What Role Did Nora Dannehy Play On Team Durham?

Shipwreckedcrew has an excellent new article up that speculates on the role that Nora Dannehy may have played on John Durham's investigative team: Speculation on Reasons Behind Why Durham’s Chief Deputy Resigned — Requires Inside Knowledge.

SWC starts by cautioning about what we pointed out yesterday: None of the press speculation is based on inside knowledge. That lack of knowledge is explicitly noted in the original Hartford Courant article. Therefore, says SWC, speculation that Dannehy was unhappy with supposed politicization of the investigation by AG Barr most likely reflects the biases and hopes of the MSM. I would add that the fact that that theme was immediately picked up by Andrew Weissmann is, itself, reason for caution.

Yesterday we picked up some of the material that SWC put out on his twitter thread, which drew on Dannehy's professional bio, and the likelihood that her prosecutorial days were likely in the past. That in no way is intended to denigrate her skills. It's simply the case that, having been closely involved in a number of complex and politically sensitive investigations of government personnel, Dannehy in more recent years has moved into more managerial roles.

SWC basically speculates that it was precisely Dannehy's familiarity with case management from a prosecutorial standpoint that made Dannehy an attractive addition to Team Durham.

The particular reason this was important had to do with the fact that Team Durham was going over ground from a criminal investigative standpoint that had already been covered by Michael Horowitz's OIG. By now, most readers should be familiar with the general concept that OIG investigations are basically internal investigation and are therefore more circumscribed, both in jurisdiction as well as investigative methods, than are FBI/DoJ criminal investigations. For example, OIG, while it has enormous power to acquire DoJ records, lacks grand jury and, therefore, subpoena powers. It also cannot compel the testimony of persons who do not or who no longer work for DoJ.

This last point is where SWC begins his speculation on Dannehy's role. One problem for DoJ when it steps into OIG's investigative shoes is that OIG is able to compel employees to answer OIG's questions, on pain of dismissal. That may be fine for some OIG's purposes, if only disciplinary action is contemplated, but when it comes to a criminal investigation it's a violation of the subject's constitutional right against self incrimination. Therefore, if DoJ attempts to take over OIG's investigative results and move forward on its own, using OIG's information, DoJ will need to "filter" the OIG material to avoid using information that is "tainted"--for purposes of prosecution--by the self incrimination problem. Thus, failure to thoroughly filter inherited OIG interviews to insure that no use is made of information that derived from compelled OIG interviews could end up seriously jeopardizing prosecutions down the road.

In a 'sprawling' investigation like this one, proper coordination of the filtering process is especially important, since one fact may lead in multiple directions. SWC speculates that it was this important filtering role that Dannehy coordinated for Team Durham. The fact that Dannehy has now stepped down may be a signal that all, or almost all, interviewing has been completed or that Durham doesn't foresee a further need for this "filtering" process. Therefore, Dannehy was free to step down, having completed her role.

For a deeper dive, follow the link.

Two Questions Re Danchenko's FBI/DoJ Interview

As we've recently learned, Christopher Steele claims that he got the "information" in his reports (which were compiled into a "dossier" that was behind so much of the Russia Hoax) from a "Primary Subsource", Igor Danchenko. Danchenko was interviewed by a team of FBI and DoJ investigators, analysts, and lawyers in January, 2017. The interview took place in Washington, DC, over at least three days, and in the interview Danchenko basically debunked any notion that there was a solid basis in fact for anything Steele claimed in his "dossier". In fact, Danchenko specifically disclaimed all knowledge of certain "information" that Steele passed on to his employers, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI. In spite of what Danchenko told the interviewers, the FBI and DoJ proceeded to allow the Carter Page FISA (based virtually 100% on the Steele "dossier") to remain up and running then obtained two additional renewals of the same FISA on the basis of the Steele "dossier" that Danchenko had debunked!

Two pseudonymous lawyers and Twitter commenters have raised questions about that interview.

First, noting that Danchenko had a lawyer present, Undercover Huber asks:

Does The Latest OIG Rip On The FBI's FISA Problems Matter?

Michael Horowitz's OIG has done a progress report on their findings thus far in their ongoing review of whether the FBI bothers to follow its own policy procedures with regard to FISA applications for electronic surveillance. What's he talking about? This.

Basically, every FISA application makes assertions of fact, which are presented to the FISA court, the FISC, in support of the application. Naturally, those assertions of fact are supposed to be supported by, well, evidence that can be confirmed. Horowitz says:

As a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy. Specifically, the Woods Procedures mandate compiling supporting documentation for each fact in the FISA application. Adherence to the Woods Procedures should result in such documentation as a means toward achievement of the FBI’s policy that FISA applications be “scrupulously accurate.” 

OK, fair enough. The FBI hasn't been "scrupulously accurate." Mistakes were made. But that doesn't mean that jobs will be lost, or anything drastic like that. Scrupulosity is for small minded people, anyway. The FBI maintains that the mistakes weren't "material", and maybe that's the point. Under the FISA regime, mistakes are mostly administrative miscues. That's the beauty of FISA: no real accountability for the bureaucrats. Isn't that the ultimate bureaucratic dream?

A Closer Look At The FBI's Carter Page Investigation (Part 2)

Let's continue with our "Closer Look" at the FBI's investigation of Carter Page, as explained in the Horowitz FISA report.  Part I of our "Closer Look" dealt with the origins of the investigation in the FBI's New York Field Office's (NYFO) dealings with Carter Page--which stretch back to 2009--and stopped at the point that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened (July 31, 2016) and a separate sub-investigation was opened on Page. Here we will look at Horowitz's account of FBI investigative activity with regard to Page prior to the FBI's supposed first knowledge of the Steele "dossier" on September 19, 2016.

Once again I've pasted in several pages from the OIG report--the full section, with footnotes. The page numbering is included as before: (paper doc page number/pdf file page number). My comments are in "quote" format.


(77/110)

IV. Investigative Steps in Crossfire Hurricane Prior to Receipt of Christopher Steele Reporting on September 19

MAJOR UPDATE: Grassley, Johson Charge Horowitz Dossier Misleads Public

We don't know the substance behind these allegations because the substance is classified, so we'll have to wait for developments. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Senators Grassley and Johnson would go public like this if they didn't believe they had sound reasons for doing so.

Basically, the senators are demanding that AG Barr declassify four footnotes in the Horowitz Dossier. The reason for their demand is that they assert that the classified footnotes contradict supposed "information" that was made public in the Horowitz Dossier. The senators' letter to Barr is in two versions--one classified, the other unclassified and made public. The unclassified version states in part:

We have reviewed the findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we are deeply concerned about certain information that remains classified. Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes. This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation. The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

I'm guessing that Barr will need to take these complaints seriously. They strike at the credibility of both OIG and DoJ. Could it be that these footnotes relate to John Durham's harsh comments on Horowitz's work?

The full text:

Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Rosenstein--Liars All?

It certainly seems likely, based on the facts developed by IG Horowitz's FISA investigation--and, of course, it was always likely simply as an a priori assumption. Today TGP continues the deep dive into the facts assembled by Horowitz that's being conducted by independent internet researchers, and they come up with some goodies for the holiday season: IG Report Reveals Someone’s Not Telling the Truth – AG Lynch, Comey, McCabe and Rosenstein All Caught in Conflicting Accounts.

With regard to disgraced former FBI execs Comey and McCabe vis a vis former AG Loretta Lynch, the issue is whether Lynch was ever briefed on Crossfire Hurricane and the Carter Page FISAs. She says she didn't know anything about the FISA--which can't possibly be true--but that Comey told her about the investigation of Page as a Russian agent. That, of course, is highly likely, but Lynch says that happened in "spring of 2016." Woops! Not good for Comey and McCabe, since they claim they weren't doing much of anything until the end of July, so they have to deny Lynch's story. Uh oh! Deep State, we have a conflict!

As interesting as all that is--and TGP has lots of details--the Rosenstein information is, to me, the most fascinating for the long run, because it inevitably leads right into the Mueller Witchhunt. I've called Rosenstein a "weasel" in the past, but I've never suggested he's stupid. But you'd have to be stupid yourself to believe the things he told the IG. Check this out:

Horowitz Unearthed More Steele Conspiracy Tales

IG Michael Horowitz's FISA report continues to be scrutinized and mined for relevant new facts that shed light on the origins and development of the Russia Hoax. Today at the Washington Examiner Rowan Scarborough lays out new facts that demonstrate that the Russia Hoax was rooted in cynically contrived conspiracy theories emanating from the Clinton camp.

