A Snapshot Of The Mueller FBI

Yesterday at a House Intelligence Committee hearing two retired FBI agents were called by the Democrats as expert witnesses. Per Jeff Carlson:

Witnesses at the hearing—titled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1″—included Robert Anderson and Stephanie Douglas, described by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as former executives from the FBI’s counterintelligence division. Left out of Schiff’s description of Anderson and Douglas was that both witnesses had worked under former FBI Director Mueller prior to his role as special counsel.

Sean Hannity interviewed Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows afterwards. Here are some excerpts:

NUNES: What was amazing to me, ... is there were two retired FBI agents on the stand there, ... What I was amazed at is the lack of concern by these former FBI agents, one of whom Peter Strzok used to work for and, look, they served their country and I'm sure they did a great job, but when I brought up the fact that we probably shouldn't be using counterintelligence capabilities in this country to target a political campaign, they just sat there. ... I know we always say, oh, this happened at the very top of the FBI, but I will tell you, if that attitude permeated throughout the counterintelligence capabilities, and if retired FBI agents think its OK to use counterintelligence against political campaigns, I think we've gone a long way in this country, ...

MEADOWS: ... Even some of the witnesses here today on Capitol hill? They're supposed to be experts? They hadn't even read the Steele dossier!

So how unimpressive is that? Most Americans probably think being an FBI agent, working at the higher levels at FBIHQ, working CI, protecting against espionage and all that stuff--that's pretty impressive, requires smarts and dedication, a sharp, inquiring mind. Right? And here we are, talking about THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN FBI HISTORY, even in US history, and it happened within a few years of them leaving the job. One of them even formerly supervised a major player in all this, Strzok.

So Nunes asks them, What do you think of the FBI using CI capabilities to spy on political campaigns? And "they just sat there." How intellectually unengaged do you have to be, given their background, to have no opinion on that, or none that you're willing to offer?

UPDATED: Mark Meadows: It's Coming In Just A Few Days

Yesterday commenter Joe wrote:

Do you think that we have much longer to wait before charges are filed? I know that the wheels of justice grind slowly but ...

Well, of course all I could say in response was: All I know is what I read.

But I also watch videos, like this one featuring Sean Hannity interviewing Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. In the interview Hannity talks about how much more is known, referencing 53 closed door interviews that have not hitherto been released. Mark Meadows, apparently in reference to those interviews, stated that there would be lots more information released within "days", and that "the whole thing", the Russia Hoax, is coming unraveled. Thus, the desperate political theatrics of Nadler and company.

Among the information that will be coming is that Lisa Page testified that, after 9 months of investigation, the FBI had nothing on collusion. And, Jim Jordan added, Jim Comey said the same thing.

That, of course, gets to the heart of Crossfire Hurricane and AG Barr's question: Was there adequate predication for the investigation to begin with? I'm here to tell, as before, that there was not adequate predication to start a Full Investigation. And that's why the FBI and DoJ had to commit a fraud on the FISA Court--a fraud which they then repeated three times.

Think about the timeline involved here. Lisa Page said "after 9 months" the FBI had nothing. That takes us from the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane right up to ... the appointment of Bob Mueller by Rod Rosenstein to turn the new Trump presidency and administration inside out. Ask yourself: If Lisa Page and Jim Comey knew they had nothing after nine months of incredibly intrusive investigation, why wouldn't Rod Rosenstein and Andy McCabe have known that when Rosenstein started up Team Mueller, and why wouldn't "Bob" Mueller have known that?

Here's the simple answer: They did know that. That's why Devin Nunes, who was privy to the closed door interview results, when asked when Mueller knew he had nothing, could reply: Mueller knew he had nothing from the day he walked in the door to the Special Counsel Office. It was all about "getting" Trump, from the get go.

And, once again, Bill Barr's simple question gets to the heart of the Mueller inquistion and the people who started it up: Was there ever adequate predication? If there wasn't, it was all illegal.

And here's a dirty little not so secret fact: The coup plotters were enabled in this coup plot by senior GOP reps and senators, including some who are behaving better these days.

Anyway:

UPDATE: H/T Mike Sylwester:

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: