Tying Up Loose Russia Hoax Ends?

Lately, the last week or so, it has almost seemed as if the Russia Hoax could disappear from public view, what with all the election related news and--especially--the mind boggling revelations of the Biden Inc. scandal. Nevertheless, I remain confident that the Russia Hoax will come back to take center stage. In fact, some of the latest revelations suggest that Durham may be wrapping the case up, tying up some loose ends in preparation for indictments.

For example, we heard for months about Durham's focus on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the "assessment" that came out in early January, 2017, that set the stage for the continuation of the Russia Hoax and the justification for the Mueller Witchhunt. We've heard repeatedly that veteran CIA analysts believed that there was good reason to question the "assessment" that Putin was backing Trump over Hillary Clinton. And yet, we were told, CIA Director John Brennan ignored his own analysts to and combined with disgraced former FBI Director James Comey to frame a narrative that dominated much of President Trump's first term.

In an article yesterday that was co-authored by John Solomon and Lee Smith--two investigative journalists who have been on this case from the beginning--we learn interesting new information that sheds light on the origins of the entire Russia Hoax narrative. It also explains the reservations that the CIA analysts expressed. Perhaps most importantly, the new documentation shows that Mueller hid this information from public view, by excluding important documents in his possession from his enormous final dossier. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's evidence that Mueller perpetrated a fraud by hiding this evidence:

Or Maybe THIS Is What Lindsey Was Talking About?

Lindsey Graham's office today released an unclassified summary of an FBI Counterintelligence investigation of an individual who was believed to be cooperating with the Russian intelligence services--a Russian 'asset'. It's the kinda stuff that's hard to make up. The Counterintelligence investigation was of Igor Danchenko--Christopher Steele's so-called 'Primary Sub-source (PSS).' The investigation began in 2009 as a Preliminary Investigation, but was upgraded to a Full Investigation. The investigation was closed in 2011. 

When the FBI learned in December, 2016, that Danchenko was Steele's PSS they searched their records and learned about the investigation. In other words, they knew all this when they interviewed Danchenko in late January, 2017, regarding his role in providing material to Steele for the 'dossier.' Danchenko was not questioned about his relationship with the Russian intelligence services at that time, and the FBI continued to claim that Danchenko's 'dossier' material was reliable as they sought three renewals of the Carter Page FISA. They apparently saw no reason to inform the FISA court that the probable cause for Carter Page FISA was heavily based on material provided by a person they suspected of being a Russian spy.

Interestingly, the FBI sought a FISA on Danchenko in the second half of 2010. However, before the FISA could be processed Danchenko left the country. Here's how the investigation was left:

Because the Primary Sub-source had apparently left the United States, the FBI withdrew the FISA application request and closed the investigation. The record documenting the closing of the investigation stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States. 

In other words, as of the last time the FBI was involved with Danchenko before they interviewed him in January, 2017, they believed they had probable cause to believe that Danchenko was an agent of the Russian government--a spy. Apparently the FBI lost track of Danchenko, who later reentered the US. 

The details of the investigation itself aren't terribly important--read them for yourselves. From my perspective Danchenko comes across as rather clumsy and probably not terribly stable--which fits in with what we've heard about him to this point.

The real point is that the FBI knew all this about Danchenko and their own past concerns that he was a Russian spy. They knew this by December, 2016, and knowing this they failed to inform the FISA court and probably also withheld this information from DoJ as well. They should have terminated the Carter Page FISA at that point. Instead, they fraudulently renewed the FISA three times.

I have to say, I'm flabbergasted. 

On the other hand, this certainly looks more and more like Durham has a legitimate shot at proving a big picture conspiracy--a conspiracy on the part of FBI management to defraud the government of the FBI's honest services in furtherance of the attempted political goal of ousting the President of the United States from the office of the presidency on false pretenses through the means of criminal false statements to the FISA court. And they did all this while utilizing material provided by a suspected Russian spy which was known to be unreliable, but which they presented to the court as highly reliable.

Chris Steele: Source From Hell--Or What?

