Schiff V. Grenell

An interesting battle is shaping up between Adam Schiff, Dem chair of the House intelligence committee, and President Trump's Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Rick Grenell. Schiff has attempted to bully Grenell and bring him to heel--which is to say, bring a halt to Grenell's ongoing housecleaning of the Intel Community. Grenell has rejected Schiff's demand that personnel moves be cleared through Schiff. In typical Schiff fashion, Schiff's missives have--for practical purposes--been released to the press before Grenell has had any chance to respond. Grenell is having none of it, and has responded in a manner that sets him apart from the usual groveling of agency heads before a Congressional committee chairman.

The Hill has a summary of the spat: Intelligence chief Grenell hits back against Schiff criticism of agency reorganization. Schiff set things off by essentially claiming that Grenell should clear personnal changes through Schiff.

Schiff noted that Grenell was pursuing leadership changes at intelligence agencies without seeking authorization from Congress and raised questions about the removal or departure of every Senate-confirmed official at the ODNI.  

Schiff also accused Grenell of allowing his staff to “interfere with the production and briefing of intelligence information” on election security that was given to Congress during a March 10 all-members briefing on election security.  

...  

Another issue raised by Schiff was the decision by President Trump to fire Michael Atkinson, the now-former acting inspector general of the IC. Atkinson alerted Congress to the anonymous whistleblower complaint around Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that ultimately kicked off the impeachment investigation into Trump. 

Grenell responded by telling Schiff in just about so many words to mind his own business and spend some time reading the Constitution:

Is Barr About To Betray The Nation?

Yesterday I mocked Andy McCarthy for seeming to regard a handful of firings and a handful of tongue lashings from OIG--phrased in legalese and buried in the footnotes of monstrous .pdf reports that few read--were an appropriate response to the Deep State attempting to stage a coup. If that doesn't satisfy you, he suggested, go for indictments. I'm all in favor of the latter approach.

But then I was reminded by Titan 28 that John Solomon is telling the world not to hold its breath on prosecutions.

I'll paste in the relevant part of Lou Dobbs' interview of Solomon. However, I first want to express my reservations about what Solomon is saying.

John Solomon undoubtedly has good sources. OTOH, Bill Barr and John Durham are not numbered among those sources. Further, at this point I doubt that Barr and Durham's prosecutive intentions have been shared with Solomon's sources--I doubt they've been shared with almost anybody, since even President Trump has complained that he's not in the investigative loop.

As for the regular complaints that Durham has yet to interview Comey or Brennan, those complaints are pointless. It was always most likely that the main subjects of any investigation such as Durham's would not interview the main subjects until near the end.

With that said, here's the relevant portions of the Solomon interview:

Lou Dobbs Talks To John Solomon Re Unequal Justice

Another interesting interview--it's about 8 minutes long. Dobbs is upset with our Two Tier "justice" system. He calls it a justice system and a "just for us" system. He's upset with what he sees as the slow pace of the Barr DoJ, discusses the McCabe case, Flynn, and Lindsey Graham's claim that he wants to interview witnesses to the Russia Hoax.

Solomon acknowledges the systemic problems and expands on some of these cases, but he also tries to push back and suggest that progress will be made.

The truth of the matter is, in my view, that Barr probably understands all this but for various reasons feels unable to speak openly about the issues.

No answers offered, but frank discussion:

Two-Tiered System. @jsolomonReports says there are “two systems of justice,” one for Republicans and one for radical Dems and Deep State officials. #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/J310NUOkbQ

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) February 15, 2020

Here's a good Twitter exchange that's on point with the video--"SCO" = Special Counsel Office = Team Mueller. For those not really into this stuff, Orin Kerr is a very high profile law prof and legal blogger:

I would have thought a lawyer would be able to see that the extreme prosecutions by the SCO have created this problem, which is the very real - & justifiable - perception that justice isn’t equal in this country because it depends on the political party to which you belong. https://t.co/mha51mPcSD

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) February 15, 2020

McCabe knows--John Cardillo:

Maybe McCabe isn’t out of the woods, knows it, and is trying to get in front of it.
Quote Tweet

The Hill
@thehill

Andrew McCabe: "[Trump's] a vindictive guy and I fully expect that he'll continue to hound me and my family."

Correction: It'll be John Durham and other prosecutors hounding him.

UPDATED: Update On The Solomon Laptop--Obviously Professional Job

This is really important, and confirms what a lot of us have suspected. Commenter EZ wrote this, and I'm simply pasting his comment in here. Obviously other questions are raised, such as re that "call from source". Given that this was clearly a highly professional operation, one wonders whether it was, say, a CIA job. Or an Interagency job.

EZ:

UPDATE: from Solomon's podcast... 

He rarely leaves laptop in vehicle; laptop was hidden from view/covered by jacket. Got call to meet with a source, parked near WH.

Security app for car alerted him via smart phone to an unauthorized access of vehicle. Returned to vehicle and "Secret Service were already there." (This is a mystery to me how they knew his car have been broken into, unless his meeting was IN THE WH complex, and he told the SS when he got the alert.)

He then explains the laptop, bought in 2013, had sophisticated security he installed with help from LE friends many years ago. A forensic exam of the computer, after it was recovered using the built in GPS, showed whoever took it tried twice to access the computer, but were thwarted. As best he can tell, no data was compromised. 

Security cameras have footage of break-in -- took thief 17 seconds to get into his car. Thief is still unidentified. 

The fact that thief tried twice to access computer, rather than just selling it to a fence, suggests this was about gaining access to Solomon's data, to find out what he knew, and/or to plant surveillance malware on his machine, and not a random petty larceny auto break-in. 

The timing implies suspect knew when and where Solomon parked the vehicle, and that he had a meeting. This implies either Solomon's cell phone is compromised, or the person he was meeting with is having his calls monitored, or both.

Parking location probably pulled from Solomon's smart phone GPS data, which again suggests his phone is compromised, IMHO. 

UPDATE:

"The theft took place on Jan. 20, according to police reports obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Police suspect thieves used a sophisticated electronic device to enter Solomon’s parked car, stealing his laptop and computer bag without leaving any signs of forced entry.

"Solomon’s car was parked only a few blocks away from the White House, one of the most secure locations in the world.

"The thieves appear to have been focused solely on the laptop bag and computer, as Solomon claims cash inside the car was left untouched."

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/sensitive-biden-info-stolen-professional-job-near-wh-secret-service-involved-report

Ignoring cash inside the car pretty much takes ordinary theft off the table, as does not stealing either the laptop or the vehicle.

It's a political crime. Somebody is getting very nervous and desperate *cough* Brennan? *cough* if they are resorting to daylight smash and grabs near the WH in the hopes of finding out what Solomon knows.

John Solomon's Laptop

You've probably heard or read about this story--John Solomon's laptop being stolen "near the White House." My first reaction was, I can't believe he left the laptop in his car, even if it was backed up. The excerpt below from Zerohedge helps explain that--although there's a lesson in this for all reporters, official or otherwise:

John Solomon's Laptop Stolen Near White House Using 'Sophisticated Device'; Contained Sensitive Data On Ukraine, Bidens 

A thief absconded with John Solomon's laptop on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, snatching the evidence-filled device out of the investigative journalist's car which was parked near the White House, according to RealClearInvestigations, citing a report by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. 

Solomon told RCI's Paul Sperry that the laptop - which has since been recovered - contained 'notes on Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and other sensitive information.' 

The case is currently under investigation by a MPD detective. 

     The Secret Service is also involved in the matter, which appears suspicious. Break-ins are rare in the high-security area where the crime occurred, just outside the White House perimeter, and a sophisticated device appears to have been used to get into the vehicle. 

     In the early evening of Jan. 20, the police report states, Solomon’s Apple MacBook laptop and computer bag, valued at around $1,800, were stolen from his 2019 Toyota SUV parked at 1776 F St. NW, across from the White House’s Eisenhower Executive Office Building. No windows were broken, and there were no other signs of forced entry. Authorities suspect the thief or thieves used an electronic jamming device to open the car door lock. 

Nothing else was stolen from the vehicle, according to Solomon, including his US Capitol press security badge. 

The computer bag was discovered the next day a block away from where his car was parked, with the contents dumped out on a picnic bench near the FDIC building - a location with no security cameras which authorities described as one of the rare "dark spots" in the area. 

Solomon says he is working with a computer forensics expert to determine whether any of the information on his laptop was exploited, or if his hard drive was scanned. 

"It's a pretty professional job," said Solomon, adding "but it's probably just a coincidence."

I'd say it's WAY too early to say it's just a coincidence.

John Solomon's Guide To The OIG FISA Report

John Solomon has written what I'm calling a "guide" to the long awaited FISA report that IG Michael Horowitz will present to the public on December 9, 2019. Solomon himself has titled his blog The 10 most important revelations to expect from the Russia probe FISA report, but if you're looking for actual revelations you'll be disappointed. It's much more an educated what-to-expect "guide" for navigating the 500 page report, because Solomon doesn't claim in all cases that the report will in fact deal with each issue. In other words, Solomon's guide in part gives a measuring rod against which it judge the seriousness of the report. It's an easy enough read and I urge everyone to read it. What I'll do here is present my version of Solomon's ten headings with brief explanations which include my comments:

1. The first thing to look for is the actual scope of the FBI's misconduct--whether by omission or commission. Solomon expects Horowitz to document

"between six and 12 failures, mistakes and acts of misconduct. These will range from the serious offense of altering a government document to failures to provide the courts evidence and information required under the FISA process."

Obviously, the larger the number of serious problems of this sort that are identified, the louder the calls for tougher oversight and reform of FBI procedures will be.

2. A major focus falling under #1 is whether the FBI withheld from the FISC exculpatory evidence that it is required to reveal. Solomon expects the report to focus on the exculpatory statements that George Papadopoulos made to one of the FBI informants who was targeted against Papadopoulos in London--one of the now famous "OCONUS lures." However, Solomon also will be looking for similar issues to be raised regarding Carter Page. In the case of Page, in my opinion, a concerted effort was made in the FISA application to conceal the true nature and extent of Page's past cooperation with the FBI, which would have cast serious doubt on the claim that Page was a Russian agent.

Briefly Noted: Joe Biden's $900K From Ukraine; John Solomon Spied On?

Most of us have been watching the reports out of Ukraine today that Joe Biden personally received a cool $900K for lobbying on behalf of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Biden's sleazy son sat. Tonight Rudy Giuliani played this up on Hannity, so one assumes that he has some sort of confirmation. Corruption in Ukraine is such that one wants to be careful about reports of this sort.

Also, John Solomon is reporting openly that he has been told by intelligence sources, confirmed by Devin Nunes, that he (Solomon) had his communications "inappropriately monitored" by US intel. FBI? CIA? What that means is that they were investigating a US citizen. On what basis? If the monitoring was "inappropriate" that means there was NO basis. Welcome to police/security state American--but that doesn't qualify as news at this point.

Breaking: Congressman Nunes just told @seanhannity he has evidence suggesting a State Department official may have been monitoring the communications of multiple journalists.

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2019

UPDATED: John Solomon's Declassification Wish List

This evening John Solomon speculates regarding the most likely upcoming reveals on the Russia Hoax--ten of them: 10 declassified Russia collusion revelations that could rock Washington this fall. Since Solomon appears to be the go-to guy for new revelations from OIG and DoJ, it warrants paying attention to what he says. Follow the link for the full list, but below are the items that interest me the most. Obviously, most of us need no convincing about most of this stuff, but the important thing is that these documents provide documentary evidence for use in prosecutions. Also bear in mind that Barr and Durham have seen all of this:

Behind the scenes, some major events were set in motion last autumn that could soon change the tenor in Washington, at least as it relates to the debunked Russia collusion narrative that distracted America for nearly three years. 

It was in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe. 

About the same time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), voted unanimously to send 53 nonpublic transcripts of witnesses in its Russia review to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for declassification. The transcripts were officially delivered in November. 

Now, nearly a year later, neither release has happened. 

To put that into perspective, it took just a couple of months in 2004 to declassify the final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks after a presidential commission finished its work, which contained some of the nation’s most secretive intelligence revelations. 

But the long wait for transparency may soon end. 

The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly. That’s particularly true if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff, such as former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the current ambassador to the Netherlands, or longtime national security expert Fred Fleitz. 

Likewise, the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away. 

... 

Here are the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:

John Solomon On The Status Of The Russia Hoax Investigations

I say "investigations" in the plural, because technically there are several investigations ongoing--all related. John Solomon appeared on Hannity last Friday night (August 16), then on Maria Bartiromo's Sunday morning show (August 18), covering related topics. Taken together, the two interviews give a decent picture of the overall status of the Russia Hoax investigations. That, in turn, will provide an indication of the shape of developments we should expect to see going forward. We'll start with the Hannity interview:

The first part of the interview makes clear that there are, in essence, several investigations and there will therefore be several reports:

John Solomon On Comey And Durham's Investigation

John Solomon spoke with Sean Hannity tonight. The first topic that came up was the reported decision not to prosecute James Comey for mishandling classified documents. Solomon, of course, broke this story yesterday evening. His story at The Hill, unfortunately, gave a somewhat wrong impression of the significance of this decision, which Solomon almost immediately sought to clarify--this did not in any way mean that Comey was somehow out of the woods. With Hannity, Solomon again stresses that angle--that Comey is still being investigated in much more serious matters, that declining prosecution on this matter doesn't mean Comey is home free. It's simply a matter of Barr and Durham deciding to focus on the central issues:

Hannity: I understand that there's a real deeper reason to decline prosecution.

Solomon: There are two reasons. One, this isn't a real strong case if you're taking it in front of a NY or DC jury. There are complexities to it that don't make it easy for a jury to understand. But the bigger question is, Is the FBI Director's testimony about the FISA process and the Russia investigation accurate? Did he do his job when he signed the FISA warrant? Is that FISA warrant false? Was there a fraud perpetrated on the court and the American public to get access to the Donald Trump campaign and target it for surveillance? Those are the bigger, weightier, way more important questions that Attorney General Barr and John Durham and Inspector General Michael Horowitz are weighing and we should look for it. Here's the thing for everyone to watch. If this is going to get serious at some point John Durham is going to have to empanel a grand jury. The thing we should all be watching for, does a grand jury get empaneled, do subpoenas go out? That'll be a signt that the Justice Department is looking at criminal activity. Right now there's no sign of that. That's the thing I'm gonna be watching for in the next few weeks. 

Hannity: But usually they try to hide the fact that they have in fact empaneled a grand jury.

Of course, Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing were saying last night that Durham has, in fact, empaneled a grand jury. I believe they're correct about that. I don't believe that Durham would be taking the investigative steps we know he is taking without having empaneled a grand jury by now.

Is Chris Wray Cruising For A Bruising?

Before turning to John Solomon's latest major article, let's briefly consider FBI Director Chris Wray's track record since taking over at the FBI.

- He actively collaborated with Rod Rosenstein in delaying and thwarting GOP House investigators who were attempting to get to the bottom of the Russia Hoax. 

- He continues to delay DoJ investigative efforts by holding up declassification of key documents. 

- He has publicly contradicted AG Barr, saying that he disagrees with Barr's characterization of FBI actions during the 2016 campaign--and continuing, it now appears, virtually up to the present--as "spying." 

- Most recently, Wray responded to Senator Ted Cruz's call for a RICO investigation of Antifa by stating that the FBI views antifa as more of an ideology and noted that the FBI does not investigate ideology. He went on to suggest that the FBI was investigating "anarchist extremists" more or less as individuals.

Who can take a guy like this seriously? The FBI didn't engage in active "spying" on a political campaign and candidate? Really? Antifa activities are not coordinated? Really? Chris Wray is a waste of space.

Is it any wonder that one of Wray's remaining allies--Dan Coats--is being removed as DNI? Who thinks that when President Trump--only days after Wray's absurd statements about Antifa--stated that "[c]onsideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA ... a major Organization of Terror", Trump had not already discussed the matter with Bill Barr? Count on it: Bill Barr is NOT on the same page with Chris Wray. Discount Barr's public "nice talk," just as you should discount his public "my friend Bob" statements. I have no doubt at all that Barr has taken the measure of Wray.

In the wake of Coats' ouster from DNI, Paul Sperry tweeted:

John Solomon's New Bombshell: Durham Revisiting Mifsud

John Solomon is reporting this evening that US Attorney John Durham--Bill Barr's handpicked head of the DoJ's Russian Hoax investigation--has reached out to Joseph Mifsud's lawyer, Stephan Roh:

An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election. 

The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.

Solomon is quick to draw the obvious conclusion: This can only mean that Mueller himself, the conduct of his investigation, and the conclusions his Team Mueller drew are all coming under scrutiny.

Here's one example Solomon gives of anomalies in the Mueller inquisition--and I think we're safe in assuming that Solomon's source pointed this out:

Mueller concluded that Mifsud was a person with extensive Russia ties who planted the story about the Clinton emails in Moscow and then lied about his dealings with Papadopoulos when interviewed by the FBI in 2017. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Mifsud. 

But unlike others accused of misleading Mueller — including Papadopoulos, former Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — Mifsud was not charged with a crime.

Yeah, how does that work? Some mistatements are lies that are prosecuted and others, well ...

Andrew Weissmann: How Corrupt Does The Russia Hoax Get?

Today has been an incredible Big Story day in the ongoing saga of the Russia Hoax. This morning we had Paul Sperry's revelations about James Comey's targeting of President Trump for removal for clearly political motivations--there simply was no case against Trump and everyone involved with this coup attempt knew it. This evening we have John Solomon's absolutely stunning--no other word fits--revelations of Andrew Weissmann's own corrupt attempt to frame President Trump: How Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann's offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJ. Let's start at the beginning.

As we all know, at the time Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel it was already well known that the FBI investigation on which the Special Counsel mandate was explicitly based (in Rod Rosenstein's authorization letter) was utterly bogus, because it was based on the already discredited Steele "dossier." The question facing Mueller and his Deputy Andrew Weissmann--whom most regard as the true head of the Mueller inquisition--was clearly: How to proceed in the face of this lack of evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the president? One approach would be to seek to provoke Trump into a misstep that could be called "obstruction," but that would be time consuming and uncertain of success. Slogging through the Russia Hoax allegations faced the same uncertainty. What about a quick strike at Trump? Remember, the true aim was to force Trump out--whether by impeachment or resignation hardly mattered, and resignation was probably preferable because it would be quicker. But how to force the issue?

Holy, uh, Cow! Solomon's Big Scoop On Weissmann

Last week I noted John Solomon's tease re "new evidence emerging about the conduct of one of Mueller’s deputies." I assumed that would mean Andrew Weissmann, and I haven't been disappointed. I'm still working on a commentary based on Paul Sperry's article today. I'll finish that first, but I'll just say that Solomon's story is, IMO, very big. Here are the first few paragraphs:

The ink was still drying on special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment papers when his chief deputy, the famously aggressive and occasionally controversial prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, made a bold but secret overture in early June 2017. 

Weissmann quietly reached out to the American lawyers for Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash with a tempting offer: Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away. 

The specifics of the never-before-reported offer were confirmed to me by multiple sources with direct knowledge, as well as in contemporaneous defense memos I read. 

... 

At first blush, one might ask, “What’s the big deal?” It’s not unusual for federal prosecutors to steal a page from Monty Hall’s “Let’s Make a Deal” script during plea negotiations. 

But Weissmann’s overture was wrapped with complexity and intrigue far beyond the normal federal case, my sources indicate.

IMO, Solomon isn't exaggerating: How Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann's offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJ. One more thing for Mueller to explain.

A Tease From John Solomon

I closed a recent post, John Solomon: FBI Knew Dossier Was Bogus, Used It Anyway, with the following note:

Oh, and Solomon is supposed to have another big story out later this week. I can't wait! Maybe this is what Devin Nunes was talking about when he said the Mueller testimony might never happen.

Last night Solomon appeared to tease that new, big story--and it sounds fascinating. And, yes, I do still wonder what affect this may have on Mueller's testimony:

John Solomon‏

@jsolomonReports

Talking soon to @seanhannity on @FoxNews about the FBI spreadsheet that flagged the credibility of the Steele dossier as well as some new evidence emerging about the conduct of one of Mueller’s deputies. 

5:56 PM - 17 Jul 2019

John Solomon: FBI Knew Dossier Was Bogus, Used It Anyway

I know--that doesn't sound like bombshell news. However, John Solomon is reporting this based on source information and a "spreadsheet like" document that the FBI produced in their effort to verify information in Christopher Steele's "dossier". In his latest reporting, FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier, Solomon states that there is evidence not only that the FBI was warned by State Department official Kathleen Kavalec of the unreliability of Steele's work product, but that Steele himself warned the FBI as early as July and again in October of 2016. That confirms that the original FISA application was knowingly based on unreliable information, presented to the FISA court as reliable. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Solomon confirmed that this was done in the hope that dirt would be uncovered on Trump that would retroactively justify the FBI investigation. It was an attempted coup.

Over the succeeding months the FBI continued its attempts to verify Steele's work product, seeking to find substance to support the Russia Hoax collusion narrative. Every allegation was examined and the results were assembled in what Solomon describes as "a spreadsheet-like document":

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. 

In other words, it was mostly useless. 

“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

In their efforts to confirm some part of the "dossier," the FBI pressed Steele to identify his Russian source. An agent interviewed that source in early 2017. The conclusion that the FBI came to was that--giving Steele the benefit of the doubt--the Russian had "misled" Steele:

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin — Rosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported. 

...  

The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

And yet the FBI used this bogus "information" in the follow FISA extension requests, signed by Sally Yates, Dana Boente (currently the top lawyer at the FBI, for Chris Wray), and Rod Rosenstein. The FISA product was used by Team Mueller throughout their inquisition.

Solomon's sources also confirmed what we have pointed out, that the "dossier" was an evolving narrative that developed and changed as circumstances changed. For example, when Carter Page left the Trump campaign a new conduit for "collusion" had to be found. So Steele came up with the Michael Cohen-in-Prague tale. That, you may recall, came after Steele met with DoJ lawyers, including Andrew Weissmann:

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said. 

Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

Weissmann needs to be grilled about his involvement in the FISA.

In the interview with Hannity, Solomon discusses Andrew McCabe's admission in testimony that without the "dossier" there would have been no FISA. However, there's another point that we've been making over the months. Without the "dossier" there would have been no Crossfire Hurricane to begin with. Yes, Crossfire Hurricane was the sine qua non for the Carter Page FISA. But it was also the the sine qua non for the Mueller inquisition, which Rod Rosenstein confirmed to be basically no more than an extension of Crossfire Hurricane.

As we've always known, the whole thing was a hoax, from start to finish.

Oh, and Solomon is supposed to have another big story out later this week. I can't wait! Maybe this is what Devin Nunes was talking about when he said the Mueller testimony might never happen.

ADDENDUM: In response to commenter dfp21, yes, from remarks Solomon drops it's clear that his source(s) is familiar with the results of the OIG investigation--including the results of the very recent interviews of Kathleen Kavalec and Chris Steele.

UPDATED: John Solomon Blockbuster: Ukraine Ledger As Bad As Steele Dossier?

This morning I was bemoaning the fact that we've had little true news for some weeks, now. The heady days of document and testimony revelations appeared to be over. However, this afternoon John Solomon has come out with another blockbuster report. Right up front I want to make two quick points:

1. Solomon's report reflects and supports Rudy Giuliani's advice back in mid April of this year--going forward, we need to Pay Attention To Ukraine.

2. At the same time Solomon's report explains why patience is required, as I explained in Barr And Durham Are Focused On The CIA. The need to secure cooperation from foreign governments and their intelligence services means that Barr and Durham will need the active assistance of other persons and agencies within the US government, beginning with the POTUS himself. And their efforts will be resisted by the FBI and the CIA--the two agencies with the most to lose by the truth coming out.

That said, the opening paragraphs of Solomon's article, FBI, warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake, used it anyway, contains some of the most trenchant reporting I've seen in many months. Bear in mind, the "black cash ledger" is supposed to have been a record of payments to Paul Manafort:

When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk. 

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

Is It Time For The Courts To Get Involved In The Russia Hoax?

Back in February of 2018 Hugh Hewitt, law professor and pundit, conducted a fascinating interview on his radio program with Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. As it happens, that interview serves very nicely as an introduction to a development that hasn't received much attention, coming as it does in the leadup to the Midterm elections. That development was reported by John Solomon in The Hill: Silence of 'the lambs': The deafening quietude of the FISA court and John Roberts. Let's begin with the Hewitt/Nunes interview.

Hewitt and Nunes revealed themselves to be very much aware of not only the legal aspects of the Russia Hoax, specifically regarding the Carter Page FISA, but also of the Constitutional aspects. This is entirely understandable, given that all three Constitutional branches of the US Government were either involved in the approval of the Carter Page FISA or are now involved in getting to the bottom of the Russia Hoax--in which the FISA aspects present the most danger of criminal liability.

As the interview progressed, Hewitt raised the very possibility that Solomon now refers to: that of interviewing Chief Justice John Roberts, who appoints the FISA Court (FISC) judges. Hewitt clearly believes that the Judicial Branch has a lot at stake in the Russia Hoax and therefore considers that it would be a good idea for Congress to approach the Courts. The exchange begins with a discussion of the Separation of Powers issues involved in Congress seeking to interview the Chief Justice, but it then moves to the issue that's at the heart of criminality in the Russia Hoax: the apparent effort by the FBI and DoJ to disguise from the FISC the true origins of the material that came to be known as the Steele Dossier. The FBI's subterfuge was embodied in a footnote to the FISA application, and Hewitt gives it as his opinion that the footnote constitutes a "material omission. He also cites the opinion of a Federal judge to that effect as well. Here's the exchange:

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).