SWC Now Thinks It's Van Grack Who's Cooperating With DoJ

Yesterday evening we had a flurry of rumors on twitter, suggesting that AG Barr's Russia Hoax Team has made a breakthrough--they have secured the cooperation of a former Team Mueller attorney in addition to the recently disclosed cooperation of FBI agent William Barnett. For details regarding Barnett see two recent posts:

The Barnett 302

Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

In the second of those two posts I pointed out that, despite all the activity in the last few months regarding the Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack--who had been the lead Team Mueller attorney on the Flynn case--has basically disappeared from view. However, we know that he has returned to DoJ to head the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) section, and so last night I pointed out that Van Grack fits the profile of the type of attorney from Team Mueller who might cooperate with Barr's Russia Hoax Team:

He is still with DoJ, and thus subject to DoJ disciplinary policies--he could have a lot to lose.

While he was not one of the "star" attorneys on Team Mueller--in no way comparable to Michael Dreeben, Jeannie Rhee, or Andrew Weissman, to name three--he nevertheless ended up in charge of the Flynn case. And the Flynn case has turned out to be by far the most consequential of any of the Russia Hoax cases that Team Mueller attempted to make.

Given Van Grack's role in the important Flynn case, even though he was not a "star" on Team Mueller he would surely have been privy to the overall legal strategy, methods, and attitudes of Team Mueller's leaders. He could, in other words, turn out to be an important witness for Barr's Russia Hoax Team.

Shipwreckedcrew initially speculated, yesterday evening, that Van Grack isn't the cooperating attorney, reasoning that--since we have heard nothing negative about him since he left the Flynn case, whereas we've heard a continue stream of criticism of the FBI's conduct--there was probably no circumstance that could be used to pressure Van Grack. This morning, however, SWC has come around to the view that Van Grack may, in fact, be the cooperator: Clues About Who From SCO Prosecution Team Is Cooperating Are Found in Interview of FBI SA Barnett. In making that switch he notes that cooperation need not be as a result of pressure--it can also be purely voluntary, and he speculates that that my be the case if Van Grack is the cooperator.

Here are what I take to be the main points SWC is making, and they're worth considering.

First of all, as I pointed out in the linked posts (above), it's notable in the Barnett 302 that three Team Mueller attorneys are singled out--by name--for criticism by Barnett: Weissmann, Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein. There are references to other Team Mueller attorneys, but their names are all redacted. The inference I drew from this circumstance was that Barr's Team is focusing on those three named attorneys--Weissmann, for one, has been squealing loudly in public--and that one or more of the attorneys whose names were redacted could be cooperating. This circumstance goes to the overall issue of whether, in fact, any former Team Mueller is cooperating with Barr's Team--and it tends to support a positive conclusion.

Secondly, as readers here probably noted themselves, it's also notable that in his interview Barnett appears--in rather stark contrast to Barnett's views regarding the named threesome--to have a positive attitude toward and relationship with one Team Mueller attorney in particular: "SCO Atty 1." In point of fact, Barnett recounts that he shared his negative views of the named three with SCO Atty 1, with whom he said he had worked in the past and whom he liked. My experience is that prosecutors get quite uptight and defensive when an agent criticizes other prosecutors in their presence, so to me that's an indicator that SCO Atty 1 must have shared at last some of Barnett's negative views of those named three.

Third, proceeding from the supposition that the cooperating former Team Mueller attorney may be cooperating voluntarily, SWC suggests that a likely candidate could be SCO Atty 1, who appears from the Barnett 302 to identify to at least some degree with Barnett's negative attitude toward the named three.

That SCO Atty 1 is, in fact, Van Grack appears likely. Van Grack is a relative newcomer at DoJ--having only about four years of experience. That experience was in the rather specialized field of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. What was SA Barnett doing for the years prior to being recruited to be case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane Team's Manafort and Flynn cases? He was working Chinese and Russian espionage cases, according to the 302, making it likely that he would have been in contact with Van Grack.

All in all, Van Grack seems to be a likely cooperator. It's speculation at this point, but it seems an educated surmise.

NOTE: I've taken to referring to those investigating the Russia Hoax as "Barr's Russia Hoax Team." That seemed advisable since we know that John Durham is now working with at least two additional US Attorneys--Jeff Jensen and John Bash--and the exact lines of demarcation, especially with regard to Durham and Jensen, aren't totally clear. What we do know is that they all report to AG Barr, and we can be sure that Barr is requiring close coordination among them.

UPDATED: Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

In my original post regarding the fascinating 302 of USA Jensen's Flynn Team interview of SA William Barnett, I briefly made the point that this 302 may actually not be the full story on Barnett's cooperation with the Barr led DoJ investigation of all things Russia Hoax--an investigation that has expanded now to include at least three aggressive and very competent US Attorneys: John Durham, Jeff Jensen, and John Bash. Jensen has been making a lot of waves in the last few months, because--among other aspects of the Russia Hoax--he has the lead on the Michael Flynn case, which has gone very public with the lurid details of government misconduct.

Here's that brief point I made--with the surrounding paragraphs for a bit more context:

The result was that very little real investigation of Flynn ever took place. Instead, the open case appeared to Barnett to be a sort of placeholder--a case without real predication that was being kept open "just in case". Just in case Flynn became a target of opportunity (as in fact happened) and the FBI could then say, Oh yeah, we've been investigating him as a foreign agent all along--to provide added credibility to the setup interview of Flynn. 

That, of course, is not how investigations are supposed to be managed. In this regard, there are signs in the 302 that this write-up may be only one of several. For example, regarding the lack of predication and the lack of actual investigative activity, the 302 briefly notes that Barnett mentions a "very frank discussion" on that score with "Analyst 1." But no details. I suspect a more detailed account of that aspect exists.

This perspective on how the Flynn investigation was managed is important, because it narrows down USA Jensen's focus on the Flynn case. Presumably, Barnett's account will also be supported by or will confirm what Joe Pientka has already told investigators regarding who directed it all. This in turn will help Jensen to pin the decision on opening a basically unpredicated Full Investigation of Flynn on Strzok--and possibly others above Strzok.

I probably should have gone into a bit more detail on my thinking here. However, Shipwreckedcrew has done more on that. After citing him, I'll make one additional point that I think indicates that Barnett's 302--as we've seen it--may only be a small part of the whole picture. That will also illustrate why there's reason to believe that the "sprawl" of this investigation could be quite extensive. So, here's SWC, retweeting Sidney Powell and offering his take:

The Barnett 302

I'll do this in a sort of impressionistic way--concentrating on overall impressions taken from the FD-302 of FBI Agent William Barnett. That "302" memorializes the interview of Barnett that was conducted by FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the handling of the Michael Flynn case.

First of all, imagine how Barnett felt going into this interview, and what the circumstances of the interview tell us.

Barnett, a law enforcement official of the federal government, had hired an attorney to be present with him at the interview--even though he was just a witness. He may have been just a witness, but he knew this was a high stakes interview and he couldn't simply trust to his own integrity.

He was interviewed by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors--one of them Jeffrey Jensen, a USA who had also been an FBI agent. Barnett knew there'd be no BS-ing his way through this interview, and that this interview was supremely important from the government's standpoint.

Right at the start we learn something very important. Barnett had worked on both the Flynn and Manafort investigations. In fact, he was the case agent for both investigations at the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO), having been specifically recruited to join the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) team by SSA Joe Pientka. He continued working those cases once Team Mueller was set up. That means that he would have interacted regularly with the prosecutors who led those investigations for Team Mueller. We learn later that Barnett is able to recall the attitudes and words of Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, so it's a good guess that Durham/Jensen are very much interested in those two Team Mueller alumni.

The Papadopoulos Transcripts--Why They Matter

Maria Bartiromo had a two part interview today with retired Congressman Trey Gowdy. We've already referred to the second part of that interview in which the two discussed what happened with John Ratcliffe's bid to become the new DNI. In the first part of the interview the topic was George Papadopoulos. Specifically, the topic was the existence of a transcript of a conversations between Papadopoulos and CIA/FBI/MI6 asset Stephan Halper--and why that transcript has not been released publicly. Gowdy, of course, is one of the Congressmen who has seen that transcript, and he assured Bartiromo that there was nothing so highly classified in it that would prevent its public disclosure.

Gowdy, in his remarks, emphasized that there is exculpatory evidence in the transcript and that the FBI hid this exculpatory information from the FISA court.

Bartiromo, for her part, informed Gowdy that she had spoken last night with Papadopoulos and that Papadopoulos had provided her with his recollection and account of his conversation with Halper:

Papadopoulos told Bartiromo that the transcript of his conversation with Halper will prove he didn’t take the bait when Halper brought up [the subject of obtaining] Hillary’s ‘hacked emails’ [from "the Russians"].

Papadopoulos told Stephan Halper that it would be treason to accept help from the Russians, according to Bartiromo. 

“Are you kidding me? That’s treason! People get hanged for stuff like that! I would never do something like that,” Papadopoulos allegedly told Stefan Halper in a September 2016 meeting in London.

Gowdy again emphasized the exculpatory nature of Papadopoulos' statements to Halper. Even though Gowdy was unable to confirm Papadopoulos' account in detail, he essentially confirmed it by not qualifying it in any way, instead exclaiming:

UPDATED: Ken Starr: Mueller Has Put His Integrity In Play

Ken Starr made a great point on Hannity last night. This arose in the context of Mark Meadows' remarks regarding Mueller's omissions and misstatements in his Dossier, and the fact that Mueller never questioned the origin of the Steele "dossier", which everyone knows is "made up." 

When Starr's turn came, Starr went right to Mueller's parting shot, no questions, press conference and the question of Mueller's--and of Team Mueller's--integrity.

In the leadup to Starr's remarks Hannity dwelt on the outrageous bias of Mueller's hires to his Team--citing Andrew Weissmann and Jeannie Rhee--contrasting that with the graciousness of Barr in bailing Mueller out for his misleading remarks. Hannity remarks that Barr pulled Mueller's "sorry you-know-what" out of the fire. Starr laughs, then, still laughing:

STARR: I look forward to Bill Barr being able to speak without the encumbrance of being the Attorney General of the United States, because I think we're going to hear a lot. 

But here's my fundamental point. In [Mueller's] statement to the American people saying essentially, "This is my farewell, this is the last thing I'm going to say"--I hope it's not, I hope he will be subpoenaed if necessary--Bob Mueller said, "I'm paying tribute to the integrity of the people who worked for me." He has put, by his own words, the integrity in play.

Is this the cue for Lindsey Graham at some point? To subpoena Mueller and challenge his integrity and that of his hires.? Starr seems to think so, because he closed by pointing out that when his own integrity was challenged he voluntarily testified to Congress.

UPDATE: Speaking of integrity, who thinks Mueller wants to answer questions about this (below) under oath:

Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry_ 

Mueller seized and searched his star "collusion" witness Nader's computer in January 2018, yet never charged him w child-porn trafficking or referred such charges to US attorney. A federal criminal attorney told me: "There's no way he could not have known"

12:05 PM - 7 Jun 2019