Eric Felten's article today about Russia Hoax fabulist Chris Steele and Steele's FBI handler--Michael Gaeta--is strangely not as thorough as one usually expects from Felten's past work:

Supposedly Reliable Steele Acted 'Crazy,' His FBI Handler Says: 'People's Ears Were Bleeding.'

The article is fine, as far as it goes--Felten concentrates on Gaeta's and the FBI's dismay when Steele turned out to be the source for an article by ueber-sleazy 'journalist' David Corn. Corn's article--A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump--Has the bureau investigated this material?--came out in Mother Jones on October 31, 2016, just a week before the election. Corn's article is, typically, full of innuendo and anonymously sourced characterizations. Coming in the immediate wake of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey's reopening of the Hillary email case, Corn hints at possible negligence on the part of the FBI in not following up on the 'Veteran Spy's' information about supposed Trump - Russia collusion, leading off with a statement by noted champion of bipartisanship, Senator Harry Reid:

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information.”

The FBI was predictably upset that their supposed top source, Steele, was participating in a hit job on the Bureau. Steele's handling agent, Michael Gaeta was dispatched to contact Steele--tellingly, not so much to read Steele the riot act but to find out what had gone wrong. Was it something the FBI had done or neglected to do? Was Steele in a huff about slow payments? Was this payback for the Bureau's slowness?

Did Brennan Run An Anti-Trump Task Force?

For lack of news, Paul Sperry's recent tweet has caused a minor stir on the conservative interwebs:

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_ 

DEVELOPING: Investigators have learned that Obama CIA Director John Brennan ran a secret task force out of Langley with its own separate budget to investigate Trump campaign and alleged ties to Russia. Task force set up before FBI officially launched its own probe on 07/31/16. 

10:17 PM · Sep 7, 2020

I'm skeptical of this tweet--the essential content of which is not new--for several reasons.

The first is that, as stated, the whole idea of a CIA task force targeting a US Person residing within the US for ties to a foreign country is too transparently illegal to be probable. A separate budget for such a task force would merely document the illegality.

Counterintelligence operations inside the US--which is what we're talking about here--are the province of the FBI. Brennan--who is not natively stupid, whatever else you may think of him--would understand the risks and would certainly come up with a workaround. That's not to say that Brennan wasn't involved. It's just that the Langley "task force ... with its own separate budget" is too simple. It's too good to be true, because its discovery would make the coup so easy to prove in the big picture conspiracy sense, but like most things that are too good to be true it most likely isn't.

In response to DJL this morning, I wrote:

Yes. They're probably working off a 2017 article in The Guardian. IMO there are two things--possibly three--at work there: the two, the campaign against Flynn, and Brennan spreading the dossier in DC. The other possibility, the Alfa Bank hoax. I believe that that much is true, but with The Guardian you have to be careful.

So, to repeat, what I think drives this narrative is the notorious article by Luke Harding in The Guardian, dating back to April, 2017 (h/t SWC for the reminder). I do wonder whether this article was not intended as a cover for what was really going on--the centrality of the Steele "dossier" to the entire Russia Hoax. That will be difficult to state with certainty because of redactions in the released documents, but I believe it to be probable:

Jonathan Winer, Chris Steele, Worked For Oleg Deripaska

I think we pretty much knew that Chris Steele had close ties to Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. That was part of Steele's attraction for the FBI. Today Eric Felten has a pretty comprehensive round up of the ties of key figures associated with Steele's hoax "dossier" to "Putin's favorite industrialist": Top Kerry Aide, Key Conduit for Dossier, Once Worked for Russian Oligarch, as Did Steele.

The main focus of the very detailed article, however, is on Jonathan Winer. Felten works off the SSCI report, but I think we can be absolutely certain that John Durham has also been examining Winer's role in the Russia Hoax. It's a good example of the "sprawl" that Durham has had to contend with--in his position he can't afford to leave stones unturned.

Who is Winer?

Winer was for a decade an aide to Sen. John Kerry. From 1994 to 1999 he was a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of State. From government he went to the international lobby and law firm Alston & Bird. Winer moved to APCO Worldwide in 2008, about the time he met Steele, who had just left British intelligence and was setting up his own shop. Winer told the Senate that in his private sector jobs he “was still engaged in various types of Russian representation all over the map.” Pro-Putin, anti-Putin: Winer didn’t care, he told senators: “It was any work that was consistent with their needs and my values.”

"My values." Gotta luv that! What would those values have been? The almighty dollar is my guess.

Winer returned to the State Department during Obama's second term, rejoining Kerry. Here are some of the highlights of Felten's article, to whet your appetite for the whole thing. Note that both Winer and Glenn Simpson of Fusion - GPS may have perjury problems connected with their Senate testimony:

Targeting Trump

Andy McCarthy has a nice overview article of the Russia Hoax this morning. In it he emphasizes something that I also pointed out in a comment yesterday. Here's what I wrote yesterday, edited for clarity outside the context of the original post (Fact Or Fiction?), using brackets to indicate those edits:

It's slightly more complicated than that. Officially, [after the election and inauguration of Trump] [the FBI] still had C[rossfire] H[urricane] open--so there was an official investigation. However, note that CH was the umbrella, and each individual [who was under investigation] had a subfile investigation [in their name or codename]. We've never heard that an investigation of Trump himself was opened under the umbrella of CH--not until McCabe did so after Comey was fired. That means to me that Comey was conducting investigative activity that was specifically targeting Trump without an open and predicated investigation [on Trump himself].

Now, [Comey] would defend [against] that [charge] by claiming that note-taking during or immediately after official conversations is established practice. However, I believe evidence is accumulating to show that much of this activity was intended to instigate or incite statements from Trump that could later be used to trip him up--not simply to document official discussions. Tricky to prove, perhaps, but I believe that's where the evidence points.

What I'm saying is something very simple and basic, but something that many people fail to internalize. A lot of people seem to think that the FBI just goes out and ... investigates stuff. But the FBI is like any other government agency. It is ultimately a creation of Congress (through DoJ, itself a creation of Congress) set up to undertake official government business--not personal or political business. It can only take official action if there is an official reason for taking that particular action--an official action that is sanctioned by laws, regulations, and guidelines. Moreover, that official action has to be documented in official records (which is what Congressional oversight is about). In the case of the FBI, all investigative activity has to be documented to a case file--which presumes, in the first place, that a case file has been opened for a validly articulated official purpose.

Comey, by contrast, was using official FBI resources to engage in activity that appeared to be official business, but for which he had no official reason, basis, or predication. He was, in reality, misappropriating official FBI and government resouces for his own personal and political benefit. That's a fraud against the government, because it defrauds the government of the honest services of its officials--a duty which Comey owed to the government. And Comey, as well as possibly other FBI officials, compounded this offense by creating records of their faux-official activities at least some of which they treated as their own personal records and maintained in what appears to have been a private--i.e., personal--file system. This was done to conceal what they were doing, which was unauthorized by law, regulations, or guidelines.

This is all at the heart of what Durham is investigating. Part of why the Durham investigation is taking so long is because Durham and Barr are dealing with past masters at manipulating the federal bureaucracy for their own interests. Comey--the disgraced former FBI Director--and the rest are adept at concealing the true nature of their activities. Thus, while Comey engaged in blatantly illegal activity but concealed it for many months, others in the conspiracy covered their criminal activity by concealing it under the forms of legality. For example, investigations were opened using official forms--ECs--and claiming official purposes behind them. Only closer inspection reveals the lack of official sanction, and that leaves the investigator with the difficult task of determining the intent behind these actions: were these actions the result of sheer stupidity, a misguided failure to understand the limits of official authority, or real criminal intent? Recent revelations--the Danchenko interview, the Priestap and Strzok notes and memoranda--are so important because they bear on that question of intent.

We'll return to this a bit later, comparing it to what McCarthy says on these points. The comparison will enhance both and add clarity. However ...

What To Take From The Senate's ICA Report

Yesterday during the Dem House's theater of the absurd involving AG Bill Barr, the Senate Intel Committee released a heavily redacted version of their report on the origination of the notorious Obama administration Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian "meddling" in US elections. What this report focuses on is the inclusion of the Steele "dossier" as "Annex A" to the ICA.

I think we can take this report as a starting point for John Durham's investigation--at least as regards the ICA and its relevance to the rest of the Russia Hoax and Mueller witchhunt. We've heard at regular intervals that Durham is very much focused on the ICA, that he has been busily interviewing all the analysts involved, and--most pointedly--that he has been gathering all communications between disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and John Brennan. Naturally, the new revelations surrounding the FBI's three-day interview of Christopher Steele's notional "Primary Subsource", Igor Danchenko, make anything we can glean from this report of special interest.

Here's what struck me in reading even this heavily redacted version. You can assess my impressions while reading the excerpts I provide, below.

1. It's clear that the ICA was special ordered from the highest levels. Obama ordered it, but one assumes that there had to have been high level discussions before the decision was made. Those discussions probably involved both the Obama camp as well as the Clinton camp. After all, the Steele "dossier" was Clinton property--they had contracted for it, paid for it, and had already been putting it to use by the time the ICA was written. Getting it into the ICA, mainstreaming it as somehow an intel product rather than a political campaign product, was a big deal. And that was true no matter what caveats CIA analysts may have added.

2. Despite his testimony to the Senate, it seems clear that Comey was the driving force behind getting the dossier into the ICA. Certainly that comes across as the CIA's  understanding of the dynamics. There are hints that the FBI's Bill Priestap--its top CI official--wasn't totally committed, but Comey and disgraced former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe come across as determined. The question, then, is: Was Comey acting strictly on his own, or was he colluding with political operatives, whether from the Obama or Clinton camps, or both? Durham has surely been exploring that angle.

3. John Brennan comes across as rather clever in pointing the finger at Comey in his Senate testimony. This explains why Durham was so eager to get his hands on communications between Comey and Brennan, rather than having to rely on their testimony. What seems clear to me is that if Brennan had insisted, had really gone to the mat in support of the CIA analysts, the dossier could have been excluded from the ICA. Brennan was positioning himself.

4. While the ICA was presented as the assessment of the Intel Community as a whole, it's more clear than ever from this report that the matter of the dossier was strictly between the FBI and CIA--no other agency was truly involved--and Brennan positioned the FBI to shoulder any responsibility.

5. While the CIA analysts may not have been aware of the political provenance of the dossier material, the people at the FBI pushing for its inclusion in the ICA most certainly were fully aware that this was Clinton campaign material. They were also aware of just how unreliable it probably was and the FBI's failure to vet the material was raised insistently by the CIA analysts. Not only was this political provenance concealed from anyone reading the ICA as well as from the CIA analysts, but the fact that the FBI made no attempt to amend or revise the ICA after the Danchenko interview--just three weeks after the ICA came out--is damning evidence of Comey's conspiratorial intent against the president.

Now, here's the major portion of the redacted version of the report. What I've done is to insert an asterisk "*" to indicate redactions in the selected text. My own insertions are in brackets.

What Kind Of Deal Could Comey Make?

Yesterday, commenting on a fine article by Shipwreckedcrew, I pointed out that in January, 2017, the FBI did two things that tied them firmly to the Steele Dossier:

1) At the beginning of the month they inserted a two page summary of the Dossier as Annex A to the Intel Community Assessment (ICA). This placed an Intel Community seal of approval on the Dossier, and drove all subsequent events in the attempted coup against Trump--especially the institution of the Team Mueller witchhunt. Even though Crossfire Hurricane had supposedly been predicated on the Downer - Papadopoulos bar conversation, the ICA in effect--although not in formal reality--superseded that narrative except for occasional tactical purposes when the Dossier came under fire.

