Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, McCarthy makes this very important point:

Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ Motives

Brennan's Interview

Disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan was interviewed for 8 hours at CIA Headquarters today. The interview was led by USA John Durham. We're told by Brennan's team:

Brennan was informed by Mr. Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review.

Of course, if as a witness Brennan attempts to obstruct Durham's investigation ...

Brennan also confirmed, indirectly, that Durham remains focused on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact Or Fiction?

Well, if we're talking about Jeffrey Toobin--legal fabulist for CNN--and his new book, "TRUE CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS: The Investigation of Donald Trump," then I think we're talking fiction on several levels.

I really hadda laugh last night when I read an article at The Hill--FBI officials hid copies of Russia probe documents fearing Trump interference: book--that recounted an excerpt from Toobin's novel at CNN. My first thought was, Whoa! Theft and/or Destruction of Government Property in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the government of honest services! Or, in the alternative, in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud certain named persons of their constitutional rights. In plain sight--I couldn't believe McCabe could be publicly admitting to that. Here's what The HIll said:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials reportedly took steps to preserve memos authored by former Director James Comey and other key documents related to the Russia investigation over worries that President Trump would interfere in the probe, CNN reported Thursday. 

In the days following Comey's ouster in 2017, McCabe reportedly thought that President Trump's decision to remove the FBI director was problematic and, as the then-acting director of the agency, instructed his team to open a criminal case, according to an adapted excerpt from CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin's book, "True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump." 

...  

McCabe, fearing that he would not last at the agency given the tumultuousness of the moment, then acted to preserve Comey's memos detailing his conversations with Trump as well as other related documents on the FBI's internal system, thus ensuring that they could not be destroyed, according to CNN. 

Other officials sent documents including the memos to remote locations throughout the FBI, according to CNN, with the goal of preserving them to be shared at a later date. 

Did you catch what was going on? Here's the key phrase: "McCabe ... acted to preserve Comey's memos ... on the FBI's internal system." And just to be sure we have that right, here's Toobin:

McCabe couldn't be sure how long he'd last as director, so he wanted to lock down as much evidence as possible. Most important, he told the investigating agents to place Comey's memos in SENTINEL, the FBI's case management software. McCabe knew that once documents were inside the system, they were virtually impossible to remove. With Comey's memos in the system, the investigators were certain to have access to them -- even if McCabe himself would eventually be gone.

...

Would Trump dismiss more people? Would he shut down the investigation of his campaign's ties to Russia? Would the President demand that the Bureau cease its investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump's onetime national security adviser?

Wait--does that mean that Comey's memos had previously NOT been in SENTINEL? Yes, it does, but, Excuse me! ALL official records must be preserved on the official file system. No exceptions allowed. Believe me--if there's a reason to restrict access to particular investigations within the FBI file system, there are well established, tried and tested, methods for doing so. That's absolutely basic for any investigative agency. It's no more than the application of the basic need-to-know principle that governs all investigative activity.

All Toobin is actually doing is providing us with McCabe's self serving account of how the Comey memos finally--months after some were written--found their way into the FBI's file system where they belonged in the first place. In other words, this is a backhand admission that Comey, McCabe, and presumably others were maintaining a private file system apart from the FBI's official file system. The facts of what happened, as opposed to Toobin's fictional account, run like this:

After Comey's firing McCabe and other top conspirators--undoubtedly including McCabe but also, in all likelihood, James Baker and possibly a few others--afraid that the nature and extent of their conspiracy would become widely known throughout the FBI and DoJ and thus leakable, as also the fact that they had been maintaining a private file system, i.e., conducting a private investigation--scrambled to get the private file system uploaded into the official file system.

The idea that entering Comey's memos into the FBI file system was a security measure rather than an after the fact CYA measure doesn't come remotely close to passing the laugh test.

Strzok, Page, Baker Emails Re Logan Act

Catherine Herridge has a twitter thread in which she provides images of two internal FBI email exchanges early in the work day of January 4, 2017. Those email exchanges involve Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and James A. Baker. First, here is an image of the emails:

Now, bear in mind that James A. Baker was at the time the top legal guy at the FBI--he was General Counsel, which means that he was disgraced former FBI Director James Comey's personal lawyer for official purposes. Lisa Page's exact position in the organizational pecking order is a bit more ambiguous, but as Counsel to the Deputy Director, Andy McCabe--who was in charge of day to day operations--she would ipso facto have a lot of clout.

The first email is from Lisa Page to James Baker, and is captioned: "code section at question." I wonder whether Page means "code section IN question"? The entire text of the email is simply the United States Code citation to the Logan Act: "18 USC 953".

What's going on here?

Michael Sussman Should Probably Be Concerned

Michael Sussman is getting what I'm sure is, for him, unwanted attention in the wake of the release of transcripts of House interviews of persons connected to the Russia Hoax investigation. I've mentioned Sussman before--many times. Pay particular attention to James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited, and recall that James Baker is now said to be cooperating with John Durham's investigation. Here's a brief intro to Sussman, which should leave no doubt as to why he's important for the Russia Hoax investigation:

Michael Sussmann, formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is a nationally-recognized privacy, cybersecurity and national security attorney. He is engaged on some of the most sophisticated, high-stakes matters today, such as his representation of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in their responses to Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential election.

However, Sussman's involvement goes far, far, beyond that. It was Sussman who connected Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS with the Clinton campaign--laundering that connection through his Perkins Coie law firm (a possible election law violation). Anyone who thinks Sussman wouldn't have vetted Simpson hires for the Russia Hoax--such as Nellie Ohr and Chris Steele--should immediately reconsider. In fact, we now know from Steele's London testimony that Steele did meet with Sussman personally.

It was also Sussman who personally went to FBIHQ to meet with his friend James Baker and peddle the fake Alfa Bank story. And the FBI did, in fact, open an investigation into that hoax, with Baker fully aware of Sussman's deep connectins to the Clinton campaign. Here's how Kim Strassel characterized that meeting (Who Is Michael Sussman?):

Steele Testified That He Was In Direct Contact With Clinton Lawyers

There's been a bit of a buzz about the tired old Alfa Bank story lately, and tonight The Daily Caller has a lengthy article on the origins of that hoax. Or sub-hoax, if you will.

Dossier Author Christopher Steele Had Previously Undisclosed Meetings With Lawyers For DNC, Clinton Campaign

The Russian Alfa Bank has sued Christopher Steele for defamation, over the September 16, 2016 memo that Steele wrote, which claimed that there was some sort of secret communications channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, routed through Alfa Bank's server. In testimony last month--March 17 and 18--Steele traced the story directly to Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann as well as to the Clinton campaign's opposition research shop, Fusion GPS. Sussmann, of course, is the top Dem election lawyer, lawyer for the DNC, and has been for years. Steele also met personally with Marc Elias, the Clinton campaign's top lawyer, just a week after writing the hoax memo.

In his testimony, Steele explicitly states that the Alfa story was provided to him by Sussmann and that Glenn Simpson, Steele's employer at Fusion GPS, "directed" Steele to write the story up as a report. In other words, Simpson told Steele to frame Sussmann's phony story as an "intelligence" report. The Clinton lawyers and Steele then peddled the story to the FBI, the State Department, and various media outlets. Steele's testimony provides a glimpse of just how directly the Clinton campaign was involved in the production of the dossier--including its content:

Jack Posobiec: James Baker Has Flipped

Smart move if true. Baker, of course, was Comey's in-house counsel at the FBI:

BREAKING: Former FBI general counsel James Baker has reportedly ‘flipped’ and is now cooperating with the Barr-Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation - @OANN

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 25, 2019

“Andrew McCabe was offered a pre-indictment plea agreement and turned it down. So US attorney Durham has impaneled a grand jury...John Brennan and James Clapper should be put under oath and questioned too.” — @marklevinshow

— Rich Valdes 🇺🇸 (@RichValdes) October 25, 2019

Hannity: Lisa Page Has Been Fully Cooperative "For A Long Time"

According to Hannity, Lisa Page stated in closed door testimony that after nine months of investigation--starting in July, 2016--the FBI had NOTHING. Yet Rosenstein started up Team Mueller anyway. She is--and has been "for a long time"--cooperating with the investigation.

Think about Lisa Page and her position in the Russia Hoax. We mostly know her as the paramour of Peter Strzok, texting and emailing with him constantly and candidly. But she was McCabe's counsel, she interacted with the whole FBI legal team (including Comey's counsel, Jim Baker), and she also interacted with key DoJ personnel: Sally Yates, David Laufman, Tashina Gauhar, and Andrew Weissmann. She was at the key October meeting with Bruce Ohr, Chris Steele, Weissmann, and Zainab Ahmad--that was shortly before the Carter Page FISA. Her cooperation should be huge. She's a mother with two children--she doesn't want to go to jail and as former prosecutor she knows what that means, what she needs to do.

Hannity concluded with this:

I have my sources confirming to me tonight at very high levels. And by the way, it’s not Trump. I have high level sources telling me tonight, that "by the time that Attorney Durham is done with his job, and the Attorney General is done with his job, and the investigation is complete adding into it Inspector General Horowitz, it will shock the conscience of a nation." That is a quote.

Sounds good to me.

