DiGenova: Brennan A Witness Against Comey?

Joe diGenova gave a very interesting interview this past Monday on WMAL. In the interview--for which I've transcribed most of his remarks--he touches on a number of important points, some of which we haven't heard much about and some of which also contradict the conventional wisdom:

1. Joe argues strongly that Brennan is probably in the clear--unless he lied to Durham. But, he also argues, that almost certainly means Brennan will now, willy nilly, be a witness against Comey.

2. Joe also believes that Bill Priestap--who I previously thought may have cooperated with the investigation--is now in the crosshairs, because it was Priestap who lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. The fact that Priestap has refused to testify voluntarily seems to confirm this.

3. Joe further believes that John Carlin, who presented false certifications to the FISC, is also a target. I have to wonder whether that is just the tip of the DoJ iceberg in this Durham investigation.

4. Finally, Joe offers his view on the Chris Wray situation, arguing that Trump can't afford to fire Wray--much as he undoubtedly wants to. I think his position on this is pretty sound. It's one thing for the Dems to invent one hoax issue after another, all of which are pretty transparently bogus  to the bulk of the public. It's another thing for Trump to initiate a brouhaha when he's trying to focus on his positive achievements. That's been my position in the past--that Wray is safe through the election--and it still seems the best bet. After the election, all bets are off.

DiGenova: Mike Rogers Is The "Rosetta Stone" For John Durham

Joe diGenova did a dynamite interview yesterday that puts a lot of things in perspective. In the first half of his interview he addresses the recent news that Admiral Mike Rogers, former head of NSA, is cooperating voluntarily with USA John Durham's investigation (cf. Bad News For The Deep State). DiGenova's remarks here are important for providing a glimpse at the enormous range and complexity of Durham's investigation. Consider--as wide ranging as IG Horowitz's FISA report may have appeared, it didn't even touch most of what diGenova addresses here. Yet what diGenova talks about is crucial to an understanding of the development of the Russia Hoax as we now know it, and therefore to the development of the all important conspiracy case that I've discussed. I most recently addressed the connection between these issues and the development of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in The Devin Nunes - Dan Bongino Interview--a post that provides useful background and additional legal/administrative material on all this. The scope of it all is almost mind boggling.

In the partial transcript that follows the host questions and comments are paraphrased, but diGenova's words are very literal. He misspeaks a few times, but I've left that as is--although I've interjected some explanatory comments.

Oh My! Michael K. Atkinson, ICIG

With a h/t to Gateway Pundit ...

Julie Kelly at American Greatness reveals who Michael K. Atkinson really is in a brilliant article. He's strictly Deep State: Inspector General’s Ties Suggest Ukraine ‘Scandal’ is Just More Collusion Hoax.

Kelly begins by rehearsing the usual hagiography that has been quickly deployed to defend Atkinson:

Atkinson, we are told, is a truth-seeker with no partisan agenda or political grudge. “The intelligence community’s chief watchdog, Michael Atkinson, is known to his peers and colleagues as a highly cautious ‘straight shooter’ who tends to keep his head down,” cooed Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand on September 23. 

... 

Atkinson is “a no-nonsense, serious and nonpartisan career prosecutor who showed a strong commitment to the law throughout his nearly two-decade career at the Department of Justice,” insisted a puff piece in The Hill on September 26.

Who but mean spirited conspiracy theorists could possibly question Atkinson's motives in sidestepping the regulatory revision process by slyly coming out with a new "whistleblower" complaint form?

Kelly proceeds to enlighten us: