UPDATED: George Papadoploulos Puts His Entire Reputation On The Line

Hey, he said so--and it's about John Durham. Papadopoulos says Durham is "very real", "incredibly real", and that Durham will expose a conspiracy in the Obama administration--based on what Durham has learned about Joseph Mifsud. Durham is currently just waiting for the right moment, perhaps after the audit in AZ is finished.

"I would actually put my entire reputation on the line saying this…"

"I’m on the record of saying I put my reputation on the line regarding Durham."

Read it all at TGP.

I'm still skeptical. There was plenty of time to produce the Mifsud evidence. But I'll happily eat crow if it turns out to be true.

UPDATE: I want to be clear that my skepticism, as expressed above, only runs to Papadopoulos' expectations regarding Durham's supposed investigation. As I said, there's been plenty of time for substantial results, so I'm not optimistic. However, none of that means that I'm skeptical regarding Papadopoulos' accounts of what happened to him in London (events surround Alexander Downer), in Rome (events surrounding Joseph Mifsud), in Israel, and upon his return to the US (his dealings with the FBI and Team Mueller). I find his accounts to be believable in their essential details--even if they may be self serving in some respects. The self serving respects are to be expected from most witnesses. On the other hand, his accounts of his adventures as a dupe in the Russia Hoax have never seriously been contested--in my opinion. Think of him what you will, but that's not really the point.

UPDATED: McCabe And The Big Picture Conspiracy

We're having a bit of a slow news day. However, Paul Sperry has tweeted a link to an article he wrote back in March: Days After Comey Firing, McCabe's Team Re-Engaged Fired Dossier Author. With various opinions swirling around regarding exactly what Barr and Durham are planning in terms of indictments, it may be useful to take a second look at Sperry's article from the standpoint of what I've called the "big picture conspiracy".

The big picture conspiracy, of course, is the plot to remove President Trump from office--the attempt to prevent his election having failed. Sperry's article is focused on the FBI's continuing contacts with Christopher Steele in the wake of James Comey's firing. To place that in context, we now know much more about the Danchenko interview in February, 2017, which, in essence, totally debunked the Steele "dossier." Team Mueller was set up in May, 2017. Add to that what we've now learned about the FBI's interview of Joseph Mifsud (also in February, 2017)--in which the Papadopoulos hoax predication for Crossfire Hurricane and Russian "collusion" was also debunked. Does that suggest a predication problem to you? The predication for the Russia Hoax investigation had never been verified to begin with--a serious violation in itself. For the FBI under McCabe (the Acting Director after the disgraced Comey's departure) and Team Mueller to then forge ahead even after the unverified "information" had been actually debunked and the purveyor of much of it--Chris Steele--had been exposed as a known hoaxer who, moreover, was in the pay of the Clinton campaign ... Well, that compounded the whole predication problem.

What that suggests is an agenda, and one that was driven solely by animus against Trump and not by disinterested considerations of probable cause. If that agenda was the removal of a lawfully elected president, and that agenda was combined with the opening of unpredicated investigations and obtaining FISA warrants under false pretenses, then we have the making of a conspiracy.

The Mifsud 302

Techno Fog has posted a copy of the FD-302 for the FBI's interview of Joseph Mifsud. That interview took place in the lobby of the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2017. At that time Mifsud had come to DC for some sort of conference.

What will immediately strike the reader will be the perfunctory nature of the interview, if the 302 accurately reflects the interview (which could be a big IF). As presented, outside of background information regarding Mifsud himself how he knew George Papadopoulos, it appears that the interviewing agents--in one way or another, the exact line of questioning isn't made clear--raised the issue of whether Mifsud had discussed Russian possession of DNC emails. Mifsud responded that he himself had no such knowledge and that the topic had not been raised between Mifsud and Papadopoulos. This meeting took place in the UK in approximately September of 2016.

Here are the two views of the 302 that we have. Note that the administrative section is cut off, so we don't see the names of the interviewing agents or the case type (which would indicate what case the interview was conducted under and what type of violation was purportedly invovled)--which I assume would have been redacted in any case:

Kevin Clinesmith And The Papadopoulos Interrogation

A few days ago we took a look at recently released FBI 302s reporting on the FBI interviews of George Papadopoulos: Devin Nunes Looking At Team Mueller Lying Re Papadopoulos. Our conclusion was that when those 302s are compared with the sentencing memo re Papadopoulos, the picture that emerges is that the FBI really had no interest at all in the substance of what Papadopoulos had to say about his conversations with Joseph Mifsud. They knew that Papadopoulos was telling the truth--that Mifsud had told him about the Russians supposedly having Hillary's emails--because Mifsud had told Papadopoulos exactly what the FBI had told him to tell Papadopoulos. Instead, the whole point of the lengthy interrogations of Papadopoulos was to get him to change what he had said about the timing of his conversations with Mifsud.

There's a review of Papadopoulos' book, Deep State Target, at American Greatness: The FBI Considered Joseph Mifsud an Asset. The concluding portion of the review recounts a portion of Papadopoulos' recollection of his interrogation by the FBI, which bears directly on our earlier discussion of what motivated the FBI:

... when the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos, the FBI interrogators showed very little interest in the source of Mifsud’s information.  

“One of the investigators is an FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith,” Papadopoulos writes. “And he seems to be leading a lot of this inquisition.” 

Papadopoulos was asked over and over to name anyone in the Trump campaign with whom he may have shared the Mifsud emails story. “I keep waiting for someone to ask me about Mifsud himself. But nobody seems to care about him. I can’t believe these people are not interested in the source of this information.”  

In a later exchange, Papadopoulos is subjected to another round of questioning that becomes so repetitive and suggestive that Papadopoulos asks, “I don’t know if you are trying to implant a memory in my mind, or what. But I cannot sit here and tell you I told [the Trump campaign] about emails when I don’t have a memory of doing that.”  

That didn’t stop the Mueller team. They continued for seven hours, suggesting Papadopoulos had indeed told the Trump campaign about the hacked email rumor that Mifsud fed to him.  

“Unfortunately,” Papadopoulos writes, “the truth was not what they wanted to hear. No matter how much Robert Mueller and his team of FBI agents and prosecutors wished I had told the campaign members about Mifsud’s claim, I hadn’t.” 

The interesting aspect to this, of course, is that Kevin Clinesmith has already admitted to submitting fraudulently altered documents to the FISC. IG Horowitz referred Clinesmith's case to John Durham for consideration of criminal prosecution of Clinesmith. I assume that when Clinesmith was selected to interview Papadopoulos, there was more to that decision than Weissmann popping into Clinesmith's office and saying, 'Hey, why don't you go talk to Papadopoulos, OK?' This was an interview that could have potentially led to Trump's impeachment and removal from office, so I assume that many hours of preparation went into that interrogation. I further assume that Durham and his team want Clinesmith to tell them all about that preparation, in excruciating detail. They will want to know who made the decisions, who led the discussion of tactics, goals, etc. What they hoped to obtain from Papadopoulos.

UPDATED: New WaP0 Scoop! Oh, Wait ...

The other night I knocked myself out on the first scoop. Sean Davis at The Federalist gives the latest scoop the right amount of coverage--a tweet. Obviously Western Intel services were promiscuously mixing and matching assets in their mad scramble to prevent Trump from draining their Swamp. Spin.

More strawman slaying from the paper that did more than any other to peddle the Russia hoax. Russia hoaxers, not conservatives, falsely claimed Mifsud was a Russian spy. In reality, Mifsud was a Western intel asset, not specifically a U.S./FBI one. https://t.co/YTAtjejNXB

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 4, 2019

It's just amazing. WaPo definitely did not have a headline like this when Mueller debunked the "left-wing theory" of a Trump-Russia conspiracy or the one about Trump's team being full of Russian agents. https://t.co/feo5h5iQpK pic.twitter.com/vmXW7jiYkZ

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) December 5, 2019

UPDATE: I want to draw attention to what could be a significant paragraph in the WaPo article. And, really, the first sentence says it all:

The draft, though, is not final. The inspector general has yet to release any conclusions, and The Washington Post has not reviewed Horowitz’s entire report, even in draft form. It is also unclear whether Durham has shared the entirety of his findings and evidence with the inspector general or merely answered a specific question.

You know that the data part is final. What's not final is almost certainly what conclusions to draw, how to frame those conclusions, etc. This would fit with Hannity's claim that discussions between Horowitz and Barr are ongoing.

OIG's Interlocking Reports

Brian Cates at Epoch Times has a simply outstanding article out that examines the OIG's very recent (11/19/19) report on the FBI's management of its Confidential Human Source program. Cates' article is titled Why DOJ Inspector General Horowitz Had to Produce Two Reports, which gives a clear indication of where he's going: the relationship between the CHS report and the forthcoming FISA report--due out 12/9/19. Before we get into that, lets review a few background matters, which will help guide our way forward.

First, commenter Forbes recently referred to the forthcoming OIG FISA report as "more an audit than an investigation." I demurred--to an extent, adding that Forbes was on to something. That something is that OIG investigations are often confused with criminal investigations by prosecutors--which they are not. So, for reference, here is how OIG describes its work:

The OIG has jurisdiction to review the programs and personnel of the FBI, ATF, BOP, DEA, USAO, USMS, and all other organizations within the Department, as well as contractors of the Department and organizations receiving grant money from the Department. The OIG fulfills this mission, in part, through auditing and inspecting Department programs and issuing reports of its findings. Below please find the OIG’s audits, evaluations, inspections, and reviews.

I won't get into the distinctions, but rest assured they are real. However, to provide two very relevant examples, the CHS report is classed as an audit: Audit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes. In this case, OIG audited the FBI for compliance with applicable guidelines. Here are the findings of that audit, short and not so sweet:

We found that the FBI's vetting process for CHSs,
known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney
General Guidelines. We also found deficiencies in the
FBl's long-term CHS validation reports which are relied
upon by FBI and Department of Justice (Department or
DOJ) officials in determining the continued use of a
CHS. Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained
personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked
an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.

Ouch.

New Developments Re Papadopoulos And Mifsud?

Fox News is reporting tonight--Durham's probe into possible FBI misconduct expanded based on new evidence:

U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia probe has expanded based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr, sources told Fox News on Tuesday. 

The sources said Durham was "very interested" to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea. 

The two Obama administration officials were at the helm when the unverified and largely discredited Steele dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page. 

In Italy, Barr reportedly told embassy officials he "needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in." 

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to authorities in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection.

Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

What would this misconduct--specific to the FBI--be, and what connection would it have with Mifsud? This is speculation, but my guess is that what Barr and Durham learned to their satisfaction in Rome was that the FBI knew Papadopoulos had no Russian connection but that the FBI targeted him anyway--essentially to pressure him into providing false or misleading testimony.

Follow the link for the interview with George Papadopoulos.

Separately, Fox is also reporting that

Additionally, documents obtained by Fox News confirmed that Australia proactively offered support for Barr's review, and seemingly contradicted reporting that Trump was pressuring other countries to assist. 

... 

"If the rumors are true that IG Horowitz’s report and findings in Durham’s review will blast the conduct of the FBI’s Russia investigation, it will give Trump a lot of ammo to support his argument that he was unjustly targeted then and is being unjustly targeted now," a House GOP source told Fox News on Tuesday. "It will justify Trump’s warnings about the Deep State acting to hobble his presidency."

All of this is looking like a powerful counterattack to the Dem's absurd "all roads lead to Putin" narrative. As absurd as Hillary's "everyone I don't like is a Russian asset" line of attack.

Oh My! About Those Blackberries

Ever wonder why Joseph Mifsud fears for his safety?

Ever ask yourself, Who would I give my spy phones to if I wanted to guarantee my safety?

Ever wonder why Bill Barr and John Durham didn't tell anyone else in the US government when they flew to Rome to talk to Mifsud and/or his lawyers?

Ever guess that Barr and Durham probably laughed all the way back to the US after obtaining Mifsud's two Blackberries?

Ever wonder why the Deep State is all puckered over the Barr/Durham investigation?

Wonder no more!

Greg Rubini has this to tell us:


1. Gen. Flynn case - the Mifsud Blackberry phones

The two Blackberry phones that were given to Mifsud did not have an Italian SIM.


2. The two Mifsud phones had a British SIM.
BOTH.

How do we know?


3. From the ICCID of the SIM cards.

The ICCID #1 is 89441000302074582859

The ICCID #2 is 89441000300487623120

(info from the Court Document)
.

4. The Mifsud Blackberries both had a 894410003... SIM.

The 44 after 89 identifies UK.

The 894410 identifies Vodafone UK as the service provider.


5. Mifsud blackberries had a British SIM?

Hmmm...

If I was Gen. Mike Flynn lawyer, Sidney Powell @SidneyPowell1 , I would look into Hakluyt...


6. HAKLUYT is a British PRIVATE spy Agency, with Headquarters in Mayfair, London.

The most EXCLUSIVE and the most expensive part of London.
Between Bond Street and Hyde Park.

Hakluyt does the dirty jobs that MI5, MI6, GCHQ are not allowed to do.


7. Hakluyt officers are former MI6 and GCHQ.

Hakluyt has HQ in London, and subsidiaries in New York, Sydney, Singapore,
Tokyo, Mumbai (India).

Quite a network...

And LOTS of Money

hakluytandco.com


8. Take a look at the HAKLUYT Advisory Board...

the Who's Who...
Execs of Microsoft, Sony, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, Mitsubishi,
Central Bank of Argentina...
and Iain Lobban, fmr GCHQ Director

https://www.hakluytandco.com/advisory_board 


9. Many of the guys involved with the Spy / entrapment Operations of Gen. Flynn and George Papadopoulos are connected with HAKLUYT.


10. Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper (and Joseph Mifsud) are all connected with HAKLUYT.

Alexander Downer was even on the Board of Directors of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014... 


11. And guess WHO ELSE is connected with Hakluyt....


12. Yes, that's him !

All Roads lead to Brennan

(here pictured in the Hakluyt New York Office, at 540 Madison Avenue, NYC)

.
Me: Mifsud had those phones for quite a few years. Lots of data on them. Oh my!

Papadopoulos On The Big Picture Of The Russia Hoax

In this conversation with George Papadopoulos--which I've transcribed in its entirety (below), with just a few extraneous trims from Laura's questions--Laura Ingraham starts with the news that John Durham returned from his trip to Rome with Bill Barr in possession of Joseph Mifsud's two FBI (or possibly CIA) issued Blackberry phones. Papadopoulos immediately turns to the big picture, rather than remaining with the investigative details regarding the phone, and Laura follows up on that big picture approach.

Papadopoulos describes how, as soon as he joined the Ben Carson campaign in December, 2015, he found himself being targeted by State Department officials. He then notes that when he switched to the Trump campaign, just a few months later, he was targeted by intelligence operatives, including Mifsud, who already knew all about him even though his switch to the Trump campaign was not public knowledge. Obviously, he's telling us that the coordinated targeting of all Republican campaigns by the supposedly non-political branches of the Obama administration (State, DoJ, the FBI and CIA) was well underway--no later than December, 2015, but certainly even earlier.

At that point Papadopoulos begins struggling a bit to articulate his big picture. What he's saying is that we're finally going to realize, as a result of the Barr/Durham investigation, how not only the US intelligence agencies but also foreign governments who bought into the Globalist agenda were totally invested in a Clinton presidency--and were coordinating to make sure that happened. The interests pushing the Globalist agenda included both Socialists (like Renzi in Italy) and conservatives (Cameron/May in the UK, Turnbull in Australia)--just as we see the same agenda being pushed on a bipartisan basis in the US.

It's an interview that nicely balances the big picture with interesting details. Regarding the details, Papadopoulos' account of how he was targeted by agencies of the Executive branch of the Obama regime from his first involvement in Republican campaigns suggests that there was a mole or spy within the Trump campaign (more generally here) who was looking to plant suggestible, manipulable individuals like Papadopoulos inside the Trump campaign. From the big picture perspective, the international scope of the Deep State assault on Trump comes into clear focus as well. The attempt by Mifsud and Downer, the Australian, to steer Papadopoulos (a Mideast wonk) toward Russia reflects the importance of Russia/Ukraine to the Globalist interests behind this effort. Putin's championing of national interests over Globalism is what makes him the Globalist boogeyman--the rest of the Russia Hoax is largely "narrative".

All this is what Bill Barr is endeavoring to "get his arms around" in a prosecutable way. Hopefully Barr will also find a way to get the truth out to the American public in more expeditious ways that will not jeopardize prosecution.

Fascinating Development In Flynn Case

Techno Fog, as usual, is all over this.

Today, Sidney Powell has filed a Motion To Produce Newly Discovered Brady Evidence on behalf of Michael Flynn. Powell requested the legacy Team Mueller prosecutors for this newly discovered evidence on October 11, 2019, and was told, basically, don't call us, we'll call you--if WE think you should have it, we'll give it to you. Not good enough, said Powell, and filed a motion.

Here's what's so fascinating about this. Powell describes the evidence--two Blackberry devices that were utilized by Joseph Mifsud--as "newly discovered", as in: "evidence that has only recently come into [the government's] possession." Huh? The government only recently came into the possession of Blackberries that were used by Joseph Mifsud?

Here's what I think is going on.

Joseph Mifsud is a long running asset of Western intelligence services, working for MI6, the Italians, the CIA, and from time to time the FBI. We know that the FBI opened a Full CI investigation on Flynn as far back as 2014, and we're pretty darned sure that Mifsud was part of that investigation. Therefore, my guess--and I think I'm right--is that the FBI provided Mifsud with these Blackberry devices for use when he was working for the FBI, targeting Flynn and, later, Papadopoulos and, maybe, Carter Page outside the Continental US, i.e., in the UK. In other words, when Mifsud was engaged in "OCONUS lures," as famously stated in the Strzok/Page texts. That's pretty clearly what Powell thinks, since she writes this in her motion (pay attention to the highlighted portions):

Filing on the newly discovered evidence:

The 2 phones were used by Mifsud as part of the efforts by western intelligence against him "likely as early as 2014 to arrange . . . 'connections' with certain Russians" pic.twitter.com/ZMDAXB1Ytm

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) October 15, 2019

Note that Powell doesn't offer a line of reasoning to support a supposition about these devices. She's making bald statements of fact. She knows. And she also states as a fact that the FBI was setting Flynn up to make "false claims" against him of involvement with "the Russians."

The question, then, is this: how is it that "the government" only just now came into the possession of these Blackberry devices that it gave to Mifsud as far back as 2014?

A commenter on Techno Fog's twitter feed has a theory, and it makes some sense:

Sounds like Barr and Durham was given his phone during their recent trip to Italy.

— Mark Hilgers (@hilgers_mark) October 15, 2019

Wasn't that helpful of Barr and Durham (if that's what happened)? They go to Italy, listen to Mifsud's tape of why he fears for his life (presumably he's afraid of one or all of MI6, CIA, FBI), accept custody of Mifsud's FBI-provided Blackberry devices, return with said evidence and helpfully provide it to Brandon van Grack--because it's relevant to the Flynn case. Imagine how grateful van Grack must be! I'll bet Barr and Durham had a good laugh over that one!

The only reason I can think of why van Grack didn't move to dismiss this case months ago is because ... well, how do you dismiss a case in which you've extracted a guilty plea without admitting misconduct on your own part? And also this: Maybe, just maybe, van Grack is desperately protecting other bad actors, with whom he might be considered a co-conspirator.

OK, now put all that in the context of Impeachment Theater. If, at some point in the next few months, the case against Flynn gets tossed for prosecutorial misconduct, how will that make impeachment look? I think the general public will see the connection, will put 2 + 2 together and come up with the right answer.

All this has to be very worrying for the Dems and for the Deep State.

Is This Why Barr Asked Trump To Call Oz?

Barr has asked Trump to request various foreign governments--"allies"--to cooperate with his investigation into the Russia Hoax. The Brits, the Italians, and the Aussies. We've all heard about Alexander Downer and his London meets with George Papadopoulos, but could Oz's role in the Russia Hoax go a bit deeper that that? Is that why Trump had that chin wag a bit over a week ago with Aussie PM Scott Morrison? The NYT, with it's own unique spin, assures us that, yes, Trump did discuss the Russia Hoax with Morrison: Trump Pressed Australian Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry’s Origins.

Aussie state visits to the US are very rare--as other news outlets noted. On the other hand, Barr is a busy man and couldn't be bothered going all that way to Oz. So when Trump told Morrison to get his ass to Washington ASAP, Morrison jumped! But, would Trump have really had Morrison come all this way if it was ONLY about Alexander Downer?

Gateway Pundit posted some intriguing tweets just this evening. It's totally speculative, maybe just coincidence. But maybe not: James Comey and Joseph Mifsud were in Australia, of all unlikely places, at the same time in March, 2016. I can't wait for more:

Breaking: Mark Ryan, exDirector of Australia's Underwater Acoustic Intelligence Agency, and Alexander Downer’s former chief of staff, was meeting with Joseph Mifsud a couple weeks before he drops the “info” on me! Looks like Mifsud was in on it with Aust. Bad news for Australia!

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) October 12, 2019

James Comey and Mifsud were in Australia the second week in March 2016 only a few days before your arranged meeting with Misfud in Rome! Clapper was in Australia 2 weeks later. pic.twitter.com/1hxkz9AOf9

— pro dreamer (@prodreamer1) October 12, 2019

These are the links for these articles.https://t.co/Nt9mmMs2wz https://t.co/8Nd1O1ShDi pic.twitter.com/vjvbpBon0X

— Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) October 13, 2019

Bill Barr In Rome

From a link I got at GP, which summarizes a NYT story--William Barr and John Durham’s visit to Italy:

The exclusive disclosure made by InsideOver on 28 September has been confirmed: William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, was in Italy for a few days from 25 until 27 September to gather evidence relating to “Spygate”. As George Papadopoulos, former member of the foreign policy advisory panel in Donald Trump’s presidential election campaign in 2016 told us, Barr was in Rome, at Palazzo Margherita – where the US embassy is located – in a particularly feverish few days for the US administration as Nancy Pelosi announced the launch of the impeachment proceedings against the President on account of the Kievgate scandal. 

As the New York Times confirms, William Barr arrived in Italy around 25-26 September and met  Italian government officials on Friday 27 September. According to former Justice Department officials, the justice ministry asked several foreign countries, including Italy, to cooperate and hand over certain documents relating to the 2016 elections. Attorney General Barr’s trip to Italy was also confirmed by the Washington Post: the US Justice Department asked officials of the Conte government to provide whatever support was necessary to United States Attorney John Durham who was appointed to investigate the murky origins of Russiagate. According to the Washington Post, this was not Barr’s first visit to our country. 

According to a report in the Daily Beast, when Barr arrived at the US embassy in Palazzo Margherita in Rome he asked for two things: a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure that nobody could listen in and a chair for United States Attorney John Durham who was appointed by Barr to cast light on Russiagate.

 

That's significant. No chairs for FBI or CIA reps--because they weren't there.

Did The Russia Hoax Actually Start With Flynn?

Margot Cleveland has a very worthwhile article at The Federalist today--Sidney Powell’s Latest Motion In Michael Flynn’s Case Is A Russiagate Bombshell: Lawyer Sidney Powell’s bigger plan is to expose the breadth and depth of SpyGate and how flaying Michael Flynn lay at the heart of the soft coup attempt. Cleveland goes over some of the revelations contained in Sidney Powell's Motion to Compel that was released to the public yesterday. In doing so, Cleveland points out, once again, the key requirement contained in the standard that was enunciated in the Yunis case: relevance. At the hearing this issue was alluded to in a key exchange between Judge Sullivan and Powell:

Powell, though, must still establish that the evidence sought is Brady material. Judge Sullivan seemed skeptical of the relevance of some of the evidence Powell mentioned and how it bore on Flynn’s guilt for the offense of conviction, namely lying to FBI agents. But Powell parried well, noting, for instance, that evidence concerning the texts exchanged between former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ lawyer Lisa Page were impeachment evidence.

"Impeachment evidence" is evidence that strikes at (impeaches) the credibility or character of witnesses. This evidence can be considered as a subset of Brady material, and is known as "Giglio information", after the case of Giglio v. United States. Here's a useful explanation of Brady and Giglio:

In U.S. law, Giglio information or material refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. 

The Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) held that the prosecution violates due process when it "withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty. 

In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (U.S. 1972), the Supreme Court extended the prosecution's obligations under Brady to disclosure of impeachment evidence. Supreme Court clarified that all impeachment evidence, even if not a prior statement by a witness falls within the Brady rule. Giglio mandated that the prosecution should disclose any and all information that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses including law enforcement officers. Impeachment information under Giglio includes information such as prior criminal records or other acts of misconduct of prosecution witness, promises of leniency or immunity offered to prosecution witnesses.

When you consider that phrase "other acts of misconduct" you'll understand the relevance of Powell's demands. There's no way that Sullivan failed to understand the point.

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.

TOTAL MUST WATCH--diGenova And Toensing

LOU DOBBS WITH diGENOVA AND TOENSING

The whole ten minutes are totally worthwhile, but I'm going to transcribe the last few minutes. Dobbs says how frustrated he is that the IG report still isn't out. Here's what transpires:

DOBBS: Let me conclude as we have the last several discussions. We're approaching August and still no Inspector General report. I'm beginning to believe in almost nothing that emanates from the Inspector General's office. This is pathetic--the time it's taken. It's not the most complex of cases I can imagine in the world. What in the world IS the problem with the Inspector General in getting that report out? 

TOENSING: Forget the IG. 

diGENOVA: Here's what's happening. 

DOBBS: Don't tell me to forget the IG! We've been talking about the IG for a year! 

TOENSING: He's not worth squat! Joe's gonna tell ya. 

diGENOVA: Here's what's happening. As a result of the appointment of Durham people are flocking back to Horowitz to, quote, "correct their testimony." To let him know that they've remembered new things. That they've found out stuff that they didn't know about. People are worried, and they should be, because it's now beginning to become very clear that Durham is moving forward WITH SPEED, and people are going to Horowitz and asking to be re-interviewed. This includes FBI officials and others, and as a result of that I am delighted he's delaying. 

TOENSING: And you're gonna see that Mifsud was a Western agent, not a Russian agent. 

diGENOVA: And it's gonna make Mueller look even worse when Dr. Mifsud gets to have his say. He's already been interviewed by both Horowitz and Durham.

The point about Mifsud is important for a number of reasons. It's important because of his centrality to the beginnings of the Russia Hoax. It's also important because, from what I've heard, he has long wanted to come forward and be interviewed and escape from the prison of his "new identity." The reason he hasn't is because Western Intel agencies have been pressuring him to stay hidden because he can reveal their collusion in the coup attempt. That's over now.

Important Remarks From President Trump

Today President Trump held an impromptu 17 minute Q&A session with reporters as he was about to leave for West Virginia aboard Marine 1. The following is my transcript of what I took to be the most important portion of his remarks:

This whole thing, honestly, has been collusion. It's been collusion with the media. It's been collusion with other countries. This has been a disaster for the Democrats and I think we're gonna win bigger than ever. 

[Question, inaudible] 

No, because we did nothing wrong. The answer's very simple. Nothing was done wrong. This was all a big hoax and if you look at it today, nothing was done wrong. Now-- 

I believe what you're gonna find, you're gonna find a lot of things that were done very wrong, but that's going on now. That's something you haven't been writing about and that has to do with the other side. That has to do with a thing called "investigate the investigators." Let's see what happens. That's gonna be very interesting.

Here's my takeaway.

"Collusion with other countries." Yes, and that's hugely important--to see that the Dems, including Obama and Hillary, were colluding with foreign powers against our country. That also plays into the next takeaway: "Investigate the investigators." And that's what we saw in John Solomon's latest report.

John Durham is reaching out to people in foreign countries for cooperation, as is Michael Horowitz. Steele has been interviewed, Mifsud will be interviewed. More is coming. And the investigators are going to be investigated--Team Mueller is being scrutinized, and that must also mean that Team Mueller's enablers, starting with Rod Rosenstein, will be under the gun, too.

As Trump said, that's gonna be very interesting.

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 ...

Will Mueller's Testimony Cause The Sky To Fall?

Short answer: No. Longer answer ...

When we first heard--just a week ago--that Robert Mueller would be testifying before a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th, my initial reaction was twofold:

1. This was probably prompted by the realization that Barr and Durham are focusing very strongly on the Intelligence Community Assessment that John Brennan manufactured in order to support the Russia Hoax narrative, and the need to offer some sort of support for that narrative, weak as it was shown to be by the Mueller Dossier itself; and

2. The decision to drag Mueller out before the public eye once again--after his widely panned no-questions press conference--was an expression of Dem desperation in the face of the Barr DoJ's new found effectiveness.

In my view, Adam Schiff gave the game away with his tweet announcing the development:

Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before Congress pursuant to subpoena. 

Russia attacked our democracy to help Trump win. Trump welcomed and used that help. As Mueller said, that should concern every American. 

And now, every American will get to hear directly from Mueller.

The bolded portion is a capsulized version of the whole Russia Hoax of "collusion," precisely what the Mueller Dossier said it couldn't find. As I said at the time:

Sheer desperation. Mueller's appearance will be staged to defend the ICA narrative of the Russia Hoax, to stave off the looming disaster just a bit longer. But this isn't going to stop Barr and Durham. Mueller better mind how he goes.

I remain of that opinion but, surprisingly, a few commentators expressed alarm. For example the husband/wife duo of Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing--experienced inside DC players--expressed the view that, while Mueller would probably avoid saying anything much beyond "read the report" in his public testimony, Andrew Weissmann in the closed door session would do real "damage" to the President and would probably "lie" in order to do that damage.

The Complexities Of The Russia Hoax Investigation

OK, so what's taking so long? Why aren't we seeing some indictments in the Russia Hoax? What could possibly be causing the delay, except the blindingly obvious reason--for some: Bill Barr is a Deep State plant intent on protecting the DoJ and FBI and undermining President Trump?

Actually, there are a lot of reasons for the delay, and the number one reason is the sheer complexity of the Russia Hoax--the number of moving parts, if you will. As I've remarked in the past, we're used to thinking of the Russia Hoax largely from a US-centric perspective, with our focus on the CIA and FBI, with a somewhat lower awareness of what was going on at DoJ and the Department of State. Coordination of the Russia Hoax at the White House, as it seems to me, comes in last place.

That isn't to say that those of us who have been following the unraveling of the Russia Hoax haven't given a thought to the foreign angle. We know about Christopher Steele's important role--although we usually think of that in terms of his interactions with US players: Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, and other US government functionaries and media figures. We know, too, about George Papadopoulos' escapades with UK based figures, such as Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud and the Aussie "diplomat" Alexander Downer. Carter Page? For the most part he figures in the phrases "the Carter Page FISA application," rather than his interaction with Halper and other UK figures.

Nevertheless, as we attempted to show a bit over a month ago in The Shape Of The Coup Plot: Obama And The Brits, that overseas connection looms increasingly large in the Russia Hoax investigation. One sign of that is the announcement of the agreement by the UK government to allow Christopher Steele to be interviewed by US government investigators. Well, officially, that was Christopher Steele who said he was willing to be interviewed, but in the real world we all know that that doesn't happen without UK government approval--if you need to have that explained, follow the first link in this paragraph. The point is that without a thorough understanding the foreign angle--and especially the UK angle--Barr will never truly "get his arms around" the real scope of the Russia Hoax. And that will take time--time to identify the players, time to do thorough background investigations not only on known players but also their connections, time to develop investigative and interview strategies.