Investigating The Investigators: More On The Case Theory

Last week I looked into the new meme that came to the forefront immediately in the wake of the Mueller Meltdown. As part of my analysis I offered a theory of the case that Barr and Durham would be pursuing, in which I suggested that some form of extortion might well be under examination. Here's how I summarized that case theory in Investigating The Investigators--And A Theory Of The Case:

As I've stated before, the main object of the Russia Hoax was to prevent Donald Trump from taking office as POTUS. How was this to be accomplished, if not by force/violence? The answer is fairly obvious. Trump was to be forced to withdraw or resign by non-physical means--the threat that he could be humiliated, his position made untenable, impeached, hounded from office, ultimately prosecuted. All these things are still being threatened, and that's the point. Threats would be leveled at Trump under the color of law or of official authority, threats that would be presented as if they had a factual predication. The threats would be presented by persons who had official positions in the US government and who would present those threats as expressions of their official authority. Which is to say that Trump would be, in effect, extorted under color of law.

For example.

What was Comey doing when he met with Trump at Trump Tower and told him that there were reports of sexual shenanigans involving Trump in a Moscow hotel? I would argue that Comey was attempting to create a situation in which Trump would feel compelled to withdraw before even being inaugurated as POTUS. I would argue that that is a form of extortion and that, coming from the Director FBI, a suggestion was being made that Comey had some degree of control over this situation--if Trump should withdraw, perhaps Comey could make the problem go away. It's an argument.

The appointment of a special counsel itself was an act under color of law, which had no legal predication, as we know and as both McCabe and Rosenstein both had ample reason to know. The fact that they discussed an attempted use of the 25th amendment is another indication of their knowledge of the lack of predication for a criminal investigation. Was the appointment of a special counsel made with the object of pressuring Trump to resign? His initial reaction ("I'm f*cked") is evidence. I would argue that this, too, was a form of extortion.

Finally, as John Solomon has reported within the last few days, within two weeks of the initiation of the Mueller inquisition Andrew Weissmann had approached the lawyers for a Ukrainian oligarch under US indictment and made offers that for all the world appeared to have been an attempt to suborn perjured testimony against Trump. The idea being, I would argue, that if the imminent threat of criminal allegations could be presented publicly Trump would feel forced to resign.

The question is: Is there a specific statute to cover this? Perhaps a reader can come up with something. My very tentative search just now yielded 18 USC 242:

     Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... 

At any rate, I think this general direction--some form of extortion--may hold some promise. But I welcome input.

Unsurprisingly, I'm not the only one, nor the first, to be thinking along those lines--the lines of extortion. It also comes as no surprise to learn that most of the atttention in this regard has focused on the example I list first: Comey's January 6, 2017, "briefing" of Trump on the Steele "dossier's" most salacious--and only the most salacious--claims. In researching another matter I came up with these relevant items from May 16, 2019.

Andy McCabe And Lisa Page Texted!

They emailed, too, and spoke with each other on their phones, but up till now we've only seen some of the Strzok/Page texts. It appears that that's about to change. Interesting as those texts have been, I suspect the McCabe/Page communications will have plenty to tell us--and none of it will redound to the credit of the major Russia Hoax players.

To set the stage for the Fox News article that discusses some of those communications, here are some entries from a Paul Sperry twitter thread re McCabe:

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

BREAKING: 4 days after the NYT broke the story of Hillary using private unauthorized server, McCabe privately met with her former campaign co-chair. Then, 20 days after IC IG forced FBI to open investigation of Hillary, McCabe suddenly promoted to HQ & controls the "special" case

8:18 PM - 21 Mar 2019

1. End of conversation
2. New conversation
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago
   Replying to @paulsperry_
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌
   Lottsa coincidences
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,
   
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma
   BOTH McCabe and his wife met personally with Clinton donor (who ran a PAC), 5 days after public announcement about Hillarys email server. #mccabe #fbi #hillarysemails #hillaryclinton…
   
   
3. 1.  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago

      Replying to @paulsperry_

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌

      And more coincidences

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma

      98% of Gov McAuliffe related donations 2 McCabe's wife were after Hillary investigation started #McCabe #hillary http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/fbi-official-did-not-disclose-wifes-ties-to-clinton-ally-records-show.html …

      
      
4. New conversation
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago
   Replying to @paulsperry_
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌
   And yet another coincidence
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,
   
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma
   Jill McCabe, wife of deputy dir of FBI Andrew McCabe, was asked to run for senate only weeks after Hillary's email server news was made public. See page 70. #mccabe #fbi @jeffsessions #hillaryclinton #hillary …
   
   

With all that in mind, would you trust McCabe to run a fair and impartial investigation of anything involving the Clintons? Recusal for McCabe from the Hillary email case would seem to a no brainer, yet McCabe fought furiously to remain involved. Apparently it was only the determination of James Baker, Comey's counsel, that succeeded in forcing McCabe to step aside. And, of course, we also know from Baker's testimony that the top level of FBI executives were fully aware that the Russia Hoax was totally driven by Clinton campaign operatives, such as Michael Sussman and Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS. But McCabe was a key to pushing the Clinton Russia Hoax operation within the FBI.