In Trump conspiracy theories beyond the Steele dossier were passed to FBI Scarborogh documents from the FISA report that Christopher Steele provided the FBI with at least three additional anti-Trump conspiracy stories, all of which were as untrue as those contained in his "dossier" memos. We can leave to another time the whole question of who actually wrote these materials and simply note that Steele spread them.

Scarborough provides a usefull account of Steele's connections to the Hillary campaign through Fusion GPS, his meetings with reporters and with FBI officials, as well as his provision of materials to political figures such as John McCain. IG Horowitz put together a timeline for Steele's activities and, in doing so, discovered that there was more to Steele's involvement in the election than merely the dossier. Here are the three new items presented in the FISA report.

The Other Mike Rogers--Again?

To my mind, one of the most important contributions that CTH has made to uncovering the overall nature and scope of the Russia Hoax--the Deep State's effort to thwart the election of Donald Trump and, when that failed, to oust him--was drawing attention to the presence of Mike Rogers in the Trump campaign. No, not Mike Rogers the admiral, who headed NSA and played an heroic role (DiGenova: Mike Rogers Is The "Rosetta Stone" For John Durham). As I explained in The Spy In The Trump Campaign, this Mike Rogers was formerly the head chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), before Devin Nunes' time. It's hard to imagine a much more strategic position for a Deep State operative--which Rogers surely was:

Mike Rogers ..., the former US Representative., was a Special Agent for the FBI in Chicago from 1989 - 1994 (I didn't know him, but recall hearing the office buzz when Rogers resigned to go into politics). More to the point, after leaving the House in 2014, having served as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence, Rogers joined the Trump campaign in 2016 as national security adviser. (You can locate other references to this Mike Rogers here.)

By the way--you won't find any mention of the six months Rogers spent on the Trump campaign on his Wikipedia page. Interesting, isn't that? But look here and here. It appears Rogers came on board the Trump campaign in May, 2016, once it became clear that Trump would be the GOP nominee. Again, it's difficult to imagine a more sensitive position in a presidential campaign--especially one that was being targeted for destruction by the Deep State--than national security adviser. And Rogers' Deep State ties were well known to DC insiders. Which led sundance to ask, way back then, "So how did Decepticon Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?"

Late yesterday, sundance again drew attention to Rogers, noting that footnote 474 in the OIG FISA report may refer to Rogers, although without naming him. If true, this would mean that Rogers was an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS - informant) while he was working for the Trump campaign as its national security adviser.

Before we delve into that a bit further, lets get some of the previous background on record again. Some of this was and remains speculative, but is highly suggestive:

Predication Is For Losers

At approximately 8 PM on Sunday, February 18, 2001, there was a knock on my front door.

At the time I was a Special Agent (SA) with the FBI, so imagine my shock when I opened the door and found the two top officials in the Division on my doorstep. I knew this couldn't possibly be good news, but they quickly sought to reassure me.

"Everything is alright, but Bob Hanssen has been arrested."

Alright? Bob Hanssen was my brother in law, and a longtime counterintelligence (CI) official at FBIHQ, privy to a vast range of sensitive intelligence information. A "high Bureau official," as field agents jokingly referred to anyone at HQ.

"Arrested? For what?"

"Espionage," they said.

I searched for something to say: "For the Russians?"

"Yes."

"I think you'd better come in," I said.

There was a small room right just off my front door that I used as a library. I led them in, got them seated, and then said, a bit shakily:

"I suppose this goes back to what I related all those years ago," I ventured, referring to events that occurred in 1990.

That statement was met with blank stares. And so I found myself backtracking to 1990. I explained that at that time I had approached the supervisor of the Russian CI squad to explain why I thought the Bureau should open an espionage investigation on Bob Hanssen. I had discussed it all with my wife the night before and had organized my thoughts around three salient points--I wanted to be sure to present a coherent and strictly legally oriented case. Those three points were as follows:

The Moyer/Clinesmith IMs And Who Got Paid So Much

Yesterday a bit of controversey arose with regard to an exchange of IMs between two now disgraced and former FBI lawyers: Sally Moyer (Attorney 1) and Kevin Clinesmith (Attorney 2). The subject of this IM exchange was raised by IG Horowitz in an OIG report dated June 2018: A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election. For reference purposes the subject of the IM exchange occurs in Chapter Twelve of the report "TEXT MESSAGES, INSTANT MESSAGES, USE OF PERSONAL EMAIL, AND ALLEGED IMPROPER DISCLOSURES OF

NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION", Section C. "FBI Attorney 2 Instant Messages". The Table of Contents lists Section C. as beginning on p. 419, however it may be easier to use the pagination of the entire PDF report document, according to which the relevant IM exchange is discussed beginning on p. 448.

In the OIG report the focus with regard to this IM exchange is with the politically charged and anti-Trump nature of the comments, in the course of which Clinesmith uses the now well known phrase: "Viva le resistance.” However, in our discussion was focused on a different topic that is referenced in the IM exchange: the amount of money an unnamed person was paid while working for the Trump campaign. Thus, for our purposes, here is the relevant passage from the report (I've inserted the surnames for ease of reading):

The third exchange we identified was on November 22, 2016. Clinesmith sent an instant message to Moyer commenting on the amount of money the subject of an FBI investigation had been paid while working on the Trump campaign. Moyer responded, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” Clinesmith replied, “Hell no.” and then added, “Viva le resistance.” Moyer responded that Trump was “going to eliminate all of our pensions in order to pay for people like” the person discussed in the instant message exchange, and Moyer and Clinesmith then began a discussion of federal pension and retirement issues.

The question, then, is: Who is this person who was apparently paid a considerable sum of money "while working on the Trump campaign"?

Commenter Mike Sylwester suggested that the person in question was Carter Page, and that the IM commentary between Clinesmith and Moyer arose from the FBI becoming aware in the course of preparing the FISA on Page that Page was a highly paid CIA asset. In that context, the two FBI lawyers were expressing surprise at the amount of money the CIA had paid Page.

I countered that Paul Manafort, as campaign manager (for a time), seemed a more likely candidate to have been paid large amounts by the Trump campaign. I also maintained that the CIA would likely never 1) identify an asset to the FBI except in dire circumstances, 2) would never identify the size of asset payments. To do either of the above would be extraordinarily amateurish tradecraft and would lead to the names of CIA assets being bandied about among nitwit FBI lawyers with absolutely no need to know about such matters.

In addition, there are two other factors that militate against Carter Page as the person in question:

Major Development In The Flynn Case

This afternoon there was a major development in the Flynn case. The government--meaning, the USA for DC--filed a motion to abate the schedule that Judge Sullivan had set for the Flynn case. I take it that this was by agreement with Flynn's attorney's--my reasons for believing so should be apparent from Sidney Powell's tweets. However, what I'll do is paste in CTH's copy of the motion as well, because it highlights the most relevant section.

As sundance notes, the most likely conclusion to be drawn is that some issues regarding the Brady material requested by Flynn are addressed in the forthcoming OIG FISA report--which the motion specifically references as a reason to abate the schedule that Judge Sullivan had set. It also seems likely from this that DoJ may have intervened here to suggest this abatement, since one presumes that the USA would not otherwise be aware of the relevance of the OIG FISA report to the Flynn case. I would expect that Judge Sullivan would grant this agreed motion. At this point I won't speculate as to the ramifications of this. You can see from Powell's tweets that she doesn't seem displeased to see Flynn's case formally connected to the various investigations of FBI misconduct by OIG and, by extension, John Durham.

ADDENDUM: Here's my thinking. At a minimum, this delay will allow the judge to make his decision based on much more information about the background to this case than he has at present. Official information, not just assertions in the pleadings of the two parties. IMO, this can only be good for Flynn.

#BREAKING Government filing motion to abate schedule in @GenFlynn case as we await Judge Sullivan's order on our motion for exculpatory evidence & #IGReport #Brady#GovernmentMisconduct@Techno_Fog @SaraCarterDC @ProfMJCleveland @jsolomonReports @seanhannity @LouDobbs

— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) November 26, 2019

If the Court grants the order, the sentencing date will evaporate and we will have time to digest the IGreport and Judge Sullivan's next order.@BarbaraRedgate @SaraCarterDC @seanhannity @JackPosobiec @LouDobbs @jsolomonReports @Techno_Fog pic.twitter.com/OTkBcvqfmC

— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) November 26, 2019

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.

McCarthy: About The "Premise" Of That Investigation ...

Commenter Cassander's prodding reminded me to read Andy McCarthy's latest article--The First Glimpse into Horowitz’s FISA-Abuse Report. I haven't got far into it, but right near the beginning McCarthy really hits the nail right on the head, skewering some of the spin that some of us have been fretting over. McCarthy addresses the business about the "premise" (or "predication") for the FBI investigation that served as the basis for the Carter Page FISA that is the main focus of the OIG FISA report--due out December 9th.

I discussed this at some length earlier today, but McCarthy gets right to the heart of the CNN spin very elegantly and pithily. It's a useful reminder of how we need to focus on key issues in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. After briefly recounting the news, the revelations about disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's bad behavior with other people's emails, McCarthy writes:

UPDATED: What Can We Reasonably Expect From OIG's FISA Report?

I'll admit I was a bit bummed by the end of yesterday. The initial upper of learning that, beyond the obvious misrepresentations in the Carter Page FISA application, OIG determined that an FBI lawyer had actually altered material that was submitted in support of a renewal application was followed by the heavy downer of the NYT's claims that downplayed the overall significance of the OIG report. Although the sources for the NYT story were obviously interested parties, what disturbed me beyond the spin was semi factual assertions such as these (I quote from the WSJ):

The Justice Department's inspector general is expected to conclude there was a proper legal basis for the government's application to monitor a former Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, but that errors and lapses in judgment were made during the process, according to people familiar with the matter.

Now, some of this could be spin. "Errors and lapses in judgment" could be a minimum assessment. If there were proof of motive, those "errors and lapses in judgment" would unquestionably be criminal acts. The problem from a prosecutorial standpoint is establishing the motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Even obvious bias against a political candidate may not be adequate to establish that the bias was itself the motivation that actuated the "errors and lapses in judgment" that led to a FISA warrant. And three FISA renewals. Against a man who has been charged with no crimes.

What were some of these "errors and lapses in judgment"? According to the NYT the report will say that

The paperwork associated with the renewal applications contained information that should have been left out, and vice versa, ...

In other words, errors and lapses of judgment of both omission and commission. Two glaring examples come immediately to mind:

Deep State Spinning?

Sure looks like it. And, to be fair, Republicans are out there spinning, too, about what to expect from the OIG FISA report.

A few days ago John Ratcliffe was saying, Look, it doesn't take 500 pages (the reported length of the report) to say nobody did anything wrong. We've had other conservatives claiming that there will be indictments. And today President Trump said the report will be "historic," the "greatest scandal in history."

Now comes the NYT, to tell us that a low level (former) FBI lawyer is in trouble, but Strzok and Comey and the rest of the gang are gonna skate. That has led to despair in some circles. For example at TGP we read:

The Deep State is leaking and spinning ahead of Michael Horowitz’s much-anticipated report on FISA abuses which is set to be released shortly. 

According to leaks from the New York Times, Horowitz’s report will not condemn former FBI Director James Comey or former counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok. 

Rather, a low-level FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith is facing criminal charges for ‘altering an email’ related to the Carter Page FISA documents. 

Recall, Kevin Clinesmith was one of several FBI lawyers who was previously referred for investigation by the DOJ IG for sending anti-Trump text messages over official FBI phones. 

Mueller fired Clinesmith for his anti-Trump text messages.

Interestingly, it's sundance at CTH who's telling conservatives to just chill. And along the way he provides interesting new details about Clinesmith's email altering activities.

I come down on sundance's side of this--as he says, I think the report will be more than what the NYT is spinning. Sundance begins with a programmatic passage (italicized portions are from the NYT article):

FISA Report: "It's Historic!"

That's what President Trump says he's "been told" about the forthcoming OIG FISA report. Who told him that? Presumably that's what Bill Barr told him, when Barr and White House Counsel Pat Cippolone met with Trump recently in the Oval Office. Recall that the conversation, as viewed through the windows, appeared to be "animated," and Trump delayed his flight to Louisiana by 45 minutes. Historic, never been anything like this before, gonna be criminal charges, the leak about the FBI lawyer is the tip of the iceberg. Trump was saying all this.

More highlights:

Also: Barr is a "great attorney general, we maybe woulda ended this thing long ago if he'd been in there." This was "an overthrow attempt of the presidency."

"Durham will be coming out" shortly after OIG's FISA report.

Does the criminality go all the way to the Oval Office? To Obama?

How high did it go? "Personally I think it went all the way. Because for Brennan and Clapper and all those losers over there, for them to be doing things, let's see what it all says, it's impossible, Susan Rice, ... No, I think this went to the highest levels, I hate to say this, I think it's a disgrace, they thought I was gonna win and they said, How can we stop him? They wrote up the phony, the fake dossier, the disgusting fake dossier, and they tried to have it put out prior to the election."

Like any Trump interview, it's hard to follow a single thread for long, but you get the picture. I don't think he's overselling this.

Did The FBI Lawyer Who Altered A Doc Work For Strzok?

This morning Fox has its story about the former FBI lawyer--"forced out of the bureau"--who "altered" a document relating to the Carter Page FISA. There are two significant paragraphs in the Fox story--Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection--that contain tantalizing information:

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which was related to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign. 

Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.

Of course lots of people working Counterintelligence (CI) at FBIHQ would be "underneath" Strzok. However, I doubt that very many FBI lawyers at that level would have been that involved with the Carter Page FISA, so that leads to the suspicion that the misrepresentations to DoJ were made with Strzok's knowledge--possibly even at his request. There can be no doubt that Horowitz pursued that angle and that Durham will continue to press the issue if it hasn't already been resolved. Who else knew besides the lawyer? Surely more than just that lawyer pored over the original documentation that was supposed to provide probably cause against Carter Page (which is required for a FISA against a US person).

The other item of interest confirms my doubt that an original investigative case file document had been altered. It sounds like the lawyer made verbal representations to DoJ and then "altered an email" to corroborate the verbal representations. Again, how would that work? Probably the lawyer who claimed to have an email to support the claimed version of events (a surveillance matter) said he/she would forward the substantiation. But, rather than forwarding the entire email simply "quoted" it--an edited, altered, quote.

Again, we'll be learning more.

An additional point. Sidney Powell, lawyer for Michael Flynn, follows all these developments closely. She will be sure to include reference to this matter in countering government claims that she has "no reason to doubt" their representations regarding the Flynn 302 that was created by Strzok, probably in cooperation with others at the FBI.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: CNN Claims FBI Official Under Criminal Investigation Re Page FISA

See bottom for additional UPDATES.

UPDATE: CNN has updated their reporting. The "FBI official" is now reported to be a "former FBI lawyer," so I've changed the body of the blog. See bottom for additional UPDATES.

Further, we learn:

During one of interviews this year, [OIG] confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said. 

The lawyer, who was a line attorney, is no longer working at the bureau, said a person familiar with the matter. A line attorney is a lower level lawyer within the FBI. 

No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.

But Durham is on the case. The fact that this was a "lower level lawyer" strengthens my belief that this is probably a misrepresentation rather than a physical alteration. Nevertheless, since the FISA in question concerned unquestionably the most consequential case in Bureau history, I refuse to believe that a "lower level lawyer" just did this on their own account--whether it was a misrepresentation or a physical alteration. Durham must be pushing to find out who's behind this. Also, while this lawyer is no longer working at the Bureau, the fact that he/she was interviewed by OIG makes it a near certainty that he/she was still employed when the interview took place.

Now begins the original blog:

---------------------------------

It's difficult, well, not possible, to be sure what's being said in this CNN story: FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe. On the face of it, it seems clear enough, but as soon as you start asking questions it becomes more elusive.

Here are the main factual statements:

A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN. 

... 

It's unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI's investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

There are multiple ways to explain this, so I'll try to keep this simple.

UPDATED: Dumb Strzok

As nearly as I can tell, Mark Steyn coined that moniker, but it's being used with new verve as people read the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report on Peter Strzok. The OPR report was released in connection with Strzok's wrongful termination lawsuit.

Much of the report simply goes over details that are now well known. The report confirms that Strzok and Lisa Page were reprehensible individuals who applied different standards to themselves while they investigated others (notably, Hillary Clinton) for doing essentially the same things they did on a daily basis.

It's important to note that the OPR investigation did not deal with the whole issue of FISA--we'll be seeing OIG's report on that within about two weeks. Strzok and Page should figure into OIG's FISA report, although probably not to the same extent as people higher up the chain of command.

To me the one aspect of the report that may have significance for the Barr/Durham investigation is the portion of the report that deals with Strzok's Dereliction of Supervisory Duty. That has to do with Strzok's failure to conduct appropriate investigation in the Clinton email case after the NY FBI (NYO) came into possession of the Weiner laptop, containing hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails.

OPR found that Strzok's explanations simply didn't wash. Those explanations come under five of headings:

1) NYO's delay in processing the laptop 

2) A lack of specific Information about what the NYO had discovered on the laptop 

3) A belief that the laptop did not contain significant new information 

4) The team's focus on the Russia investigation 

5) Legal impediments to reviewing the material on the laptop

OPR dismisses all the supposed legal objections as lacking in substance--in fact, they are excuses rather than reasons. The whole point is that Strzok should have acted immediately to obtain a search warrant for the laptop--but didn't. Had he acted promptly the FBI would have been ready to review the material as the NYO completed processing it and would have been in a position to know exactly what had been discovered. The suggestion that he believed the laptop contained no significant new information is obviously absurd, although it does play into Comey's dismissal of Clinton's criminal behavior as "extremely careless."

A reading of the report shows that Strzok's real reason was #4--he regarded the new emails as just another "lead" to be disposed of, probably sometime in 2017, i.e., after Clinton's election. He explicitly states that the "Russia" investigation--which is to say, the Trump investigation, the investigation of the man he elsewhere texted that the FBI would prevent from becoming president--was much more important.

This determination factors into 1) the unwarranted acceptance of the Steele "dossier" as predication for a full CI investigation as well as 2) the determination to focus on the new Trump administration. It goes toward proving that the investigations of Trump and his associates were based on bias and, significantly, led both to certain concrete investigative steps being taken as well as steps not being taken. This could factor into the larger conspiracy theory.

One other matter that I found remarkable. Comey, in footnote #26, states that in retrospect maybe he should have had two separate investigative teams rather than combining the Hillary email and "Russia" investigations on one team under Strzok.

Coming from a highly experienced prosecutor that's dumbfounding. I certainly hope Barr/Durham are paying attention to that and conducting interviews about that decision. Because it stinks.

UPDATE: Since we're on the topic of the Clinton emails, here's a link to an interview with Senator Ron Johnson. At the 1:45 mark Johnson states that his committee had been investigating the Clinton emails but "pretty much dropped it after the election, pretty much at the direction of President Trump, because he said, 'we don't prosecute people that we beat in elections.'"

Sen. Ron Johnson: "INDICATION" that "A NUMBER OF HIGH LEVEL FBI OFFICIALS" held Offsite Meetings

Confirmed: FISA Report Release 'Imminent'

Per The Hill and numerous other outlets yesterday afternoon:

Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec confirmed to The Hill that Barr had been asked about Inspector General Michael Horowitz's probe into the warrant to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during a press conference in Memphis, Tenn.

"It's my understanding that it is imminent," Barr said. "A number of people who are mentioned in the report are having an opportunity to right now to comment on how they're quoted in the report, and after that process is over — it should be very short — the report will be issued." 

... 

Republican senators have also indicated that the report could be coming soon.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted on Tuesday that it might come out "next week when they said it would."

 "Next week when they said it would." IOW, agree with him or disagree with him, but Barr is a man of his word. He means what he says and says what he means.