Briefly: FISA As Deep State Joke; Housekeeping

I'm embedding this excellent and important Maria Bartiromo interview from yesterday. Featured are Devin Nunes and Kash Patel--former federal prosecutor and defender, investigator for Nunes on the HPSCI, NSC official, and most recently a top official at DoD. 

The interview begins with the Clinesmith wrist-slap-a-doodle last Friday. For anyone who was less than appalled by Shipwreckedcrew's ill-informed and frankly absurd gaslighting of that travesty of justice, please listen to this interview. I've made my views known in comments: SWC either doesn't understand or misrepresents the nature of extensions of FISA warrants. Since these extensions authorize the collection of new data 'going forward' they are essentially new warrants--which is why each application for an extension must stand on its own and cannot merely reference the 'original' application. Any mistakes or omissions in the 'original' must be corrected and all new information made known to the FISC. To suggest, as SWC does, that Clinesmith's forgery only affected the final 'extension' but not the 'original' misconceives the nature of the whole process. It also ignores what I've stressed--the nature of Carter Page's probably 10 year long cooperation as an intelligence asset of the US government (both CIA and FBI) was known by all relevant FBI personnel before the 'original' FISA application was submitted. It was not fully disclosed and, in fact, the extent and nature of Page's cooperation was deliberately misrepresented--that was a lie to the FISC.

Now, however, we learn that the FISC--under the direction of John Robert's Obama-judge appointee--is openly in bed with the Russia Hoaxers and the Uniparty Resistance. That's the obvious takeaway from this interview, which gives a frankly dismaying picture of the demise of constitutional order in the United States. Listen and consider what's being said. That FISA has turned out to be a sick Deep State joke perpetrated on the American people and their republic is perhaps the least of what's now known.

One interesting omission from the discussion is the true role played by Bluto Barr and John Durham. It's possible that Maria held back because she's angling to maybe entice Barr to appear on her show. I doubt he'll do it. On that score, I've seen sundance's argument that Barr was an agent of a vast coverup from the beginning. I personally doubt that and believe that he simply blinked when push came to shove. I base that on Barr's public statements going back some years--including before his memo to Rosenstein. It's enough for me to understand that Barr betrayed his own oath of office, and then had the gall to accuse Trump of that offense--on the flimsiest of pretexts. Here's the interview:

UPDATED: Trump Back, Pushing For Declass

COS Mark Meadows spoke with Fox News this morning and indicated that President Trump is already getting close to returning to a pretty normal work schedule. In welcome news, and as an example of Trump's involvement with ongoing matters, Meadows stated:

He [Trump] has already tasked me with getting some *declassification rolling* in a followup to some of the requests that Devin Nunes and some others have made.

 

So, we don't know the specifics of what may be involved, but the declassifications will be made in response to requests by Devin Nunes and others. The reference to Devin Nunes almost certainly is a reference to the Igor Danchenko interview, which debunked the entire Steele "dossier," but we can only speculate as to who "some other" requesting declass--and what documents are involved. There's plenty of possibilities.

Presumably this will be happening before the election, so we'll be following the news closely.

ADDENDUM: What I find so interesting about this is the fact that the President is directing his COS to get involved. We all know--or in the case of some, think they know--that Trump put AG Barr in charge of declassification for the Russia Hoax investigation. The reality isn't so simple as some think.

Contrary to those who seem to think that Barr was made a sort of dictator for declassification, that isn't really the case. Barr was made the ultimate authority for purposes of the investigation, but he still needs to go through normal processes. You can see that from the terms of Trump's executive order, which I will append below. Crucially, agency heads retain a voice in the process and can--as in the case of the FBI's Wray and CIA's Haspel, throw up barriers and slow things down. Thus the need for the president to get involved, because only the president can issue direct orders to agency heads when the agency head retains authorities. 

For example. What does "promptly" mean? As in "promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request"? COB today? Tomorrow? Next week? As soon as the agency head deems it practicable? Note, too, that Barr must follow certain standards and is required to "consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department." And those agency heads retain their lawful authorities. The AG, then, is more a coordinator than a head cracking dictator.

Therefore, I read Meadows' remark to mean that, most likely, AG Barr himself has requested the President to get involved because of roadblocks that he's having difficulty overcoming.

SUBJECT:  Agency Cooperation with Attorney General’s Review of Intelligence Activities Relating to the 2016 Presidential Campaigns

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1.  Agency Cooperation. The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The heads of elements of the intelligence community, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.

Sec. 2.  Declassification and Downgrading.   With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum.  Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department. This authority is not delegable and applies notwithstanding any other authorization or limitation set forth in Executive Order 13526.

Sec. 3.  General Provisions.   (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  The authority in this memorandum shall terminate upon a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, unless expressly extended by the President.

(d)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e)  The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

 

This, I believe, is what's behind Nunes' call to "shut down" the intel agencies until they proceed with declassification. Obviously, Barr can't shut them down. Only Trump can take the kind of drastic action that may be required. I'm quite sure Barr has communicated that to the president.

UPDATE: Apologies for not getting this complete the first time through. To properly understand where Barr stands in all this, note that the executive order has three sections. 

The first section requires agency cooperation with Barr's review. That means the agencies are required to promptly provide the materials that Barr needs to conduct his review. As far as that goes, I have no doubt at all that Barr has had whatever access he needs. So, for example, I don't doubt that Barr and his investigators have seen the unredacted original of Neil Eggleston's 1/19/2017 TOP SECRET letter to James Comey. However, access to those documents emphatically does NOT involved declassification. Barr and his investigators will all have the clearances to view such documents, but the documents remain agency property.

Thus, section 2 addresses the question of declassification--which is totally separate from the question of investigative access. And it's in this area that the limits of Barr's authorities become apparent. His right to view the documents he needs doesn't give him unilateral authority to declassify those documents--as section 2 makes clear. The documents still remain agency property and Barr is required to consult before the documents can be declassified. 

This is the point at which we are now. Notice that neither Nunes nor anyone else that I'm aware of are pointing fingers at Barr over declassification matters. Barr may well want to control the flow of declassification for prosecutorial or investigative reasons. But that's not the real problem--which lies with the intel agencies delaying. This is why Barr needs Trump to be involved.

UPDATED: Devin Nunes Looking At Team Mueller Lying Re Papadopoulos

UPDATE: A new article at Just the News expands on Lee Smith's earlier piece:

House Republicans considering criminal referrals against Mueller prosecutors 

Rep. Devin Nunes says action could force DOJ to look at conduct of Mueller team, accuracy of final Russia report.

Nunes is talking about referring the Team Mueller prosecutors to DoJ.


Lee Smith has a very interesting article today at John Solomon's new site, Just the News:

Declassified FBI memos undercut Mueller team claims that Papadopoulos hindered Russia probe

Prosecutor who recently resigned from Roger Stone case signed court filings omitting evidence of witness cooperation

Judicial Watch has obtained the FBI interview reports (FD-302s) on George Papadopoulos. The picture that those 302s paint of Papadopoulos' interviews is strikingly at variance with the picture that the Team Mueller prosecutors--Aaron Zelinsky, Jeannie Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein--paint in their sentencing memo.

The story line is a bit convoluted, perhaps intentionally so. Basically, Team Mueller claims that Papadopoulos "lied" repeatedly because Papadopoulos repeatedly maintained that when he was meeting with Mifsud and a pair of Russian nationals--in March, 2016--he was not yet part of the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos maintained that he became part of the campaign in April, 2016. But it appears that Team Mueller hedges a bit, rather slyly. Here's the actual wording of the sentencing memo:

the defendant met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after the defendant had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign;

"He would be" actually refers to the future. The future may well have been April--in Papadopoulos' mind. Moreover, Team Mueller frankly admits--but after long pages of turgid prose devoted to Papadopoulos' iniquity:

The government cannot definitively know what motivated the defendant to lie to the agents on January 27, 2017. But the record shows that at the time of the interview, the defendant was attempting to secure a job with the Trump Administration and had an incentive to protect the Administration and minimize his own role as a witness.

Again, notice that this is rather cagey language. If you don't actually know why a person makes a statement that appears to be at variance with the facts as you want those facts to be, well, that means you don't really know that the person was lying. Because lying involves motives; it involves intent to deceive. So Team Mueller is backhandedly admitting that they don't really know that Papadopoulos was lying--but they're quite willing to guess, and they're quite willing to make assertions in that regard, as long as they insert clever escape clauses. But the bottom line, ethically, is that if they couldn't show that Papadopoulos intended to deceive them about a matter that was, after all, pretty much public record, then they should never have charged him with lying.

You may ask, What harm did Papadopoulos' false statements do? Team Mueller claims they hindered an effective investigation of Mifsud and prevented the FBI from detaining Mifsud after they interviewed him in Washington, DC, in February, 2017. But the prosecutors never explain in the sentencing memo how that worked. After all, they don't dispute that Papadopoulos told them the whole truth and nothing but the truth when re recounted what Mifsud said to him about the Russians and the Hillary emails. It all seems to come down to the timing. Team Mueller wanted Papadopoulos to say that Mifsud approached him as a member of the Trump campaign, and Papadopoulos kept saying, No, it was before I was actually part of the campaign.

It all comes down to perception, on Papadopoulos' part. And you can imagine the frustration on the part of Team Mueller--so near and yet so far! But when you look at the 302s, the picture you get is of a Papadopoulos who is eager to be truthful and cooperative. Which, from Team Mueller's point of view, may have been the real problem. Team Mueller wasn't actually investigating Mifsud and what he may or may not have known about the Russians. They were simply trying to tie supposed Russian misdeeds to the Trump campaign, and Papadopoulos saying, No, that all happened before I was part of the campaign was no help at all. Papadopoulos confirming what Mifsud said was no use, because it didn't point to the Trump campaign.

Poor Lee Smith! He has lots of questions about all this, but nobody wants to comment! Not the FBI, not DoJ, and definitely not Aaron Zelinsky, who is back in Baltimore after very publicly quitting the Roger Stone prosecution. The only person willing to comment on it all was Devin Nunes:

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who played a central role in uncovering other abuses in the Russia investigation including insertion of false information in an application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign, said the new revelations about the Papadopoulos case are deeply troubling.

The declassified 302s "provide our first evidence of the Mueller team lying to the court,” Nunes told Just the News in a podcast set to be aired on Tuesday. "The whole idea seemed nonsensical from the beginning that in the sentencing memorandum they would say that he stalled their investigation into Joseph Mifsud. Now, we know from the 302 actually the opposite is true. The truth is that Papadopoulos offered, told the FBI, that Mifsud was going to be in the United States."

For more details, follow the link.

The Devin Nunes - Dan Bongino Interview

Dan Bongino's latest weekend interview, linked below, was with Rep. Devin Nunes. At nearly an hour long, the interview contains a pretty fair amount of substance. Nunes, I believe, still shies away from certain topics, but has enough to say to make the whole worth listening to. In what follows I'll focus on the issues that interested me most. Not surprisingly to regular readers, that means the origin of the Russia Hoax investigation ("predication") and possible prosecutive theories ("conspiracy"), which were both addressed at some length by Nunes.

The first thing that caught my attention was when Nunes stated that, while the whole ball of the Russia Hoax had started rolling in late 2015 to early 2016, at a certain point the conspirators "really needed the umbrella investigation." That "umbrella investigation," of course, was Crossfire Hurricane, the "enterprise CI investigation" of "four Americans" (Manafort, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos) that Comey referred to in his Congressional testimony in March, 2017.

In evaluating Nunes' statement, it's important to understand that Nunes is very clear that the FBI began it's investigation before Crossfire Hurricane was opened. In essence, he confirms what I've long maintained, that Crossfire Hurricane was, in fact, an "umbrella" that took under it earlier investigations. Whether those investigations were preliminary or ful investigations made little difference, at least initially, because a "full" was only needed for the purpose of obtaining a FISA--otherwise, the same investigative techniques could be used. I was at pains, back when this was a hot topic, to insist that the FBI had almost certainly followed the rules by insuring that it had open case files before conducting investigative activities--they were always going to cover their behinds administratively.

But, says Nunes, at a certain point--sometime between early May and the end of July when Crossfire Hurricane was actually opened, that framework--separate investigations on each of the Trump campaign associates were no longer enough. Was there some precipitating event that led to this change of perspective? It stands to reason that there was, and I believe that we can tentatively identify that event as the action Admiral Mike Rogers of NSA took to shut down the FBI's unauthorized "about" queries of 702 material. It was at this time that Strzok complained to Lisa Page that their investigation was now restricted to what are known as "consensual" recordings--informants recording conversations with targets. This development meant that the FBI would need to get a standard FISA on an investigative subject, going through the painstaking application process, if they wanted to get a broader look inside the Trump campaign. They could no longer rely on datamining NSA records.

Nunes' Twitter Lawsuit Advances!

This is potentially very big news. Sean Davis has the full story at The Federalist: 

Devin Nunes’ Lawsuit Against Twitter Could Turn Into The Company’s Worst Nightmare

A Virginia judge ruled last week that the Republican lawmaker's lawsuit against Twitter could proceed to trial in Virginia, meaning the company may finally be forced to disclose evidence of bias against conservative users.

Devin Nunes became a major target for left wing loonies as a result of his outstanding investigative work while heading the House Intel Committee, probing the Russia Hoax. Twitter claims to be neutral, but conservatives have long claimed that it allows unfair practices against conservatives. The big deal about this ruling is that Nunes can now get into discovery, and Twitter has next to no hope to appeal the ruling. I well remember how the Left mocked Nunes as a crybaby and claimed the lawsuit would go nowhere. Now Twitter will almost certainly face a jury if they fail to settle, and the facts are such that Nunes will be a very sympathetic plaintiff.

Here are some of the possible ramifications of today's ruling:

UPDATED: Is Bill Barr Shirking His Responsibility?

That's what sundance at CTH has been claiming for months now--because Barr hasn't secured the declassification of a list of documents that sundance has compiled. Last night in HPSCI Member Devin Nunes Files Lawsuit Against Fusion-GPS Claiming Racketeering and Conspiracy sundance makes the following claim: in the context of a Hannity interview with Devin Nunes regarding his lawsuit against Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability--Sara Carter also weighs in (PDF of complaint in Nunes v. Fusion GPS and CfR):

The Nunes lawsuit alleges Fusion GPS participated in racketeering and conspiracy smear campaign Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee; in an attempt to impede the committee investigation of coordination between the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and the FBI.  [Cloud Link to lawsuit – Scribd Link to lawsuit]. 

According to the Tick-Tock club everyone must work together with Senator Lindsey Graham because the “Deep State” will attempt to obfuscate, hide information, block oversight and impede any effort to highlight damaging institutional information. 

In essence what they are saying is that U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr is incapable of releasing the information.  CTH does not agree. AG Barr is capable, he’s just not delivering; quit defending his inaction. Stop the nonsense.

If Barr is "capable" (perhaps in contrast to Jeff Sessions) of doing what's necessary and required but simply refuses to "deliver"--by sundance's standards--then one is left to suppose that Barr's course of "inaction" is deliberately chosen. In other words, he doesn't want the information to come out!

Devin Nunes Sues Fusion GPS, Campaign for Accountability

The only report I've seen on this so far is at The Daily Caller, and there's no link to a complaint, so details are a bit thin so far. The lawsuit appears to focus on the Steele "dossier" and a series of ethics complaints that were filed against Nunes when he attempted to investigate the dossier. Chuck Ross' article, Devin Nunes Files Racketeering Lawsuit Against Fusion GPS, states:

The complaint, which the California Republican filed in federal court in Virginia, alleges that Fusion GPS and Campaign for Accountability (CfA) worked on a “joint and systematic effort to intimidate, harass, threaten, influence, interfere with, impede, and ultimately to derail” Nunes’ investigation of the dossier, which he directed as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). 

In the lawsuit, Nunes draws a link between CfA payments to Fusion GPS and a string of ethics complaints that the watchdog group filed against him last year. 

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported Aug. 1 that CfA’s 2018 tax filings show the group paid Fusion GPS nearly $140,000 unspecified research activities. 

CfA filed three complaints against Nunes with the Office of Congressional Ethics. In a Jan. 25, 2018 complaint, CfA accused Nunes of leaking sensitive House Intelligence Committee information about Fusion GPS.

Nunes claims that the ethics complaints were "fraudulent and retaliatory." He also claims that Glenn Simpson, a founder of Fusion GPS, lied on at least two occasions with regard to the Steele "dossier":

UPDATED: Important Clarification On Declassification?

I've noted that in the past week or two we've been getting some releases of information on the progress of the Russia Hoax investigation that appear to be intended to reassure conservatives on two points:

1) Bill Barr's committment to getting to the bottom of it all, and

2) The fact that real progress is being made without undue delay.

President Trump gave an extended interview on "Hannity," July 25, 2019, and in the interview, in response to a question from Hannity, he provided what appears to be a clarification on the whole issue of "declassification." I assume that Trump was given a heads up as to what Hannity's questions would be, or what topics would be covered. Therefore, Trump's response was probably prepared beforehand.

The subject of declassification has been a sore topic in some corners of the conservative commentariat--CTH leads the way, in this respect. Some conservatives have even suggested that the lack of a massive document dump into the public sphere means that somehow a coverup--led by Bill Barr--is underway. That, again, has been suggested several times at CTH. Here is Hannity's question and Trump's response (to the extent that it bears upon declass):

HANNITY: Mr. President, you have the power to literally release the FISA applications and the 302's and the gang made information and you made a decision to hand it over to the Attorney General and let him decide. And I'm curious as to why? 

TRUMP: Well, we have a very respected gentleman, very high quality person named William Barr and he is doing - I can tell you he's working so hard and rather than just doing a total release, I gave him a total release, in other words he's got everything anything he needs, he's got it. 

He is the Attorney General of the United States. He's got a lot of very good people under him that I guess are involved and I gave them a total release. So all of it has been released and he has all of it. I've also given him authorization to release it to whoever he wants. Whether it's his people or, frankly, perhaps people like Devin Nunes who is a star, what he has done and the amount of suffering he has gone through, you know what they did with him where they tried to drive him right out of politics and probably worse than that. He has done an incredible job.

Here's how I take this.

It sounds to me that when the President speaks of a "total release" that means that the President--who, of course, has total access as the chief executive--has granted Barr the same access. That means that Barr can demand access to any classified information that he needs to conduct this investigation. That is not the same as declassification. Barr can also declassify it, but that would require going through the usual time consuming process. The main point is that Barr has the authority to get what he needs to get the job done.

Briefly Noted: Actual News Re Carter Page! Nunes Re Mueller!

Just when we're despairing of new information, Paul Sperry comes through:

Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry_

BREAKING: In 5/16/16 email exchange b/t Trump campaign advisers Carter Page & Walid Phares, Page proposed sitting out July trip to New Economic School to let Trump take spotlight like Obama before him, further undercutting dossier allegation Page traveled to Moscow to take bribe

4:26 PM - 13 Jul 2019

The collusion narrative continues to collapse.

And this from Devin Nunes on Fox--totally agree:

I think Mueller would be crazy to testify — I don’t think it’s wise for him to testify but saying that, I want him to testify.

You already saw this week it got postponed — it was supposed to be Wednesday and now it’s kicked to a week from Wednesday. My guess is it could slip again or not happen at all — we’ll see and we’ll be prepared.

Briefly Noted: Devin Nunes On The GOP Strategy For Questioning Mueller

I'm pleased that Nunes appears to be on the same page with my recommendation for questioning Mueller. Nunes was on Hemmer Time with Bill Hemmer earlier this week, and Hemmer led off with questions about how the GOP would approach the Mueller testimony. Nunes' response was that he was advising all the GOP members to "keep it simple," don't give speeches that would allow Mueller to respond with his own counter-speech. Instead, confine yourselves to very specific "yes or no" questions. And he gave an example:

Did you know that Andrew Weissmann was briefed on the "dossier" in the summer of 2016? That's an easy one to start with. ... If an attorney is involved in the chain of custody of the evidence he shouldn't be involved in the investigation itself. I'm not a lawyer myself but all the lawyers around me ... say that's like in the 101 handbook of what not to do as a prosecutor.

There are plenty of other simple, binary type questions of that sort. Now that Judge Dabney Friedrich has slammed half of the "collusion" narrative, I strongly recommend--as have various commenters here--that the GOP members focus on the other half: the claim of Wikileaks and Russian involvement in the DNC "hack." Again, just simple questions regarding the failure to take custody of the physical evidence and yet conduct investigations and prosecutions that relied on third party claims (by Crowdstrike) about that evidence.

The whole half hour interview is fairly interesting.

A Snapshot Of The Mueller FBI

Yesterday at a House Intelligence Committee hearing two retired FBI agents were called by the Democrats as expert witnesses. Per Jeff Carlson:

Witnesses at the hearing—titled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1″—included Robert Anderson and Stephanie Douglas, described by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as former executives from the FBI’s counterintelligence division. Left out of Schiff’s description of Anderson and Douglas was that both witnesses had worked under former FBI Director Mueller prior to his role as special counsel.

Sean Hannity interviewed Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows afterwards. Here are some excerpts:

NUNES: What was amazing to me, ... is there were two retired FBI agents on the stand there, ... What I was amazed at is the lack of concern by these former FBI agents, one of whom Peter Strzok used to work for and, look, they served their country and I'm sure they did a great job, but when I brought up the fact that we probably shouldn't be using counterintelligence capabilities in this country to target a political campaign, they just sat there. ... I know we always say, oh, this happened at the very top of the FBI, but I will tell you, if that attitude permeated throughout the counterintelligence capabilities, and if retired FBI agents think its OK to use counterintelligence against political campaigns, I think we've gone a long way in this country, ...

MEADOWS: ... Even some of the witnesses here today on Capitol hill? They're supposed to be experts? They hadn't even read the Steele dossier!

So how unimpressive is that? Most Americans probably think being an FBI agent, working at the higher levels at FBIHQ, working CI, protecting against espionage and all that stuff--that's pretty impressive, requires smarts and dedication, a sharp, inquiring mind. Right? And here we are, talking about THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN FBI HISTORY, even in US history, and it happened within a few years of them leaving the job. One of them even formerly supervised a major player in all this, Strzok.

So Nunes asks them, What do you think of the FBI using CI capabilities to spy on political campaigns? And "they just sat there." How intellectually unengaged do you have to be, given their background, to have no opinion on that, or none that you're willing to offer?

UPDATED: "A Real Attorney General"

If you haven't watched this interview with Devin Nunes, it's a must view. Nunes is clearly worked up and more plain spoken than I've ever seen him.

In response to segments of the Bill Barr interview with Fox News, in which Barr says that he has more questions now about the Russia Hoax than when he first started as AG, and that the questions he's received are inadequate, Nunes points out that the same is true for the House. For example, he says, just this week, even today, they've finally seen interagency emails regarding Christopher Steele--emails that "the FBI" (he means "Chris Wray") had hidden from Congress.

How did we just find out about this [the Kavalec email]? ... I think what you're seeing is, you're seeing a real Attorney General, a professional, and someone who's not gonna take this poisonous garbage [started by the Dems, and still pushed by irresponsible Dems and their media allies.]

I think I get it. Jeff Sessions wasn't a real Attorney General, nor was Rod Rosenstein. If Devin Nunes knows this, count on it: Bill Barr sure knows it. And I think he's telling us that Barr told Chris Wray how high to jump. When opportunity offers, Wray will be gone. Barr doesn't want to go through another confirmation just now, but if Wray wants to leave, it'll be: Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. In the meantime, he's got him on a leash--a short one.

As for Barr not shying away from the word "spying"?

Sandra, it's ridiculous. Every American out there knows what spying is. This [objecting to the "S" word] is all about narrative building by the Left to cover up what they did, and you have accomplices in the media. This is foolishness. ... He [Barr] used to work at the CIA, for God's sake. I've never seen something so ridiculous, where the media is culpable for this nonsense. Everybody in the media oughta be laughing at these politicians ... It's a joke, it's a joke.

"The Professor Shall Disappear"

Here's a link to a good translation of the Il Foglio article that revealed where Professor Mifsud has been hanging out for at least parts of the past year or two: Missing Mifsud was hidden in Rome Exclusive – The Maltese professor involved in the Russiagate investigation secretly lived in a flat in Rome for seven months. The rent was paid by Link Campus, the Five Star Movement's favourite university.

Five Star Movement? Read about it here:

The M5S is variously considered populist, anti-establishment, environmentalist, anti-globalist, and Eurosceptic. The party has also been described as New Right and described by some as being right-wing due to its anti-immigration stance despite its promotion of policies usually advocated by the Italian left-wing, such as citizen's income and green-inspired policies. Grillo himself once provocatively referred to the movement as "populist". Its members stress that the M5S is not a party but a "movement", and it may not be included in the traditional left–right paradigm. The "five stars" are a reference to five key issues for the party: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, right to Internet access, and environmentalism. The party also advocates e-democracy, direct democracy, the principle of "zero-cost politics", degrowth and nonviolence.

Well, OK, it is an Italian political party. Or movement.

Anyway, here are the final paragraphs of the story. You need to know that Link Campus was founded by Vincenzo Scotti, a former Italian Minister of Home Affairs:

Moreover, another witness sheds light on this story. The book “The Faking of Russia-gate” is co-written by Swiss lawyer Stephan Roh, who owns 5 per cent of GEM (the company which manages Link Campus) and is Mifsud’s lawyer. Roh writes that he spoke to Mifsud over the phone on the “advice of the professor’s friends” on 13 January 2018, while visiting Link's main campus in Casale San Pio V, in Rome. In a conversation-interview reported in the book, Mifsud rejects all the accusations. When asked about why he disappeared, Mifsud said that “the head of the Italian secret services contacted the president of Link Campus, Vincenzo Scotti, and recommended that the Professor shall disappear and stay for some time in a safe location”. The authors write that the “Professor and his friends feared for his life”. It is unclear why the Italian secret services hid Mifsud and why they asked for Scotti's help. Everyone can make their own speculations. But the important issue is that, according to a Link shareholder, who also happens to be Mifsud's lawyer, the university played an active role in the disappearance of the Maltese professor, as part of an operation that has more to do with secret services than with academia.

Nobody knows where Mifsud currently is, and many suspect he is no longer alive. The last time anyone saw him was last May, according to the Associated Press, which was sent a photo of Mifsud by his lawyers. There has been no news since. The Italian government should probably be more transparent about an international spy story that has disrupted an allied country such as the US. Clarification should come from Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta and Deputy Foreign Minister Emanuela Del Re, who come from Link Campus. Ever since the scandal broke out and Mifsud disappeared, all roads lead to the university in Rome. Whoever wants to solve the Russiagate enigma – whether they believe that Mifsud plotted with the Russians to help Trump or that he conspired with Western intelligence services to weaken Trump – should look for evidence at Link Campus, the small university presided over by Vincenzo Scotti.

UPDATED: Nunes Seeking Truth Re Mifsud, Implicates Mueller In Lie

Devin Nunes has sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and FBI Director Chris Wray. The letter asks them to hand over all information they have on Mifsud by May 10.

Nunes presents photographic evidence of Mifsud in close proximity to influential Western political and government officials. Further, in interviews Nunes states that Mifsud served as an intelligence trainer for FBI and CIA agents at the Link Campus in Rome. He points out that if what the Mueller Dossier says is true--that Mifsud was tied to Russian intelligence--then Mifsud's close contact with Western intelligence services such as the FBI and CIA is a major scandal. On the other hand, if what the Mueller Dossier says is not true--and, really, who believed that story?--then Mueller is in trouble on several fronts, including the frame-up of George Papadopoulos.

Nunes states that he's trying to determine how many intelligence operatives were run into the Trump campaign, and clearly believes that the number was significant. Here's his Hannity interview--Devin Nunes Just Caught Robert Mueller Lying to American Public on Joseph Misfud:

AFTERTHOUGHT: Mueller could find himself facing intense questioning from GOPers if he testifies in the Senate (Sen. Graham has invited him--coincidence?) or the House.

UPDATE: National Review is reporting tonight that they have obtained a copy of FBI Deputy assistant director Jonathan Moffa’s testimony. It appears that Moffa's testimony confirms Devin Nunes' claim that there was more going on than the FBI has yet publicly admitted.
Moffa was involved with the Russia–Trump investigation from the start as the section chief over counterintelligence analysis during the period of the election. According to NR:

Moffa’s congressional interview was private, and no transcript has been released. But National Review has obtained a copy. The interview transcript reveals that the FBI’s use of Confidential Human Sources and other counterintelligence assets was far more extensive than has previously been acknowledged.

...

Moffa was asked in the closed-door Capitol Hill interview, “How many CHSs did you have working on this investigation at the time?”

Moffa again conferred with his counsel off the record.

“Okay,” he replied, back on the record. “So I legitimately do not know the total number of CHSs. That’s an operational side decision, but I also don’t want to imply to you that I don’t — I’m not aware of any CHSs, right. So that’s what we were just talking about. But I legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged. I just don’t know it.”

... 

He was clearly involved in meetings where the use of CHSs was discussed, and he appears to assure lawmakers that he isn’t trying to pretend he’s “not aware of any CHSs.” He just “legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged.” That he can’t tell “the overall number” of Confidential Human Sources —  that “I just don’t know it” — leaves open the possibility that there were more than just a few.

UPDATED: Nunes: The Only Thing Of Relevance In The Report ...

In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity yesterday, Devin Nunes honed in on what he called, with reason, "the only thing of relevance that was in today's 450-page report." As quoted by the Washington Times, Nunes stated:

"When you look at what happened today, remember we talked a lot about the scope memo. What were the directions given to the special counsel? Well, we now know hidden on page 11, very thinly, still veiled, but we now know they used the Steele dossier, the Clinton dirt, the Clinton-paid-for dirt as part of the memo for the special counsel that directed the special counsel what to do," Nunes told host Sean Hannity.

"On Carter Page and Paul Manafort, that information came from political opponents, the Clinton campaign fed right into the FBI, directed to the special counsel to go investigate what was in the infamous Steele dossier," Nunes said.

"That is the only thing of relevance that was in today's 450-page report," he emphasized.

"Rosenstein then directed them to use that dirt, that dossier, which I think makes up the bulk of what is in the scope memo, that we have still yet to be able to see," Nunes told Hannity.

Nunes is right, although he appears to have failed to take his point all the way back to what Barr calls the "genesis" of the Special Counsel inquisition--the opening EC for the Crossfire Hurrican investigation. Let's take it step by step.

Briefly Noted: The Devin Nunes Interview With Laura Ingraham

Yesterday Devin Nunes was interviewed by Laura Ingraham. As summarized at CTH, Nunes began by listing three areas of particular concern (my comments follow each numbered item:

(1) The targeting/framing of Michael Flynn ...

That Flynn was targeted and framed by holdover Obama operatives, including Sally Yates at DoJ and James Comey and Andrew McCabe at the FBI is clear enough. Apparently Flynn's guilty plea was motivated by family concerns, especially the threatened prosecution of his son. However, there have been persistent credible reports that McCabe persuaded the two agents who interviewed Flynn--Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka--to change their 302 report to make it more damaging to Flynn. While Team Mueller was still operative they were able to keep Strzok and Pientka insulated from inquiries by IG Horowitz, but now Pientka is being interviewed by Horowitz's investigators. Flynn's sentencing has been repeatedly delayed, but these new developments could impact even the guilty plea itself. Stay tuned.

(2) The use of Joseph Mifsud as an asset by the CIA/FBI running a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

In the interview, Nunes is adamant about the need to learn more about Mifsud--which has proven exceptionally difficult because a Western intelligence service is reported to have given him a new identity and is hiding him from official investigators. Amusingly, Nunes reports that Team Mueller--in the face of all evidence--continues to maintain that Mifsud was a Russian agent. This as well as the whole Steele issue is an area that is ripe for the application of some serious diplomatic pressure to gain access to these two intel operatives.

Nunes Airs His Big Picture Theory Of The Russia Hoax

Shortly after the Lisa Page testimony was made public, on March 12th, Rep. Devin Nunes, former head of the HPSCI, did an interview with Sean Hannity. In the interview Nunes lays out is, in some important respects, his view of the big picture of the Russia Hoax--who's behind it, what were it's origins, what needs to be done. Some of what he says is speculative, and he acknowledges that. Also, while he and his GOP colleagues are preparing criminal referrals to DoJ, Nunes openly states that "the best possible thing that could happen" would be for DoJ to take this investigation in hand, because there's still plenty of work that needs to be done.

I've done a transcript of the interview--the first nine minutes--that's largely word for word, but cleaned up a bit to eliminate cross-talk, stumbling for words, etc. You can listen to the interview here, but I think reading and thinking about what Nunes is saying may prove provocative. There's lots to ponder in what he says. I'm pleased to be able to say that Nunes confirms many of the things that I and commenters here have been saying over the past two years. Among other items of note, Nunes maintains strongly that the FBI was "thick into" the anti-Trump effort from the beginning of 2016 and not, as their "essentially fake narrative" maintains, only beginning in July. He clearly suggests that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was a major source for the dossier operation, and he openly states that Andrew Weissmann--nominally Mueller's deputy--is "running the operation."  If reading this sparks your curiosity, as it really should, I highly recommend the linked posts below, because Weissmann was centrally involved in the Russia Hoax long before there was ever a Team Mueller--possibly as much as a year before:

The FBI: Working Hand In Glove With Clinton Operatives

Why Andrew Weissmann?


****

So, here's the interview, with some comments added:

SH = Sean Hannity
DN = Devin Nunes

Here's The Difference.

As you'll recall, back when Devin Nunes was still chairman of the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff launched an 8 month ethics inquiry into Nunes because Nunes had met with a source without informing the committee. This arguably slowed down the GOP investigation into the Russia Hoax.

Today we've learned that Schiff met personally with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS in July at a security conference in Aspen, CO. It now seems certain, based on Bruce Ohr's recently leaked testimony, that Simpson lied in his own testimony to the Intel Committee.

Will GOPers play turnabout and demand an ethics inquiry into Schiff?

They may, but here's the difference.

When Nunes was sidelined the Speaker of the House was NeverTrumper Paul Ryan.

Nancy Pelosi, also a NeverTrumper--same party!--is now the Speaker.

See the difference?

Won't happen.

Is It Time For The Courts To Get Involved In The Russia Hoax?

Back in February of 2018 Hugh Hewitt, law professor and pundit, conducted a fascinating interview on his radio program with Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. As it happens, that interview serves very nicely as an introduction to a development that hasn't received much attention, coming as it does in the leadup to the Midterm elections. That development was reported by John Solomon in The Hill: Silence of 'the lambs': The deafening quietude of the FISA court and John Roberts. Let's begin with the Hewitt/Nunes interview.

Hewitt and Nunes revealed themselves to be very much aware of not only the legal aspects of the Russia Hoax, specifically regarding the Carter Page FISA, but also of the Constitutional aspects. This is entirely understandable, given that all three Constitutional branches of the US Government were either involved in the approval of the Carter Page FISA or are now involved in getting to the bottom of the Russia Hoax--in which the FISA aspects present the most danger of criminal liability.

As the interview progressed, Hewitt raised the very possibility that Solomon now refers to: that of interviewing Chief Justice John Roberts, who appoints the FISA Court (FISC) judges. Hewitt clearly believes that the Judicial Branch has a lot at stake in the Russia Hoax and therefore considers that it would be a good idea for Congress to approach the Courts. The exchange begins with a discussion of the Separation of Powers issues involved in Congress seeking to interview the Chief Justice, but it then moves to the issue that's at the heart of criminality in the Russia Hoax: the apparent effort by the FBI and DoJ to disguise from the FISC the true origins of the material that came to be known as the Steele Dossier. The FBI's subterfuge was embodied in a footnote to the FISA application, and Hewitt gives it as his opinion that the footnote constitutes a "material omission. He also cites the opinion of a Federal judge to that effect as well. Here's the exchange:

Rudy's Shot Across Mueller's Bow

On Monday, 8/5/17, during an appearance on the Sean Hannity Show, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes put the world on notice to pay close attention to disgraced Department of Justice attorney Bruce Ohr, formerly the #4 in the DoJ chain of command, reporting to Sally Yates: “Bruce Ohr is going to become more and more important in this investigation ..." Since then, thanks to the reporting of John Solomon, Byron York, and Sara Carter, we've had a glimpse of a few emails in an extensive e-correspondence between Ohr and the British ex-spook and "dossier" author, Christopher Steele. Included in those emails are tantalizing references to telephone calls and face to face meetings, the contents of which we can only guess at.

Now, President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in an appearance on the Sean Hannity Show, has fired a clear warning shot across the bow of Special Prosecutor (SC) Robert Mueller. Giuliani warned that Mueller's case against the President

"isn’t going to fizzle. It's going to blow up on them. ... there's a lot more to what they [the Mueller team] did that nobody knows about yet. A lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier." And Giuliani added: "... when this plays out over the next year or two, it's not going to be about President Trump. ... It’s going to be about all the things they [the Mueller team] did." ... It’s a different kind of Watergate. It’s on the side of the investigator."

With Paul Sperry stating that President Trump is about to begin declassifying some key documents, we may soon have a better picture of what's been going on in the Mueller "probe." But we may already be getting a preview, based on the handful of Steele/Ohr emails that we've already seen. Let's focus on some of those emails beginning immediately before the appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel, on 5/17/17. (In what follows, I've preserved the original spelling and punctuation as they appear in the emails.)