Bull Durham v. Marc Elias?

Breitbart has a report concerning Dem top election law attorney Marc Elias. Elias is leaving his long time firm of Perkins Coie, taking with him 11 partners and some other lawyers to start a new election law firm:

Democrat Election Lawyer, Russia Hoaxer Marc Elias Leaves Perkins Coie Ahead of Durham Report

The article is very worthwhile as a refresher on Elias' involvement in the Russia Hoax. It also goes into Elias' background as one of the very top lawyers for the Dems--which means, for the Clinton organization.

For our purposes the important point is that Elias was the person who arranged for the Clinton Campaign to hire Fusion GPS to do opposition research, while funneling payments to Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie. My understanding--subject to correction--is that such an arrangement would have been in violation of election laws.

Fusion, in turn, hired Christopher Steele, the British former MI6 agent who wrote the fictional "Steele Dossier" that ultimately ended up being delivered to the FBI in Fall of 2016. This "dossier" served as the basis for the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation. I say that, even though the attempt has been made to conceal that by claiming that Crossfire Hurricane was predicated on George Papadopoulos' conversations with Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer.

For the last few weeks we've been treated to articles claiming that Durham's investigation is drawing to a close. Durham's investigation is said to have focused on the origins of Crossfire Hurricane and the possibility that non-government actors may have provided the FBI with false information. That appears to be a broad hint that Durham has been investigating the roles played in the Russia Hoax by key Dem operatives: Fusion GPS and its head, Glenn Simpson (also other Fusion employees such as Nellie Ohr); Marc Elias; and Michael Sussmann--a key Clinton lawyer who personally delivered the "dossier" to the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker.

A Durham Sighting?

The WSJ has an article out today that brings us--sort of--up to date on the Bull Durham investigation--or whatever it is he's doing--into the Russia Hoax. You can read the whole article here, courtesy of Mike Sylwester:

Durham Probe of What Sparked Russia Investigation Examines FBI Tipsters

The special counsel is expected to submit a final report in the coming months

Some explanation or translation is called for. "Russia Investigation" means "Crossfire Hurricane," which means the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump. "FBI Tipsters" means non-FBI persons who tried to instigate the FBI investigation of Trump--or, maybe, that means something like, people who provided the FBI with cover for their investigation. Hey, YMMV.

You can also read Techno Fog's commentary on this article:

SWC Re The Whitmer Case

Shipwreckedcrew has a lengthy series of tweets on the Whitmer kidnapping case--or whatever it was. I'll select a few of his tweets, because he has a particular axe to grind, but you can read the entire unrolled thread here.

One of SWC's major points is that the entire case was what he calls a "confederacy of dunces". I certainly won't dispute that. What he focuses on in that respect is that the indictment is significantly flawed in an important respect: 

The indictment lists 16 overt acts to further the kidnapping conspiracy, between June 6 and October 7. However, the FBI's main informant has stated that there was no agreement on what crime to commit before August 9. The point is this: six of the overt acts alleged in the indictment to be in furtherance of the kidnapping conspiracy occurred before August 9. That means those six acts--supposedly in furtherance of a conspiracy--occurred before there was any conspiracy! How can anyone act in furtherance of a conspiracy before there's a conspiracy?

I'll accept SWC's contention that that's a problem, and that it probably points to bigger problems down the road. All that is fine. However, SWC's major target is this--he wants to argue that, because the case was a trainwreck from a legal standpoint, there cannot be any connection between the Michigan case and the January 6 Event. My contention is not that there ever was such a connection--we can't know that at this point, despite suggestive connections of some of the players. Rather, I contend that the fact that the case was a trainwreck doesn't mean there wasn't any connection between the two cases. By the same token that we don't have the facts to actually prove a connection, neither do we have the facts that would disprove the connection. Why is it so hard for SWC to simply admit that?

So, he writes:

Class, Influence, Power

Today's news features multiple stories that reveal the structure of the international--but mostly US based--Power Elite. It's an establishment that includes Deep State elements of government--intel, military--as well as the indispensable financial underpinnings that are increasingly concentrated in Big Pharma and Big Tech. The links below feature many different angles, but above all the fear of the Orange Man and the populist movement that propelled him to the White House.

Here we go.

Victor Davis Hanson gets the ball rolling by addressing Class, and what it means for politics in the US. The Elite Class has every reason to be concerned about developments in American politics.

Remember Alfa Bank?

Anyone might be forgiven for imagining that the Russia Hoax is over and done with. But it's not. And Techno Fog has a very interesting article to remind us of that fact. As you may recall, during the final month or two of the 2016 election campaign, outlandish accusations were leveled against Alfa Bank. The basic idea was that a Russian bank, Alfa Bank, was laundering money on behalf of Donald Trump, money that the Putin regime was paying Trump as their supposed agent. These outlandish accusations came from the Hillary campaign and its oppo research branch--in other words, Fusion GPS (remember?), Glenn Simpson, and shady Clinton campaign lawyers.

The whole story quickly collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity, after a brief flurry of excitement ginned up in the Dem media proxy outlets. Even oppo research stories require some minimal factual content, and this story lacked the bare minimum. Apparently the Clinton campaign thought the whole thing would be water over the dam, but Alfa bank had other ideas. They sued, and Techno Fog brings us up to date:

Why is a Fusion GPS attorney risking sanctions?

Fusion GPS appears desperate to settle a potentially catastrophic case.

First, some minimal background:

SWC Having Rough Day Re Carter Page

Actually, Shipwreckedcrew is having a fairly rough day overall--despite a fine article dissecting Merrick Garland's efforts to intimidate the Arizona senate. My takeaway from one is that Garland could be facing some significantly rough sledding. SWC himself points out that Garland, in his letter to AZ, misrepresented the law. And Mark Brnovich, AZ AG, made it clear in so many words, that AZ is "not amused by the DoJ's posturing.

Ultimately, SWC concludes:

That [Brnovich's response] seems to be a “line in the sand” and an invitation to DOJ to come into Arizona for a little exercise in lawfare over the issue of Arizona’s conduct of elections.

There is no question that Garland made it clear the Biden Department of Justice is going to take up the cause of the Democrat Party in pursuing electoral advantages through the courts.

If not for Pres. Trump’s ability to get dozens of new Appeals Court Justices nominated, and Mitch McConnell’s ability to get those nominees through the Senate, the very existence of the GOP as a viable political entity could have been at risk.

Things have gone downhill from there for SWC. He engaged in a long and abusive exchange with Julie Kelly, before ultimately--after much name calling on his part--having to admit that he had misrepresented what Kelly had written. Ouch!

At the same time, however, he was engaging in another flame war with regard to the Carter Page FISA--and once again demonstrating less than a full grasp of the facts. In what follows I've omitted most Twitter headers.

It started with a fairly tame tweet by Lee Smith (I couldn't see where it was coming from):

He means I believe that Page’s history as a USG informant was erased by an FBI official. The point is not about the Page FISA but rather that the laws and regulations that should be observed are no longer observed by the agencies involved. twitter.com/shipwreckedcre…

SWC immediately launched on an unwise course that--for reasons best known to himself--he has been pursuing for some time: defending the FBI's institutional conduct in the Russia Hoax, writing it off to the incompetence of isolated individuals. And accompanying it with slurs that he's not going to be able to back up. So, he writes:

[Page's history as a USG informant] wasn't erased. It was considered and then dismissed BY ONE AGENT as being untimely.  It only took that one agent to leave it out of the FISA application. The people who reviewed the application had no idea Page had provided information to the CIA -- until Page went public.

Concluding that "laws and regulations ... are no longer observed" because one agent looked at the information from the CIA and said "outdated" is unreasonable and silly.

The big problems are in the first paragraph. Carter Page was a long time CIA asset--up until 2013. At that time--and this is me telling you how these things work--the FBI became aware of a possible case with Russian officials in New York and wanted to use Page against those officials. The way this would have worked would have been like this: The FBI--through standard FISA coverage of the Russian officials--learned that Page was in touch with those officials to one extent or another. When they contacted Page, Page told them he was working with the CIA--we know this from FBI records. The two agencies coordinated, and because of the possibility that the FBI could make a big case against Russians--any criminal case against foreign officials is huge--and because Page was a relatively minor asset for the CIA, the FBI took over with Page. The transition was basically seamless. That also means that Page was an asset or informant of some sort for the FBI, and had a file opened on him. He was in the system, along with his background.

As things developed, this worked out great for the FBI. They made their case, they arrested the Russians, and they told Page to stand by in case he was needed as a witness. That continued up until shortly before Page joined the Trump campaign. Shortly before that event Page took it upon himself to inform Russian officials that he was, in fact, working for the FBI and had been helping the FBI in the case described above. The FBI was understandably outraged--possibly especially so because this may have compromised sensitive investigative techniques.

However, the main point in this is that, as I've been long maintaining, this case was so huge in the big picture of US-Russian relations that there was simply no way that the top most levels of the FBI would not have been following the case closely and probably knew who Page was by name. They would have been briefing the White House on the case--it was a major feather in the cap for the FBI and then Page possibly threatened it.

What happened next is that FBI New York immediately hit the ceiling and began looking for ways to make Page pay a price for what he had done. They opened a counterintelligence case on Page and began exploring the possibility of obtaining a FISA on Page. Those discussions involved none other than Peter Strzok, but in the event no FISA was obtained until the Fall of 2016.

But then, shortly after all that hit the fan, Page joined the Trump campaign. Now, if Mcabe and Comey didn't know Page's name and his role in the New York case before, they sure did then. Comey was telling AG Lynch about Page, who in the FBI would have failed to brief him on Page?

That's the picture to keep in mind as SWC goes to war with one and all. Various persons challenged SWC on his take, defending the Russia Hoax as the fault of ONE AGENT:

Vidkun Quisling: Stop Calling Me A Barr!

Ha! I wish I could take credit for that, but I ripped off Don Surber. Hey, no shame in that, right? (For the younger generation: Quisling)

Anyway, H/T to my Dutch friend. This is self explanatory:

Tony Shaffer told me that Bill Barr called him personally and asked him to stop investigating 2020 election fraud.

Have you ever heard of an AG calling a private citizen and asking them to quit looking into something?!

Here's the full video 👇https://t.co/XrZqopyTen pic.twitter.com/4CJn79PJCW

— Chase Geiser (@realchasegeiser) May 28, 2021

Now, in fairness, what's actually said in the short video clip is that Bluto told Tony to turn everything over to the FBI. At least that's Shaffer's version. Implicit in that, of course, is the idea that, Hey, Tony my friend, back off and let the Bureau handle this! We'll handle this! 

As a follow on to the Covid post from yesterday, In Case You Had Any Doubts, do yourself a favor and read this Zerohedge piece that Ray SoCal linked in a comment. It works from a long article by another Nick Wade type guy--IOW, another former NYT guy (Michael Capuzzo) who's late to the game but does a good job documenting what's happened and is still going on--this time re the US Government's attempt to suppress Ivermectin--a drug that won its inventor the Nobel Prize and is one of the safest most widely effective drugs in the world:

"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author

The hope is that, with the imprimatur of an honest to God MSM journalist, this story will now get the attention it deserves and will make others feel empowered to dig deeper.

Bull Who?

A strong indicator emerges that the Bull Durham "investigation" into the Russia Hoax really was just Bull Sh*t. The Washington Times looked into the DoJ expenditures report for the fake investigation (released Friday), and came up with this:

Durham reportedly spent just $1.5m during first six months of Trump-Russia FBI probe

Figure is allegedly less than 25% of what Robert Mueller spent during similar timeframe.

Obviously Bluto Barr, disgraced former AG, understood what was going on--essentially nothing. He's not stupid. He knew then, he knows now. And yet has the effrontery to appear in public and comment on the state of the republic.

Per the Washington Times:

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.

For Russia Hoax Junkies

Can't get enough Russia Hoax? Suffering withdrawal symptoms? Aaron Maté has fix for you. His article yesterday at Real Clear Investigations details an interview with Konstantin Kilimnik, "the man cast as a linchpin of debunked Trump-Russia collusion theories":

Accused Russiagate 'Spy' Kilimnik Speaks -- and Evidence Backs His 'No Collusion' Account

Kilimnik

is breaking his silence to vigorously dispute the U.S. government’s effort to brand him a Russian spy and put him behind bars.

In an exclusive interview with RealClearInvestigations, Konstantin Kilimnik stated, "I have no relationship whatsoever to any intelligence services, be they Russian or Ukrainian or American, or anyone else."

Kilimnik, a longtime employee of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, spoke out in response to an explosive Treasury Department statement declaring that he had "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy" during the 2016 election.

Obviously, I'm not in a position to pass judgment on whether or not Kilimnik has "no relationship whatsoever to any intelligence services". Beyond formalities, sometimes such a relationship is in the eyes of the beholder--in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, Kilimnik does "vigorously dispute" what little evidence the US Government claims fed into the judgment that he's a "Russian spy". Some of that evidence, while not exactly open source, seems distinctly non-sensitive. If the US government wished to expose Kilimnik as a fraud in that regard, it is in a position to easily do so.

The Russia Hoax In Tweets

It's interesting that the Russia Hoax is getting attention again, with liberals starting to admit that, yeah, it really was all bullsh*t. Part of that is a result of the new book out by Barry Meier that exposes lots about the the private intel business--and the Steele/Fusion GPS op in particular. I'm presenting a series of self explanatory tweets below. The common theme for most of them is the importance of the January 6, 2017, ICA. That's correct in the important sense that the ICA was a major factor in allowing the media to talk freely about the hoax. 

One area concerning which I disagree with McIntyre, however, is his contention that the "Carter Page FISA has been Look Squirrel distraction." Here's how that works. Without the Steele "dossier" there's no Crossfire Hurricane. Forget about Downer and Papadopoulos. That would've gone nowhere in an investigative sense on its own. Crossfire Hurricane needed a FISA to have any real credibility as an investigation, and the Carter Page FISA obviously provided that part of the hoax story--something that Papadopoulos couldn't do for CH. Here's the important point--without CH and the FISA you get NO TEAM MUELLER. For a Special Counsel you need allegations of criminal wrongdoing (which you also need for the USPER FISA). Think about it. Exactly what would the media have talked about for years on end with only the ICA and no Mueller?

Each played a role. Each was important. The ICA is A key, but not simply THE key. Now the tweets:

UPDATED: Tick Tocking The Russia Hoax

Hans Mahncke and Fool Nelson are tick tocking the Russia Hoax. Here's from Mahncke's twitter feed:

Hans Mahncke Retweeted

FOOL NELSON

@FOOL_NELSON

·

1h

Replying to 

@BlackJackBoGre1

 and 

@HansMahncke

Couldn't say, kinda just stumbled behind a curtain accidently.

Hans Mahncke

@HansMahncke

·

1h

Everyone hates Hannity ticktock and this is not it. The gist of the scoop is that someone who no one in this corner has ever heard of has been quietly working in the background. That person doesn’t know we know and we won’t spoil the surprise. Nothing to do with Durham.

·

2h

.

@Fool_Nelson and I (mainly Fool) have a huge new Russiagate scoop. Someone who really deserves it is in for a very bad surprise. Won’t share details because it needs to stay a surprise but we wanted everyone in this corner who is waiting for justice know that there’s some hope.



Hans Mahncke

@HansMahncke

·

4h

The fact that it's taking this long means one of two things. Durham is going to take people down or he's running out the clock for those same people. 

Anything less than a McCabe indictment–at a minimum for setting up the ICA part of the coup–must be considered a giant failure.

Well, I can certainly buy into that.

UPDATE:

"We had one of the largest frauds and injustices in American history conducted during the 2016 election by the Justice Department and the FBI right in the middle of it."

This is from not even a year ago. And then he just dropped the ball. Who got to Barr?pic.twitter.com/9hvs0CVWNd

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 17, 2021

Lee Smith On Russiagate As An Operational Model For The Left

Author and investigative reporter Lee Smith has a new article at The Epoch Times, in which he analyzes the never ending Russia Hoax as the "operational model" for the Left's continuing assault on our constitutional order. The article is behind a subscription (but non-pay) wall here:

Russiagate the Model

Smith begins by noting the disastrous consequences of the Barr/Durham failure to hold the Deep State to account for the Russia Hoax. Of course, we now know that that failure of responsibility ran even deeper, to include the failure to address Leftist street violence and the assault on our electoral system:

Because former Attorney General William Barr failed to hold anyone accountable for the Democratic Party and FBI’s dirty tricks campaign against Donald Trump, Russiagate lives on. Indeed, recent news reports show that it’s become the operational model that the party and its partners in the spy services and media will continue to use against their adversaries.

The consequences are certain to be catastrophic, for setting intelligence operatives loose on one half of America cannot help but further fracture the country’s domestic peace.

From that beginning Smith moves on to the Zhou regime's alarming plans to use private contractors to conduct domestic spying on US citizens and the continuing efforts to frame Trump associates like Rudy Giuliani and Ron Johnson. Smith connects the subcontracted domestic spying to the origins of the Russia Hoax, in which the Hillary campaign paid Fusion GPS to come up with the Russia Hoax narrative and then seed that narrative not only to the MSM but also to the US Intelligence Community. Alarmingly, that is now the plan, the "operational model", for what the Zhou regime is seeking to do to counter all domestic dissent--now reclassified, as Smith notes--as domestic "terrorists":

The Inter-Agency Attack On Ron Johnson

Over the weekend there was plenty of discussion about the WaPo hit piece on Rudy Giuliani--and incidentally, or so it seemed, on Senator Ron Johnson. We knew there was more to this story--that much was obvious. The question was whether any more would come out. That question is answered, partially, by Christopher Bedford  in a must read article today:

FBI’s Failed Ron Johnson Set-Up A Case Study In How Agencies Use Corrupt Reporters To Peddle Lies, Hurt Their American Enemies

For years now, a number of the country's most prominent publications have assumed the groveling role of palace guards for the state and its friends in Congress.

I urge you to read the entire article, which shows the WaPo working hand in glove with the Zhou regime's intel agencies. Here, however, are some key passages. It seems--are you sitting down for this?--that the WaPo didn't publish everything that Ron Johnson told them about the FBI "defensive briefing". Naturally nobody expects a newspaper article to simply be a transcript, unless it presents itself as an interview. However, in these cases, these omitted portions were extremely important and were major parts of the story--the story could not be understood without them. The statements by Senator Johnson are taken from a letter he wrote to the WaPo after their article was published.

In these excerpts, Bedford begins with a point I made that should be obvious even to WaPo reporters: the Russians always seek to influence powerful and/or influential persons. But it's not just the Russians. We do it, too--of course. In fact, it isn't just intelligence operatives in a formal sense. Diplomats from every country on earth seek to influence powerful people from other nations--especially important nations. Our allies seek to influence us in this way, too, to convert us to see world affairs from their standpoint, to possibly alter our own policies. Do we stop talking to them? How stupid would that be? Such influence efforts are no ipso facto "disinformation campaigns." We can actually learn from the views of other countries. We'd be pretty stupid if we stopped listening to Russian representatives--but the Inter Agency wants the public to think that such basic responsible governance is somehow treasonous without any further consideration:

Gullibility: Its Dangers And Uses

The biggest advantage the Dems have is a base of low information, highly suggestible voters: The Gullibles. This is a category that cuts a wide swath across the general population. The Gullibles are people who are disposed to replace the hard work of analyzing facts with the relatively easy and self-satisfying ego trip of imposing an ideological narrative upon reality.

We could go on and on about the openness of The Gullibles to one hoax after another, but two relatively brief items illustrate the uses and dangers of gullibility for the Dems.

The first I found in a much longer post by Steve Hayward, which contains many interesting charts and graphs. However, this graph jumped out at me as encapsulating gullibility in our age of Covid:

That's pretty stunning, considering how dodgy Fauci's record has been over the decades. These results scream "gullible."

Briefly Noted: Not Everyone In The FBI Was Nuts

But they were afraid to speak truth to power. So to speak. Plenty of people in the Bureau knew this was complete BS, but they probably understood at some point that this was being driven from the top--that nothing they might say would make a difference. Check this out--Brian Auten was, AND STILL IS, the supervisory analyst who was in on all aspects of Crossfire Hurricane:

I totally missed these texts last October. There are some details that were missed (or not commented on) by Flynn's lawyers. "Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic". Brian in this context is almost certainly Brian Auten. pic.twitter.com/PxDLAp6CC9

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) April 21, 2021

In Bull Durham News

You've probably seen some of the stories that are floating around about Bull Durham. He's issuing subpoena's to Brookings--OMG! He's suspicious about the FBI's turning a blind eye to Chris Steele's use of Igor Danchenko as a primary source--Holy Cow!

If this excites you, I recommend Shipwreckedcrew's article:

Russian Hoax Prosecutor John Durham Issues Subpoena to Democrat Party Think Tank "Brookings Institute"

For my money, I'm still not impressed. SWC notes--way at the end of his article:

The continued use of information from Danchenko has always been a huge “red-flag” problem in my review of the FBI’s conduct.  There was simply too much information known to the FBI by December 2016 and January 2017 to press forward with the investigation while continuing to rely on earlier judgments that there was some substance to the Russia Hoax allegations.

Guess what? That information was also known to IG Michael Horowitz very early on in his investigation. Did Horowitz really just sit on that information until his report came out in December, 2019--no heads up to Bull Durham or Bluto Barr? I find that hard to believe. Anyway, what stood in the way of the incredibly competent and legendarily aggressive Dynamic Duo finding out that really basic information on their own? Nothing that I can think of. For example, couldn't they have asked Kevin Clinesmith about sources for the Dossier? Or any of several other FBI employees? And yet ...

Durham didn't issue a subpoena to Danchenko's employer, the Brookings Institute, until ... December 2020? A year after Horowitz's report came out? Puh-leeze! Look--if that had been my case I would have served Brookings with a subpoena for all documentation regarding Danchenko the day after I found out he was Steele's source--maybe even the same day. From where I'm sitting, none of this passes the sniff test. Were they investigating or were they not? What's so hard about issuing subpoenas for documents? Delays due to Covid? What BS. And now SWC thinks that Durham will try to flip Danchenko? Sounds to me that, now, in 2021, Durham is just getting started. So what was all the BS Barr was putting out about the supposed investigation?

ADDENDUM: Yeah, I can see this:

a wise and disturbing comment. Except that it's not only possible but likely that they make a soft deal with Danchenko which requires him to be quiet. Avoids a trial, avoids disclosure and everything ends up concealed. https://t.co/mtGnJuZ9B5

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) April 13, 2021

Also this:

Danchenko is a red herring. The Dossier was Glenn Simpson's idea, not Steele, not Igor. Simpson and Fritsch pitched the entire concept to Marc Elias in March, months before anyone "knew" "Russia" had "hacked the DNC". That's the important point.https://t.co/swAukSZHWN

— Ombudsman4Truth (@ombudsman4truth) April 12, 2021

It's just so hard for me to believe at this point that Durham is really trying to get the big story out. We all know what it was about, and it's taken Durham over a year to get just very, very basic records? C'mon, man!

Brian Auten And The Russia Hoax Big Picture

Paul Sperry--banned for life from Twitter--has a terrific investigative article today that goes into just about anything you'd like to know about current high level FBI analyst Brian Auten's involvement in the Russian Hoax. Sperry focuses most closely on Auten's involvement with the Steele Dossier:

Meet the Russiagate Prober Who Couldn't Verify Anything in the Steele Dossier Yet Said Nothing for Years

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations

March 30, 2021

I won't attempt to go through the wealth of detail that Sperry has on offer, which is greatly enhanced by his reference to Auten's testimony to Senate Judiciary staffers just last October. Here's a thumbnail summary of what Auten knew no later than January, 2017. In reading what follows, bear in mind that Auten was and is a Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, meaning, he has his own team of analysts at his beck and call:

1. Auten knew that the Steele "dossier" had been funded by the Hillary campaign.

2. Auten knew that nothing--repeat, NOTHING--in the Steele "dossier" that wasn't already public information had been verified or corroborated, despite the representations in that regard that were made to the FISA Court (FISC).

3. Not only that, but Auten knew that Steele was feeding the FBI "bullsh*t" in the "dossier"--supposed facts that Auten was able to debunk. That includes the claim that Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague.

4. Auten would also have been aware of the allegations being made against Carter Page--allegations that were a tissue of falsehoods. I can personally not imagine any scenario in which Auten would have been unaware of the falsity of those allegations--despite his claim that all Crossfire Hurricane investigations were justified. What would you expect him to say, with Carter Page suing?

5. Auten, of course, shared this information with the rest of the Crossfire Hurricane team. He also made no objections when this BS was knowingly submitted--repeatedly--to the FISC as if it were reliable information that satisfied the FISA requirement for probable cause.

But here's the thing. Very little if anything of this is news to investigators. Most of it was known and documented by Michael Horowitz in his FISA Report (Sperry goes into this). Much of it was probably also known by Congressional investigators, despite the best stonewalling efforts of Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray, as described by Kash Patel recently. That Auten hasn't been held to account is an obvious outrage, and so Sperry quotes a pair of former FBI agents:

Compelling Commentary 3/20/21

I can't recommend highly enough Daniel Greenfield's lengthy analysis of the current crisis in our constitutional order--brought on by the Deep State and Prog Left's reckless determination to seize the presidency (h/t Unknown):

There is No Biden Administration

Only an imminent 25th Amendment crisis and soldiers in the streets.

Exactly. That's why I refer to it as the Zhou Baiden regime. It is a regime, but Zhou is a figurehead, so it lacks the coherence to ultimately be effective on the world stage. And it may lost any semblance of coherence on the domestic stage as well. Hubris on the Left.

As I said, Greenfield's piece is lengthy, but it's also a compelling read that delves into the dynamics of the Left's seizure of the Executive Branch: Who's really in charge, what are the competing factions, etc.? Here's just a brief sample:

Briefly: FISA As Deep State Joke; Housekeeping

I'm embedding this excellent and important Maria Bartiromo interview from yesterday. Featured are Devin Nunes and Kash Patel--former federal prosecutor and defender, investigator for Nunes on the HPSCI, NSC official, and most recently a top official at DoD. 

The interview begins with the Clinesmith wrist-slap-a-doodle last Friday. For anyone who was less than appalled by Shipwreckedcrew's ill-informed and frankly absurd gaslighting of that travesty of justice, please listen to this interview. I've made my views known in comments: SWC either doesn't understand or misrepresents the nature of extensions of FISA warrants. Since these extensions authorize the collection of new data 'going forward' they are essentially new warrants--which is why each application for an extension must stand on its own and cannot merely reference the 'original' application. Any mistakes or omissions in the 'original' must be corrected and all new information made known to the FISC. To suggest, as SWC does, that Clinesmith's forgery only affected the final 'extension' but not the 'original' misconceives the nature of the whole process. It also ignores what I've stressed--the nature of Carter Page's probably 10 year long cooperation as an intelligence asset of the US government (both CIA and FBI) was known by all relevant FBI personnel before the 'original' FISA application was submitted. It was not fully disclosed and, in fact, the extent and nature of Page's cooperation was deliberately misrepresented--that was a lie to the FISC.

Now, however, we learn that the FISC--under the direction of John Robert's Obama-judge appointee--is openly in bed with the Russia Hoaxers and the Uniparty Resistance. That's the obvious takeaway from this interview, which gives a frankly dismaying picture of the demise of constitutional order in the United States. Listen and consider what's being said. That FISA has turned out to be a sick Deep State joke perpetrated on the American people and their republic is perhaps the least of what's now known.

One interesting omission from the discussion is the true role played by Bluto Barr and John Durham. It's possible that Maria held back because she's angling to maybe entice Barr to appear on her show. I doubt he'll do it. On that score, I've seen sundance's argument that Barr was an agent of a vast coverup from the beginning. I personally doubt that and believe that he simply blinked when push came to shove. I base that on Barr's public statements going back some years--including before his memo to Rosenstein. It's enough for me to understand that Barr betrayed his own oath of office, and then had the gall to accuse Trump of that offense--on the flimsiest of pretexts. Here's the interview: