the aftermath of the Dem debates on Wednesday night we once again saw how deeply the Russia Hoax has sunk into the Dem soul.

As has been widely reported, Kama Sutra Harris, Michelle Obama's candidate, was unceremoniously thrashed by Tulsi Gabbard. Smarting from her public humiliation, Kama Sutra had her  press secretary, Ian Sams, claim that the “Russian propaganda machine” was promoting Gabbard:

‘The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat,'” he tweeted. And retweeted.

 We've already seen over the past three years that Dem anti-Trump conspiracy theories--most prominently the Russia Hoax--have driven "both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts.” Yet Chris Wray's FBI shows no concern for this "growing threat that seems likely to emerge, spread, and evolve, and likely to increase during the 2020 election cycle." Wray even denies that Antifa is a coordinated movement.

Obviously Bill Barr is busy tracing this pernicious Russia Hoax conspiracy theory to its source, yet how can he do so with his investigative arm, the FBI, seemingly in the grips of conspiracy theorists who are blind to what's going on before their eyes in the Dem party? Time to take action! Chris Wray has wasted space on the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover Building for far too long. It's past time for him to be gone so that productive use can be made of the space he's been occupying.

ADDENDUM: Don Surber comments:

Remember that girl in elementary school who said the Russians ate her homework? That little girl was she.

UPDATED: Is It Possible The FBI Genuinely Believed The Russia Hoax?

That's a question that has to be seriously considered, since it bears on the issue of intent when considering prosecution. I raise this having just read a Yahoo story: FBI document warns conspiracy theories are a new domestic terrorism threat (h/t GP). This document has to be seen to be believed--and thanks to Yahoo it can be seen (here), even though you may still have difficulty believing it.

First of all, here's Yahoo's summary of the main thrust of the document, dated May 30, 2019. And bear in mind that the FBI's Director, Chris Wray (yes, he's a waste of space) has recently stated that Antifa is not a terrorist organization because he doesn't think it's an organization. So:

The FBI for the first time has identified fringe conspiracy theories as a domestic terrorist threat, according to a previously unpublicized document obtained by Yahoo News. (Read the document below.) 

The FBI intelligence bulletin from the bureau’s Phoenix field office, dated May 30, 2019, describes “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists,” as a growing threat, and notes that it is the first such report to do so. It lists a number of arrests, including some that haven’t been publicized, related to violent incidents motivated by fringe beliefs. 

The document specifically mentions QAnon, a shadowy network that believes in a deep state conspiracy against President Trump, and Pizzagate, the theory that a pedophile ring including Clinton associates was being run out of the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant (which didn’t actually have a basement). 

“The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,” the document states. It also goes on to say the FBI believes conspiracy theory-driven extremists are likely to increase during the 2020 presidential election cycle.

So, anti-Establishment type conspiracy theories are now a terrorist threat, a growing threat, likely to emerge, spread, and evolve, and likely to increase during the 2020 election cycle. Yikes! That's really concerning! Maybe it's time to abrogate most of the Bill of Rights and drastically increase the FBI's budget!

Is Chris Wray Cruising For A Bruising?

Before turning to John Solomon's latest major article, let's briefly consider FBI Director Chris Wray's track record since taking over at the FBI.

- He actively collaborated with Rod Rosenstein in delaying and thwarting GOP House investigators who were attempting to get to the bottom of the Russia Hoax. 

- He continues to delay DoJ investigative efforts by holding up declassification of key documents. 

- He has publicly contradicted AG Barr, saying that he disagrees with Barr's characterization of FBI actions during the 2016 campaign--and continuing, it now appears, virtually up to the present--as "spying." 

- Most recently, Wray responded to Senator Ted Cruz's call for a RICO investigation of Antifa by stating that the FBI views antifa as more of an ideology and noted that the FBI does not investigate ideology. He went on to suggest that the FBI was investigating "anarchist extremists" more or less as individuals.

Who can take a guy like this seriously? The FBI didn't engage in active "spying" on a political campaign and candidate? Really? Antifa activities are not coordinated? Really? Chris Wray is a waste of space.

Is it any wonder that one of Wray's remaining allies--Dan Coats--is being removed as DNI? Who thinks that when President Trump--only days after Wray's absurd statements about Antifa--stated that "[c]onsideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA ... a major Organization of Terror", Trump had not already discussed the matter with Bill Barr? Count on it: Bill Barr is NOT on the same page with Chris Wray. Discount Barr's public "nice talk," just as you should discount his public "my friend Bob" statements. I have no doubt at all that Barr has taken the measure of Wray.

In the wake of Coats' ouster from DNI, Paul Sperry tweeted: