UPDATED: Bash's Unmasking Investigation: No 'Substantive Wrongdoing?'

RE THE UPDATES: I have three updates below, and I've also updated the title with a "?"

I'm quoting The Hill's summary of an article in the WaPo. The Hill's account can be found here:

'Unmasking' probe concludes without 'finding any substantive wrongdoing': report

I take that to mean that then USA John Bash--recently resigned--who led the investigation simply concluded that no criminal violation could be proved. That understanding is reflected in the WaPo title:

‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report

"Without charges" seems to be the operative conclusion. The phrase "without finding any substantive wrongdoing" appears in the first paragraph of the WaPo article, but is not a quote:

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

In the last paragraph the WaPo states that it was "unable to review the full results of what Bash found." In between the first and last paragraphs you can read paragraph after paragraph of political speculation that doesn't bear repeating here. But there's no further substantive information.

Therefore, the bottom line as we know it is that there will be no criminal charges arising from the unmaskings. That doesn't mean that regulations and guidelines weren't violated, but since those involved are no longer with the government they will suffer no disciplinary action.

UPDATE 1: In support of commenters EZ and Anonymous, I would point out that it would have been easy enough for Durham to have determined that there were no actual crimes committed--without pulling a USA from a large district back to DC to make that determination. That raises the question: What possible crimes did Barr and Durham think they might find? After all--they needed some predication to begin the investigation in the first place. 

A likely supposition would be that the unmasking investigation was part of the leak investigations. The unmaskings may not have been criminal in and of themselves if the unmasked information didn't go beyond persons with the requisite clearance--which everyone we've looked at in the Russia Hoax would have had. But, since the unmasked information was contained in classified documents any leaks to persons without clearances would be crimes.

The question then is, Do the unmaskings and leaks really play no part in the Durham investigation and are being totally dropped, or will they come up later as part of a bigger conspiracy?

UPDATE 2: Commenter Anonymous points out that a week ago it was reported by the NYPost that Bash's replacement in San Antonio, Acting USA Gregg Sofer, would be handling "any matters that John Bash was overseeing" for Barr and Durham: Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will pick up ‘unmasking’ probe: report.

My understanding is that Bash had already informed Barr that he'd be stepping down. Still, if his part of the unmasking investigation was going to be completed within a week, one would have thought he'd stick around for just one more week.

More importantly, the NYPost article specifically states that Bash was looking into the leaks with regard to Michael Flynn, and that Sofer will also be looking into that--which makes sense in line with my suppositions, above:

Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will take up the investigation into the “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn after Sofer’s predecessor resigned from the Justice Department, according to a report Tuesday.

...

Barr named Bash in May to look into the process that led to Flynn’s name being revealed after a conversation between him and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was picked up by the intelligence community.

The characterization of the investigation clearly describes a leak investigation. The revelation of Flynn's name came as a result of a leak to the WaPo. Any unmasking of Flynn's name would have been an internal government matter, separate from--albeit related to--the actual leak. 

It makes no sense to me to suppose that Bash or anyone else found no "substantive wrongdoing" in leaking a transcript of a top secret "tech cut" to the WaPo. That's clearly a criminal violation. This doesn't appear to be adding up right now. Perhaps there will be some clarification.

UPDATE 3: Commenter Bebe points to the Fox account of the appointment of Sofer, a week ago. Kerri Kupec is saying basically what I wrote last night--"unmasking" is unlikely, in and of itself, to result in criminal charges. However, it can be important in revealing motives. For example, non-criminal acts, when motivated for certain ends, may help to prove the intent behind a criminal conspiracy. As I also wrote, we find paragraph after paragraph of highly tendetious political speculation in the stories, sandwiched between one basically unsourced tidbit and an admission that the authors haven't seen any documentation:

The Justice Department also, at the time, revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham from Connecticut, who is reviewing the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, was also investigating the so-called unmasking of Trump campaign associates as part of his broader review. That line of investigation was confirmed after Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made public a list of Obama officials who purportedly requested to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn, who at the time was Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big-picture events," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in May after Bash was tapped to take on the task.

What could have changed so drastically in one week to make Kupec's statement inoperative? Nothing, I would say. I think our skeptical commenters, Cassander and others, have the right approach.

 

USA John Bash Resigns

There's no law against resigning from the government for a private job. This reminds me of the woman--I forget her name--that the Trump administration worked so hard to get confirmed as #3 at DoJ, only to see her resign for a big--i.e., big money--corporate job shortly thereafter.

U.S. Attorney WDTX

@USAO_WDTX

U.S. Attorney John F. Bash announces his resignation

shipwreckedcrew

@shipwreckedcrew

At 39, I would guess the job he's been offered is far too good to pass up - $$ security for family. The replacement is currently in DC, formerly in his office, and has a National Security background. I think that person takes over the "unmasking" and 702 investigation.  Not done.

You can read about John F. Bash III and his wife Zina Bash and decide for yourselves whether they need to be concerned for the financial security of their family--which, as far as I can determine from Wikipedia, consists of just the two of them. [My bad--it turns out they have a daughter to provide for.]

I'm sure neither of them care about respect from the likes of me.

Bill Barr Just Says 'No'

A high stakes game is playing out in Washington, DC. AG Bill Barr and the investigative and prosecutorial team led by John Durham are approaching crunch time. They were delayed by the Covid shutdown but were being told by Barr and his spokeswoman, Kerry Kupec, that significant "developments"--regarded as a codeword for "indictments"--are expected before the end of summer.

The Dems know that the information that will be coming out will be devastating, revealing eight years of lawlessness under Obama-Biden, featuring the weaponization of virtually every branch of the federal government against citizens who failed to agree with the Obama administration. Among those branches of the government that are lining up behind Obama is one that we should have been prepared for, but most of us are only now coming to terms with.

The only strategy left for the Dems after all else has failed--the Mueller witchhunt, the fake impeachment, etc.--is to delay, hoping against hope that the dementia addled Biden can somehow be dragged across the finish line ahead of a resurgent Trump. That strategy requires the cooperation of the judicial branch of government. We've seen the way Obama 'resistance' judges have attempted--and significantly succeeded for quite awhile--to postpone the implementation of many of Trump's initiatives. That should have prepared us to see the criminal justice system hijacked by 'Obama judges'--yes, Virginia, there are such things--in the interests of politics rather than justice.

I'll admit I was taken a bit by surprise at just how far that would go. The partisan way in which the Roger Stone trial was handled was one thing, but to see a federal judge attempt to actually conduct the prosecution of Michael Flynn after DoJ declined to prosecute, was a real eye opening moment. The goal of this was, transparently, to delay the moment when Flynn could return to public life free of the restraints imposed by a partisan prosecution. Increasingly, however, it has become apparent that the real goal of the delaying tactic is to prevent Flynn from being a witness for the prosecutions that Barr is lining up. To delay Flynn's exoneration or ... perhaps to try to force Flynn to ask Trump for a pardon, entailing an admission of guilt. Either would destroy Flynn's value of as a witness for the prosecution--and make no mistake about it, Flynn promises to be a devastating witness.

This concern appears to have been front and center for the Dems during Barr's "hearing" before the House. The Dems sought to extract from Barr a promise not to issue a "report" before the election. Barr responded in typically laconic fashion:

Rep. Mucarsel-Powell: Under oath, under oath, do you commit not to releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?

AG Barr: No.

A Reminder About USA John Bash's Unmasking Investigation

It's hard to remember all the events and names surrounding the Russia Hoax and the subsequent investigations of the hoax. This morning I thought it was news that USA John Bash had been named to investigate the unmaskings that were conducted so broadly by the Obama administration. In fact, however, I did a post on that back on May 20.

However, there was an interesting tidbit in Bill Barr's exchange today with Jim Jordan. Jordan--obviously not up to speed on this issue--asked whether Durham was investigating the many unmaskings in the final days of the Obama administration. Barr responded that, "actually," Bash's investigation covered "a much longer period of time." So, NOT just "the final days" of the Obama administration.

With that in mind, here's what I wrote back in May, quoting Kerri Kupec, who stresses that the unmaskings can "add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events." I like that!

=======================