Durham Still 'Pushing'

That's what the WSJ tells us this morning--but not much else. Let's see.

Alexander Downer, the Aussie "diplomat," says he was recontacted by Durham. Downer says he told Durham that he had nothing to add to what was already on the public record. He declined further comment to reporters.

OK. But how about this:

"Increasingly, investigators are focused on former CIA Director John Brennan, examining whether he pushed for a blunter assessment about Russia's motivations than others in the intelligence community felt was warranted, people familiar with the matter said."

I think we've already heard that Durham was focused on Brennan and the ICA--several times. You've got to like that business about a "blunter assessment." I think Durham wants to know how much of it was pure fiction.

That's pretty much how the article goes--very defensive, pushing the idea that there was no slant to anything the Intel Community did. For example:

"There was no political interference," by Mr. Brennan or anyone else, said a former senior intelligence official involved in preparing the report. A 2004 intelligence overhaul that added new procedures to "tease out and highlight" analysts differences ... "worked perfectly," the official said.

 Uh, a "former senior intelligence official"? "Involved in preparing the report"? That could be John Brennan. Or Peter Strzok!

And so it goes. But the good news, if this seems like news to anyone, is that Durham is still on the job, still pushing.

Larry Johnson On The Collapse Of The Russia Hack Narrative

The other day Larry Johnson did a nice blog on the dismissal of the Concord Management case--A Cornerstone of Russia Hacked the 2016 Election Collapses. He makes the important point--discussed in comments here--that the Concord Management case was always presented by Russia Hoax apologists and the Deep State as "Real proof that the Russians helped elect Donald Trump." It was The Real Deal--and Johnson cites The Atlantic as an example:

The indictment details highly specific allegations—including names, dates, and the text of private messages—that appear to substantiate central elements of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment [ICA] that Russia made an active, concerted effort to subvert American democracy.

We've known ever since the ICA was issued in January, 2017, that it was a key part of the Russia Hoax narrative, both in defense of Deep State crimes during the 2016 election and as justification for the Mueller Witchhunt and the ensuing Impeachment Theater. Bill Barr knows that, too, and that's why John Durham has been focused on the who-what-when of the ICA--to the consternation of the Deep State. The dismissal of the Concord Management case knocks a critical underpinning from under that narrative.

The rout of Team Mueller is now complete, but Johnson does well in reminding us that it was inevitable as long ago as April, 2019, when Judge Dabney Friedrich admonished Team Mueller for making "false allegations" about one of the defendants--the Internet Research Agency (IRA). The main false allegation was that the IRA had anything at all to do with the Russian government:

The Mueller team folded in the face of a real lawyer, hired by Concord Management. That is what the Mueller team never counted on. 

But this was not the first setback for the Mueller team in this case. They were admonished by the Judge last year for falsely and improperly allegeding [sic] that the IRA was a Russian Government tool for intelligence operations.  

... 

The Judge's order for the Prosecutors to cease linking the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government was vindicated with the final decision to throw the case out for good. If the Mueller prosecutors actually had real evidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US Presidential contest then they would not have dropped the case permanently. If it was a matter of figuring out how to introduce intelligence information to buttress their evidence they would have left the door open for a future revival of the case. But they did just the opposite. They asked that the charges be dropped completely and permanently.

The dismissal of the case with prejudice eliminates an important narratival defense and talking point. Any attempt to explain it away will fall on deaf ears because it will simply be too complicated for most people to listen to--not to mention, false.

McCarthy: About The "Premise" Of That Investigation ...

Commenter Cassander's prodding reminded me to read Andy McCarthy's latest article--The First Glimpse into Horowitz’s FISA-Abuse Report. I haven't got far into it, but right near the beginning McCarthy really hits the nail right on the head, skewering some of the spin that some of us have been fretting over. McCarthy addresses the business about the "premise" (or "predication") for the FBI investigation that served as the basis for the Carter Page FISA that is the main focus of the OIG FISA report--due out December 9th.

I discussed this at some length earlier today, but McCarthy gets right to the heart of the CNN spin very elegantly and pithily. It's a useful reminder of how we need to focus on key issues in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. After briefly recounting the news, the revelations about disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's bad behavior with other people's emails, McCarthy writes:

UPDATED: About that IC Assessment: Paul Sperry Has Good News

There has been a continuing undercurrent of discussion in the comments regarding what has usually been referenced as the "NIA" but it's more properly termed the ICA: Intelligence Community Assessment. That's the document that has to a great extent set the terms of official DC and news punditry discussion concerning alleged Russian "meddling" or "interference" in the 2016 US Presidential election. The official name of the public (unclassified) summary document is Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. This "assessment" spread the narrative that Russian "meddling" in 2016 was part of a long line of Russian interference in our elections that marked the "boldest" Russian effort "yet," and that it should be viewed as a harbinger of future such efforts building on the "qualified success" of 2016. The ICA has fueled Establishment hysteria about Russia generally.

Several commenters, including myself, have expressed frustration that there has been so little public examination of the ICA, so little subjection of the ICA to critical analysis. Yesterday Paul Sperry linked to an important article addressing precisely this issue, dated 2/22/18, and there is good news: the ICA has, in fact, come under signficant scrutiny, and that scrutiny has come from sources which, in my opinion, make it a virtual certainty that the ICA will be targeted by Bill Barr's investigators in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, it may in fact be a very high profile target and may well explain the sweeping grant of declass authority accorded to Barr by the recent presidential order--which places Barr over CIA and DNI.

Writing in Yet another way Obama’s spies apparently exploited the Trump ‘dossier’, Sperry first set out the background, as above--but please note, the "dossier" he referrs to as the "Trump" dossier is actually what is normally termed the "Steele Dossier":

The much-hyped Obama intelligence report that determined “Vladimir Putin ordered” Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails hacked and leaked “to help Trump’s chances of victory” has been accepted as gospel among DC punditry and given the investigations besieging the Trump presidency their legs. To date, no evidence has publicly emerged to corroborate the report, and the reason may have a lot to do with that sketchy [Steele] dossier bought and paid for by Clinton. 

Suspiciously, Barack Obama’s Intelligence Community Assessment matches the main allegations leveled by the Clinton-paid [Steele] dossier on Trump, which wormed its way into intelligence channels, in addition to the FBI, Justice Department and State Department, during the 2016 campaign. 

...

After learning Obama Justice and FBI officials relied heavily on unsubstantiated rumors in the dossier to wiretap a Trump adviser during the election, congressional leaders now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.

 Then comes the important part: