MULTIPLE UPDATES: Ratcliffe Releases Docs Showing The Russia Hoax Was Approved By Hillary--And Was A Known Hoax

We recently saw the letter from DNI John Ratcliffe to Lindsey Graham in which Ratcliffe described handwritten notes of John Brennan. Those notes memorialized Brennan meeting personally with Obama, Susan Rice, James Clapper, and Denis McDonough and informing them that it appeared that "the Russians" were aware that Hillary Clinton was ginning up a Russia Hoax operation against Donald Trump to distract attention from her email scandal. Today the original notes were released, along with a CIA memo to disgraced former FBI Director James Comey--with attention to Peter Strzok. The CIA memo documents the CIA's referral of the matter described in Brennan's notes to the FBI--something that Comey denied all knowledge of in his recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here are Brennan's notes, which are partially redacted. Note that one of the redactions appears to provide the identities of persons--presumably Russians?--involved in a discussion of Hillary's plans to smear Trump:

Here's a transcript of the notes, provided by Sean Davis at The Federalist (DNI Declassifies Handwritten Notes From John Brennan, 2016 CIA Referral On Clinton Campaign’s Collusion Operation):

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activites from [REDACTED]. Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton–on 26 July–of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

 

Two things:

Annex A

There's been a fair amount of comment regarding the soon to be famous "Annex A" to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The ICA, of course, was the brainchild of the Intel Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Released in the first week of January, 2017, it sought to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration before Trump was even inaugurated by claiming that the Intel Community had "high confidence" that Russia had tried to help Trump get elected.

The whole thing was nonsense, of course, and now we're told that there is documentary evidence that IC analysts pushed back against the official conclusions of the ICA. The official conclusion was that the Russians wanted Trump elected, but the analysts apparently put in writing that the evidence that claimed to support that conclusion was actually very weak. Instead, the analysts pointed out, the evidence that the Russians wanted Hillary to win was quite strong. That pushback was suppressed by the IC, but has been dug out by the Barr/Durham investigation. We have never missed an opportunity to stress that the ICA is at the very heart of the Big Picture conspiracy case that Durham is building.

Yesterday, as one of his first official acts as DNI, John Ratcliffe forwarded to Senators Grassley and Johnson a newly declassified version of Annex A. It's quite brief--not even a page and a half. All it is is a summary of the fabrications that Chris Steele ginned up for the Clinton campaign as contractor for the Clinton oppo research shop at Fusion GPS. Steele then also purveyed these falsehoods to the FBI, the Fake News Media, and various politicians and their operatives. As the Horowitz Report was at pains to point out, the FBI was fully aware--from the get go, in July, 2016--of the political provenance of the Steele "dossier," as it came to be known. The fact that this material was, in all essentials, fiction was also known by the FBI when Peter Strzok helped put together the summary of the "dossier" that was appended to the ICA--Annex A.

None of this should be news to regular readers. Bill Barr and John Durham are smart guys, and they've been focused on the ICA all along. The reason is simple. If the ICA was a knowingly fraudulent production that put forth conclusions favored by the IC Triumvirate, but disputed by the analysts themselves, then we have a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy to defraud the US Government of the honest services of the Intel Community, because if the ICA had been the product of honest services it would have incorporated the views of the analysts who were fraudulently claimed to have reached the official conclusions. By colluding to falsify the true views of the analysts, the IC Triumvirate of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to defraud the US Government of their honest services. The aim of their conspiracy, of course, was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election.

UPDATED: I Was Wrong About 'CR Cuts'

Yesterday a friend pointed out to me that I was mistaken regarding the meaning of a Peter Strzok reference to "CR cuts." For that I apologize. Here's the short version:

Whereas I thought that the words "CR cuts" referred to "tech cuts" associated with the Crossfire Razor, i.e., Michael Flynn case, in fact the reference is to the Steele dossier. 

Now here's the longer explanation.

First, I want to be clear that this changes nothing regarding the Flynn/Kislyak conversations as far as issues of non-minimization or 'unmasking' are concerned. The testimony of disgraced former Director James Comey and of Andrew McCabe is explicit: Those conversations were written up, at least initially, in the form of 'tech cuts' and Flynn's name was not minimized or redacted. The reason for his name was not minimized was that Flynn was already the subject of a Full Investigation and thus fell within the exceptions to the minimization requirements. I've covered all that previously, and it all remains 'operative.' As a reminder, here's what a 'tech cut' is:

In FBI parlance a FISA order is referred to as "technical coverage". Or, simply, a "tech." The typed up summaries of, for example, telephone conversations captured in that way are referred to as "tech cuts" or, commonly, as "cuts."

Thus, I assumed that "CR" meant "Crossfire Razor" and "cuts" meant "tech cuts." However, there's a sort of dual context involved:

1) The context at the time Strzok and Lisa Page were texting, and

2) The context at the time I was writing.

To start with #2, I was writing in the context of new documentary revelations regarding the Flynn case, and debates about whether Flynn's name had ever been masked and, if not, why not. I was able to address those issues successfully, but then wrongly assumed, working from incomplete data, that "CR cuts" fell into the same category. In other words, I assumed that Strzok and Bill Priestap were objecting that DNI James Clapper should not be providing raw tech cuts to the White House. 

Now we turn to #1. Here's the fuller data, the full text thread between Strzok and Page on January 3, 2017, slightly reformatted:

DiGenova On The Flynn/Kislyak Call

Appearing on the Howie Carr show this week, Joe diGenova weighed in on the non-unmasking of Michael Flynn with regard to the famous Flynn/Kislyak call. DiGenova comes down on the side of those who say that the the monitoring of the call was not done by traditional FISA means as I've described them--picking Flynn up on the FISA for the Russian embassy. You can get a good link here, with the relevant portion near the end. Here's a word for word transcript of what Joe says:

I think it's going to become pretty clear that Michael Flynn was NOT unmasked but was rather the subject of a separate intelligence electronic surveillance by a foreign intelligence service at the request of John Brennan. Most likely the United Kingdom GCHQ, which is their NSA. When you look at the timeline in all the of the unmaskings of Flynn, those were done within a timeline that shows that the Kislyak conversation was not conducted in the United States. The Kislyak conversation was when Flynn was in the Dominican Republic and Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd. And so that means that in order for them to be wiretapped and have their calls intercepted that had to be done by a foreign power. And if you do that at the request of the United States, and you know that a US person is your target, and not Kislyak, that is a crime. That is a violation of federal law. You cannot wiretap an American citizen overseas under circumstances like that.

I want this on the record so that, if I turn out to be wrong, anyone who wants to rub my nose in it will have a good point of reference. Sitting here right now I see many problems with what Joe says.

First, what Joe has right--and I don't mean to sound flippant when I say that. He's right that to have targeted Flynn while he was overseas (in the Dominican Republic) in the absence of a FISA order on Flynn would have been illegal.

The problems start with the statement that "Kislyak was in Moscow for the Orthodox Christian Christmas, which is January 2nd." The Russian Orthodox Christmas is NOT on January 2nd. The Russian Orthodox Christmas is actually on January 7th--about nine days after the phone call, which was on December 29th.

The Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC--Predication And The Way Forward

Late yesterday a redacted version of the Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC was released to Judicial Watch. Hopefully a cleaner version will be out in the not too distant future. I understand that AG Barr is playing all of this close to the vest as John Durham prepares his case, but the redaction of information that We The People really should have access to is offensive. After all, we all know what the redactions are about: The identity of foreign governments and their operatives--and some of our own operatives--who colluded in a coup attempt against the established government of the United States. Democracy dies in darkness, as the WaPo has taken to saying, and the identities of all governments and operatives who conspired against our constitutional order need to be made known.

That said, the Opening EC--a Peter Strzok production--is as absurd as expected. Here's the gist of it, actually a very lightly edited paraphrase. It really is as threadbare in terms of predication as this summary indicates:

The [Redacted - but presumed to be Australian] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopoulos. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted - presumed London] so the [Redacted - presumed to be Alexander Downer] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted] attending at least one of the meetings.

Note what's being said there. Against all odds, this Australian/US operative who claimed to be seeking "prominent members of the Trump campaign" came up with George Papadopoulos. (It tells you something about our Embassy/CIA staff that they were unable to identify the correct spelling of such a common Greek name.) We're supposed to believe that after active consideration of the possible candidates in the Trump campaign one of the top Australian diplomats decide to spend his time cultivating the likes of George Papadopoulos. Not only that, but it's clear from a quick read between the lines that Papadopoulos was not a target of opportunity--he had to be "located". IOW, Downer, or his US handlers, went looking for Papadopoulos, a sort of Quest for the Ideal Fallguy.

Today's Must Read: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker has a terrific summary of J. E. Dyer's most recent article. Here's a link to the original Dyer article, which is lengthy. I had considered doing a post on it, but quickly realized it'd be difficult cutting much: Beyond Biden, Brennan, and Clapper: How Grenell’s satchel tells us this is on the right track.

Lifson's summary offers a more gradual entry into the full article--I recommend both: The other secrets inside Grenell’s satchel are the key to the biggest political scandal in US history.

To give you a taste, here are two Adam Housely tweets that Dyer quotes:

Adam Housley
@adamhousley 

Ooooooh brother. Massive surveillance...that’s what’s been found. “MASSIVE” is the way it was sent to me. 

10:09 PM · May 11, 2020

Adam Housley
@adamhousley 

As I’m told the list Grenell brought over is much larger than anything involving Flynn. “The exact tasking flow is hard to discern because the stuff was flying everywhere.” 

1:54 PM · May 12, 2020

BONUS SECOND MUST READ:

WaPo's new mantra is Just Don't Report

UPDATED: Durham At Full Throttle

Fox News has an article this morning about the growing dimensions of the Durham investigation:

Durham moving ‘full-throttle’ on Russia probe review, top federal prosecutors involved: sources

When you put the statements about Durham's investigation together with recent remarks by AG Barr himself you get a very interesting picture. Specifically, the investigation that Barr referred to as "sprawling" has now reached such dimensions that Durham is farming out parts of the investigation to USA Tim Shea in DC, which probably means that most of the FBI's Washington Field Office has dropped what it's been doing and is covering leads. No doubt the FBI's national resources are also being called upon for assistance, especially for the analysis of what must be a mountain of documentation of all sorts. Of course, that was likely close to being the case previously, but the investigation at this point sounds all consuming:

The Plot Against Flynn Traced To The Oval Office

Andy McCarthy has a must-read article up this morning: Flynn and the Anatomy of a Political Narrative--a title which, in a sense, doesn't do justice to what McCarthy does in his article. McCarthy draws on newly revealed testimony as well as--crucially--information drawn from a NYT article that came out shortly after Flynn's resignation. By putting these sources together what emerges is a picture of Obama himself at the center of a conspiratorial web targeting the Trump administration through the framing of Flynn. We also see James Comey (disgraced former FBI Director) at the head of an empowered FBI--the key domestic agency in the US Intelligence Community because of its law enforcement functions--in McCarthy's words "running rings" around the FBI's "nominal superiors" at DoJ. Which is a telling fact.

McCarthy begins with ground that should be familiar by now--the Obama, Sally Yates, Comey "pull-aside" meeting in the Oval Office on January 5, 2017. This is the meeting described in the now released transcript of Mary McCord's House testimony as well as in Yate's interview by Team Mueller. (See: Mary McCord: Leak To David Ignatius Could Have Come From Obama WH.) Here's McCarthy's description of what occurred in that "pull-aside" small-group meeting:

After the main briefing, the president asked Yates and FBI director James Comey to stick around to meet with him, along with Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yates was taken aback when Obama explained that he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak. She was startled because, she later told investigators, she “had no idea what the president was talking about.” 

Yates had to figure things out by listening to the exchanges between President Obama and FBI director Comey. The latter was not only fully up to speed, he was even prepared to suggest a potential crime — a violation of the moribund Logan Act — that might fit the facts.

Apparently Obama assumed that not only Comey but Yates as well would know what he was talking about re the Flynn/Kislyak conversation. In fact, Comey probably assumed the same, because Comey's right hand guy, disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, had called McCord, the head of DoJ's National Security Division (NSD) and briefed her on the Flynn/Kislyak call two days previously. However, McCord hadn't briefed Yates on the matter, as Obama and Comey assumed would have happened. McCarthy writes:

Highly Recommended: Deep State Enmity For Michael Flynn--Why?

For those who are not familiar with Michael Flynn's history of serious conflict with the Deep State's intelligence establishment--best personified by James Clapper and John Brennan, but including others in the NSC--Larry C. Johnson has a fine summary account this morning. I say "summary," but it does in fact go into a fair amount of detail. It would be unfair to quote at length, so I simply urge anyone who is interested to follow the link: Michael Flynn Did Not Lie, He Was Framed by The FBI.

As you can see, the title of Johnson's piece doesn't convey the actual substance of the article, which focuses on Flynn's history of conflict with the intel establishment. On the other hand, Johnson is right to emphasize that well meaning narratives that speak of the FBI having "got Flynn to lie". In fact, Flynn did not lie. The frame up of Flynn was, as Johnson says, "a punishment in search of a crime." Johnson also rightly stresses the lack of a proper foundation for investigating Flynn--a crucial point.

What follows are some particularly incisive sentences, plucked from the midst of the detail, to whet your appetite for the entire article:

Assessing The Assessment

A few days ago commenter Mike Sylwester noted in a comment to Brennan's Task Force--The Heart Of The Russia Hoax that the Brennan task force that was assembled to stop Trump appears to have excluded analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of State (DoS) from its work. This, despite the fact that DoD and DoS representatives with Democrat political connections played key roles in propagating the Russia Hoax. The task force's work, of course, included coming up with the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that has been perhaps the fundamental driver of the whole Russia Hoax narrative. As a result, the ICA has been getting renewed scrutiny.

This morning I was taking a look at an article by Ray McGovern, DoJ Bloodhounds on the Scent of John Brennan, which also focuses on reporting that Brennan's task force is being targeted by Barr and Durham. It happens that McGovern's article closes with a pointed reference to the Intelligence Community Assessment and its exclusion of any views that might have been, well, independent. Earlier, in About that IC Assessment: Paul Sperry Has Good News, we quoted Sperry's reporting that GOP Congressional investigators have been honing in on the production of that Assessment and, in particular, the growing likelihood that--like virtually all else Russia Hoax--it was essentially a byproduct of the Steele "dossier":

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the [Steele] dossier. On Tuesday, Nunes sent letters to Obama intel officials responsible for the report. He demanded former top spook John Brennan and intel czar James Clapper provide answers about how they used the dossier in intel reports and when they learned the Clinton camp paid for it. 

Under oath, Brennan has denied knowing the Clinton campaign commissioned the dossier. He also told the House intelligence panel the CIA didn’t rely on the dossier “in any way” for its reports on Russian interference. Committee staff are taking a second look at his May 2017 testimony. 

Clapper, for his part, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the ICA was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

In that light, here are the closing paragraphs of McGovern's article, in which McGovern highlights the exclusion of DIA and DoS from the task force and, therefore, from any voice in developing the ICA:

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:

A Guide To Spygate, Informants, FISA

What follows is a reworked version of So, What's A "Threat To National Security"? which contains a difference in emphasis.


Kim Strassel raised an interesting question, Friday, in her regular weekly column--The Curious Case of Mr. Downer: His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question. Alexander Downer was the Australian ambassador to the UK in 2016. As the title indicates, Strassel finds the FBI's claim that their probe of the Trump campaign was based on Downer's contact with George Papadopoulos to be ... less than credible. Strassel concludes by raising some very pointed questions:

For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May, before they became public in June. But according to the tipster himself, Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails. The FBI instead received a report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary. Did this vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?

Unlikely. Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when? The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner.

Indeed--since when does ​"something that might be 'damaging' to Hillary ... justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?"

The fact is, there is an answer to Strassel's question, and I think we'll find--in fact, recent talking points floated by James Clapper and others point in this direction--that the justification will rely on provisions of the Attorney General Guidelines. To understand ​and evaluate ​this​ defense​, however, and to avoid the pitfalls of speculating with a firm grasp of the controlling guidelines and statutes, we'll need to explore the nature of FBI investigations, because the type of investigation controls, to some extent, the type of investigative techniques that are authorized. All this is set out in detail in the Attorney General Guidelines For Domestic FBI Operations (AGG) and the FBI Domestic Investigations And Operations Guide (DIOG).

Basically, there are three types of FBI investigations that involve opening a​n investigative​ case file: 1) Assessments, 2) Preliminary Investigations, and 3) Full Investigations. The latter two are grouped as "Predicated Investigations" because, unlike in the case of an Assessent, an agent will need to present some degree of factual predication before he can open one of these types of investigation. The type of investigation that is opened will depend upon the factual situation, and if additional facts are developed in the course of the investigation the type of investigation may be upgraded.

As far as investigative techniques go, the Assessment ​serves as a baseline--any technique that can be used in an Assessment can ​also ​be used in a Preliminary or Full ​I​nvestigation. For our purposes, the important point is that the use of existing informants (Confidential Human Sources/CHS) or the recruitment of new informants is authorized for ALL three types of investigations. There has been some confusion recently regarding the use of informants before a "formal" case has been opened. The confusion arises because Assessments are sometimes confused with​ the​ informal initial checking of investigative leads conducted to determine whether or not to open an investigative case file. That type of informal checking can only be conducted using public information, not through the use of informants.

So, What's A "Threat To National Security"?

Kim Strassel raised an interesting question in her column today--The Curious Case of Mr. Downer: His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question. As the title indicates, Strassel finds the FBI's claim that their probe of the Trump campaign was based on Downer's contact with George Papadopoulos to be ... less than credible. And she closes with these observations:

For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May, before they became public in June. But according to the tipster himself, Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails. The FBI instead received a report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary. Did this vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?

Unlikely. Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when? The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner.

Indeed--since when does ​"something that might be 'damaging' to Hillary ... justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?"

As I wrote in an email this morning, I think we'll find--in fact, recent talking points floated by James Clapper and others point in this direction--that the justification for launching a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign on the basis of "something damaging to Hillary" will rely on provisions of the Attorney General Guidelines. Bear with me for a moment, because this will lead back to Strassel's question.

Those AG Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations, allow the FBI to open a "predicated investigation" in the following circumstance:

"A predicated investigation relating to a federal crime or threat to the national security may be conducted as a preliminary investigation or a full investigation."

The Guidelines then expand a bit on the distinction between Preliminary and Full Investigations, but for our purposes the important distinction is simply that FISA coverage is available for Full Investigations, but not for Preliminary Investigations.

If you accept the argument that a presidential campaign that seeks "dirt" on its opponent from a hostile foreign power (Russia) is engaged in conduct that arguably constitutes activity that is a "threat to the national security," and if you further accept that the FBI's claims regarding the credibility of its Papadopoulos narrative, then you'll likely agree with Trey Gowdy's notion that the FBI was acting quite properly. Or, to be very specific, you'll likely agree that a Preliminary Investigation was warranted, since the Guidelines allow for a Preliminary Investigation to be "initiated on the basis of information or an allegation" of a "threat to the national security." "Information or an allegation" is a fairly low bar.

Virtually all commentary that I've read focuses on the initiation of an FBI Full Investigation on July 31, 2016. Commentators who have constructed timelines of events--an excellent idea, in and of itself--then argue that the use of informants or "spies" against the Trump campaign prior to July 31, 2016--for which there is considerable evidence--violated the AG Guidelines.

While it's possible that the FBI willfully violated the Guidelines it seems unlikely--bureaucracies don't often operate in such a reckless fashion. Moreover, this view ignores an important possibility, namely, that before the Full Investigation was initiated (July 31, 2016) there may have been a Preliminary Investigation. This approach--use of a Preliminary Investigation as a prior stage before going for a Full Investigation--fits better with the usual careful bureaucratic approach. It also, intriguingly, dovetails with President Obama's reported admonition to "do it by the book" (see below).