The Horowitz Dossier And Predication

John Durham and his team are pretty much leaking nothing. Which makes for a slow news cycle. So, to kill the time while we await the big developments come May/June, as per AG Bill Barr's assurances in his most recent interview, I've started reading the Horowitz Dossier, aka, "The FISA Report." Finally! Of course I've read lots about it, and excerpts from it, but now I'm doing the whole thing in a systematic way. I've started at the beginning and plan to work my way through to the end, and I'm almost a quarter of the way through already.

My initial impression is that I can see why the Durham investigation is taking so long. What happened from 2015 (at least) through to 2019 (at least) was immensely complex and involved an awful lot of people, all offering excuses and justifications for their commissions and omissions. And to complicate matters, some of the main actors are scattered around the globe, are subjects of foreign powers, even operatives of foreign "allied" or "friendly" intel services. At least one key player is all of the above and, as far as you or I can tell, has disappeared. Putting this beast of an investigation into prosecutive form is bound to be a gargantuan job.

Another initial impression is that it's been a long time since I've read so much officially sanctioned BS. In particular, the justifications for starting Crossfire Hurricane, for starting the various sub-investigations off that main file, for not attempting a defensive briefing of the Trump campaign, for accepting the word of Fusion GPS, Chris Steele, the DNC, Crowdstrike, and all the other unsavory anti-Trump actors--it's all well beyond laughable. If you ever had any doubt that John Brennan's January, 2017, Intel Community Assessment was anything other than an after the fact justification--i.e., a coverup--all doubts will be dispelled by reading Horowitz's report. But this is the subterfuge that Durham has to expose--in prosecutable detail. It's a big job, and he's up against experienced bureaucratic operators.

You may recall that when Horowitz first came out with his report, both Barr and Durham took vocal and public exception to Horowitz's claim that Crossfire Hurricane was properly predicated. Rather than go into that issue again, I want to briefly point out something I noticed and which took me very much by surprise. That something is Horowitz's view of the authority of DoJ and the FBI to conduct investigations and, specifically, his ideas on the whole concept of predication. This topic is raised on page 19/51 (the first number is the numbered page, the second is the overall page number in the pdf file). Here's what Horowitz says (all extra formatting is mine):

More Insight Into The Crossfire Hurricane Case Opening

Stephen McIntyre has a very interesting twitter thread that in a sense extends commenter Mike Sylwester's remarks regarding the transmittal of the Downer/Papadopoulos "information" from the FBI Legat London through the Philadelphia Field Office--which I commented made no sense under any scenario--to Cyber Division at FBIHQ.

What I've done here is simply paste in from Thread Reader App McIntyre's own text. However, if you follow the link below what you'll find is that, as he says, in his tweets he has cross referenced the (frustratingly redacted) Strzok/Page texts. Those texts offer a sort of running commentary on events at FBIHQ leading to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. You'll need to follow the link to see those.

A point worth mentioning. McIntyre states that Horowitz says that Crossfire Hurricane was opened by the FBI's Criminal Division. However, on p. 89 of the full pdf of the report we read:

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation under the code name Crossfire Hurricane "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia." 

I think McIntyre is getting this wrong. Consider:

1) Strzok, a CI official, wrote the EC that Bill Priestap (top FBI CI official), used to open the case;

2) Strzok continued to supervise the case, under the CI command structure headed by Priestap;

3) The obvious reason for opening Crossfire Hurricane was to get a FISA--Foreign INTELLIGENCE Surveillance Act;

4) Comey testified to Congress that Crossfire Hurricane was an Enterprise CI Investigation--which makes perfect sense to me, given that CI officials at FBIHQ seem to have handled it from beginning to end.


THREAD: cross-reference Strzok texts to Horowitz during origin of Crossfire Hurricane.

It's About Pressure Points

First off, a big hat tip to Thomas Lifson at AmThinker for bringing these two memes together in his WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel catches Glenn Simpson contradicting his own sworn testimony. Lifson starts his blog by quoting a terrific article by Charles Lipson, Unraveling the Criminal Web at Comey's FBI and Beyond. What Lipson is writing about is the most basic of investigative strategies when confronted with a criminal conspiracy: identify the weak link(s) and apply pressure. Lipson expresses it very well:



The way to unravel a criminal conspiracy is to begin with the weakest links, the ones already doomed by convincing evidence. Knowing they face serious jail time, these “weak links” have powerful reasons to cooperate with law enforcement. Flipping on their fellow conspirators is the best way, perhaps the only way, to lessen their own sentences. 

... 

This tried-and-true law enforcement technique is available to U.S. Attorney John Durham as he tries to unravel the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, transition to office, and early presidency. ... 

... 

So, who are the weakest links as Durham’s investigation moves forward? One is surely Kevin Clinesmith, a lawyer in Comey’s FBI who is highlighted in the Horowitz Report (pages 186-190). ... Clinesmith not only altered official documents, he completely changed their meaning. The altered documents painted Carter Page as a foreign spy; the originals said there was no evidence for that. The exculpatory evidence was hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts. The lies helped gain a secret warrant to spy on Page.

It's no news that Kevin Clinesmith is perhaps the most identifiable weak link in the Carter Page FISA fiasco. But the Carter Page FISA was also central to the larger Russia Hoax, the plot against the president, as Lee Smith says. And Clinesmith was also a central player in the rest of the Russia Hoax, including the Mueller witchhunt--not just a bit player in the Carter Page FISA. There's a lot he could tell Durham's investigators, if he's properly motivated to do so. Durham's job is to provide Clinesmith with the proper motivation--Clinesmith knows that and everybody he came in contact with during the entire run of the Russia Hoax, all the way up to the issuance of the Mueller Dossier, knows that, too. And so Lipson concludes:

FBI Reaction To Trump's Election

I knew this would be true--not all FBI agents were behind their top management's efforts to sabotage Trump. Not his campaign and not his presidency. Monica Showalter offers quotes via The Daily Beast of messages that some of these pro-Trump agents sent the morning after Trump's "surprise" victory--as quoted in the Horowitz Dossier.

I have nothing really to add. After all, this amounts to anecdotal evidence--it's not a poll of the state of mind within the FBI or anything like that. Still, it's a pretty good indication that the atmosphere in top management is somewhat rarefied. I've written in the past of the army of lawyers who, in recent decades, have been "parachuted" into top positions at the FBI, including placing former prosecutors into the Director's office. I spoke of this to Lee Smith, about the toxic, politicized, and antinomian culture that was thus imported. Smith was good enough to include my views in Chapter 15 of his book, The Plot Against The President.

As always happens, these changes in leadership also led to changes in the selection not only of agent candidates but, especially, of those who would rise through management ranks. The rise of the Strzoks and McCabes and Priestaps tells a lot about the cultural state of the FBI, in and of itself.

Showalter writes about some of this at Daily Beast reports presence of conservatives in the FBI like it's a bad thing. Note, of course, that the agents who are quoted, while apparently unapologetic, do feel embattled. Here's the quote from The Daily Beast:

The report released Monday by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz revealed messages between several FBI employees celebrating President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. 

One supervisory special agent wrote via instant message that he was “so elated with the election” and that watching election coverage was like “watching a Superbowl comeback.” The agent later explained his messages to Horowitz’s office, claiming that they thought Hillary Clinton would win and it was “energizing” to see Trump claim victory. “I didn’t want a criminal to be in the White House,” he said. 

Hey, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me! A lot more reasonable than the views of the Strzoks, Pages, and McCabes of the FBI world--let alone Jim "So Many Questions" Comey.

Two other FBI agents also expressed pleasure with the 2016 election results. “Shit just got real,” one employee wrote in messages uncovered by the IG report. “I saw a lot of scared MFers on... (my way to work) this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha.” The other agent replied, “LOL.” In response, the employee remarked: “Come January I’m going to just get a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch.” The other agent replied: “That's hilarious!”

I have to say, I LMAOed when I read that. It gave me just a bit of hope. There's a lot of truth in Bill Haydon's observation to George Smiley that the health of the intelligence services reflects the health--or lack thereof--of a society. And that means there's a long road ahead, judging from the Horowitz Dossier.

Must Read: Bruce Swartz, Textbook Swamp Dweller

That's the title of an article by Jack Cashill at AmThinker today: Bruce Swartz, Textbook Swamp Dweller. I expect this sort of thing to continue for quite some time. The Horowitz Dossier is a treasure trove of names, facts, and dates. Researchers will be mining it for connections, which is what Cashill has done with Bruce Swartz. What Cashill's research shows is that Swartz has been part of the Clinton Organized Crime Family going back two decades. The continuity is stunning in its revelation of the scope of the Deep State/Swamp.

Swartz has been on our radar here for nearly a year. We first wrote about him in The FBI: Working Hand In Glove With Clinton Operatives and, very recently in connection with the Horowitz Dossier, again just yesterday in an update to AG Barr Speaks. Here's what I wrote in January:

When Ohr met Steele again in either late September or early October, 2016 he did so in company with quite a group: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page from the FBI, and three DOJ career officials from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman--currently Robert Mueller's deputy. ... this also probably means that they were planning for the FISA application, given that the application was submitted on October 21, 2016, immediately after Steele's October 20 report--the report in which Michael Cohen's famous trip to Prague for a "clandestine" meet superseded the clandestine Moscow meet of Carter Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign. Which leads to the supposition that this meeting with Steele was to tell him, inter alia, that more detailed information was needed for the FISA application--which Steele duly provided, in the form of the now famous Cohen-Prague miscue.

All in all, it's an interesting picture: three officials from DoJ's Criminal Division meeting with the second in command of the FBI's CI division (accompanied by the Deputy Director's counsel) to plan for a FISA on--in effect--a candidate for the presidency. Coaching the asset on what was now needed for the FISA to go through, which would be typical Weissman tactics.And all this without informing the Acting AG, Sally Yates. Or so they say.

And yesterday:

Some Former FBI Officials Get It

Kevin Brock--see below for career specs--has a clever article at The Hill, but it's more than just clever. He hits on the important points about predication that Barr and Durham have been making. Here are some brief excerpts from a really good presentation--Misfired 'Hurricane': Comey's team abused Carter Page and the FBI. It's far more interesting than the title might suggest:

Imagine the Department of Justice inspector general (IG) conducting a review of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It might read something like this: “While it is clear that Mr. Epstein abused minor girls, there is no documentary or testimonial evidence that he was motivated by a deviant sexual interest in those young girls.” 

...  

The report by IG Michael Horowitz is one long expose of a confluence of actors at the top of the FBI who, by their own words, despised Donald Trump and came together to open and run an investigation into his 2016 presidential campaign, falsifying documents, withholding evidence and using a confidential source who had stated clearly that his goal was to prevent a Trump presidency.   

Despite these flashing lights, the IG essentially stated that since no one admitted to being motivated by their personal biases, he could not reach that conclusion. Thanks for that, but most Americans unencumbered by a law degree can detect the obvious without a lot of effort.  

IMPORTANT UPDATES: AG Barr Speaks

I don't know how to embed this video interview of Bill Barr from Fox News, so I'll offer a transcript of the video. What's on the video is in addition to the summary of the interview that's in the text of the article--and in my view is by far the most important part. Barr is very much focused on what happened after the election, and when you realize that the FISA renewals continued up into the beginning of the Mueller witchhunt, and that the same people were involved, you can see that Barr and Durham are now expanding their investigation to include Mueller's operation.

Overall, I think you'll be impressed with Barr's grasp of what went down beginning in 2016, his understanding of both the big picture as well as the details, and his sense of outrage.

Here are some of the snippets from the article:

On the FBI investigation generally:

“It’s hard to look at this stuff and not think that it was a gross abuse.”

On the absurd claim that the single setup conversation of Downer with George Papadopoulos provided credible predication for a full investigation:

"Where I disagree with Mike, I just think this was very flimsy," ... "a comment made by a 28-year-old volunteer."

On FBI dishonesty and fraud on the FISC:

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.

Nunes, Schiff, Horowitz

Adam Schiff. Anyone might be forgiven for thinking that Adam Schiff, the Grand Inquisitor in the Dems' Impeachment Theater, played no role in the Horowitz Dossier. But you'd be very wrong if you thought that. In fact, despite the fact that Schiff is not mentioned once by name in Horowitz's dossier, he actually plays a central role. Because it is Schiff's big lies, in his supposed rebuttal of Devin Nunes' famous memo, that are utterly debunked, once and forever, by Horowitz's recital of facts.

Kim Strassel of the WSJ lays it out for us in a few short, but very sweet, tweets:

1) Key findings of Horowitz report:

--Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a "low threshold" this is. Durham's statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.

A "low threshhold" is, of course in the eyes of the beholder. Low compared to what other threshhold? Yes a "reasonableness" standard may appear "low" compared to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshhold required for a criminal conviction. But consider. Is it really such an easy thing to do to present "articulable facts" that make it reasonable to believe that a given person is an agent of Russia? We're not talking here of simple allegations--some unidentified person in a "friendly foreign government" said this and such. We're talking about "articulable facts." Andy McCarthy, a highly experienced former prosecutor, previously referred to the FBI's investigation as having been opened on "false pretenses", i.e., NOT based on "articulable facts." That's been my central contention for all these months. Tellingly, John Durham was willing to publicly contradict Horowitz's conclusion. Durham obviously doesn't think even such a supposedly "low" threshhold was met. AG Bill Barr also believes Comey's FBI and the DoJ stumbled, repeatedly, over that "low" threshhold. This story isn't finished yet.

2) The report is triumph for former House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who first blew the whistle on FISA abuse. The report confirms all the elements of the February 2018 Nunes memo, which said dossier was as an "essential" part of applications, and FBI withheld info from FISA court. 

3) Conversely, report is an excoriation of Adam Schiff and his "memo" of Feb 2018. That doc stated that "FBI and DOJ officials did NOT abuse the [FISA] process" or "omit material information." Also claimed FBI didn't much rely on dossier. 

4) In fact, IG report says dossier played "central and essential role" in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings. 

5) Report is a devastating indictment of Steele, Fusion GPS and the "dossier." Report finds that about the only thing FBI ever corroborated in that doc were publicly available times, places, title names. Ouch. 

Who thinks the Republicans will ever let anyone, let alone Adam Schiff himself, forget the shamefully corrupt role Schiff has played in this historic drama of our constitutional republic?

Svetlana Speaks

Svetlana Lokhova runs a pretty lively twitter feed. I like this tweet, among many others:

So who knew Horowitz was such great comedy value? Read the section on Source 2 (Halper) and see how long far you can get without laughing out loud.

— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) December 10, 2019

What can you say? Lie after outrageously laughable lie, and the Horowitz dossier says: No evidence of "improper motivation."

Imagine how creeped out she must be at having been in the same room with Halper, much less having had to deal with him at Cambridge. Hey, maybe this is why the FBI "fired" Halper for cause, for bad behavior, back in 2011:

Go on. Tell us more about Halper’s DC madam. https://t.co/GBrOLAgndr

— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) December 9, 2019

OH! So Maybe This Is Why The Flynn Hearing Was Delayed

Recall that the government, i.e., Team Mueller lawyer van Grack, decided to ask that the hearing on Flynn's motion for release of Brady material be delayed. The cited reason was that there would be information in the forthcoming Horowitz Dossier that would be relevant to the Flynn case. Van Grack is probably hoping that this will allow the case to be thrown out without getting into the issue of his own misconduct. Get a load of this:

🚨

IG REPORT

The FBI used Christopher Steele to get information on General Flynn.

FBI promised Steele he would be paid "significantly" for this information.

cc @KerriKupecDOJ pic.twitter.com/iLLDcTVnbJ

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) December 9, 2019

So, in other words: Get us dirt on Flynn and we'll give you significant amounts of money. Horowitz's writeup--and, look, Horowitz is an experienced prosecutor, so he knows what he's saying--clearly states that the FBI informed Steele that they were ready to pay--for dirt.

Does that sound to you like an open invitation for someone based outside US jurisdiction to, like, make stuff up? It sure sounds like it to me. I guaran-damn-tee you, I never spoke to a source like that. Does that sound like evidence of "improper motives" to you? Like, the FBI really wanted to "get" Flynn? Yeah.