2) Toward the end of the month, following Trump's inauguration, the FBI appears to have made the decision to take over operation of Chris Steele's notional "Primary Subsource" (PSS), Igor Danchenko. The FBI had known Danchenko's identity since before the 2016 election, which means they also knew that he was an employee of the premier Dem thinktank The Brookings Institute--then run by long time Clinton crony Strobe Talbott. Further, the vetting interview with the Washington based Danchenko confirmed definitively what the Bureau would have long suspected--that the Dossier was a hoax concocted by the Clinton campaign's "opposition research" arm (spearheaded by Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS, for which Steele was simply a subcontractor, probably used as a frontman to insulate the US operatives). Danchenko appears to have been unproductive in the role of a FBI source, but this action again tied the FBI closely to the Dossier. They could not disavow the Dossier for purposes of the ongoing FISA operation as long as they were also trying to mine its supposed sources for more "dirt" on Trump.

This all plays into the very recent rumors that Comey has been interviewed by John Durham. I gave it as my view that Comey would never sit for an interview with Durham except as part of a plea agreement. That's simply common sense--there would be no benefit for Comey in submitting to an interview under any other circumstances. If here were called before a GJ he would simply be forced to take the 5th.

Thus, I wrote:

More On What The FBI Primary Subsource Debriefing Documents Mean--Going Forward.

First, to be clear, the FBI memo detailing their debriefing of Christopher Steele's "Primary Subsource," the supposed source of most of what appeared in the Steele "dossier," is only part of what DoJ has released--albeit by far the longest part. There's a good account of the highlights of this document dump here: Senate Republicans release files they say 'undercut' Steele dossier.

Included in that article are comments by Senator Graham--a former prosecutor--that are important for assessing the significance of what we are having confirmed:

Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was “very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents,” and thanked Attorney General Barr. 

“What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page,” Graham said. “Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017.” 

Recall, I recently pointed out that a FISA can--and should--be terminated before it has run its full course if the FBI learns that the information used to obtain the FISA warrant was, in fact, unreliable. Of course, an entire investigation can--and should--be terminated for the same reason. That's exactly what Graham is getting at when he states that the interview of the primary subsource "should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page." That's especially true given that the case against Page was bogus--lacked predication--to begin with. However, there's more to this, because we know that in the real world the true target wasn't Carter Page but Donald Trump. Senator Graham isn't a dummy--he gets that.

Implications Of The 40 Page FBI Memo

Earlier today I wrote a brief post regarding remarks that Lindsey Graham made yesterday in an interview with Trey Gowdy. While the 44 minute interview ranged over a wide variety of topics, what caught the eye/ear of several reporters as well as myself was a brief minute to a minute and a half explanation by Graham of regarding the 40 page FBI writeup of their debriefing of Chris Steele's "subsource," a Russian expat who was claimed by Steele to be the source of all the BS in his "dossier." While Graham's staff has only recently been given access to the actual memo, we've all known from IG Horowitz's FISA Report that the debriefing basically debunked the "dossier" as the basis for the Carter Page FISA and its three renewals--the last of which renewals came after Team Mueller was set up.

What I want to do know is spell out the implications of all this, which will also suggest the significance of the timing of this coming declassification--because I assume (for reasons I'll spell out below) that the declassification will happen.

First, let's simply review what I wrote earlier, including my transcript of the entirety of Graham's brief remarks.

============================

Yesterday Sen. Graham did a 44 minute interview with Trey Gowdy. Among other topics of interest, Graham mentioned that he has finally been able to review a classified FBI memo--40 pages long--that was referenced by IG Horowitz in his FISA report. Graham states that he is working to get that memo declassified.

The memo in question documents the three day debriefing of Christopher Steele's supposed "subsource." The relevant portion of the interview can be found between the 9:50 and 11:15 minute marks. Here is my transcription of that portion:

... I believe that the FBI was on notice that it [the Steele dossier] was unreliable, continued to use it anyway. I believe that they misled the FISA court, and here's the key question. 

On January 21st through the 24th the Russian subsource, the guy who provided ALL the material for the dossier, is interviewed by the FBI for three days. He's interviewed again in March. There's a memo about that interview. Horowitz found it. It was 40 pages. My staff has finally got to look at it--it's classified. I'm gonna try to get it UNclassified. The Horowitz Report suggests that the result of the Russian subsource interview put great doubt into the reliability of the dossier in terms of being able to get a warrant.  

Here's the question. Is it possible that an interview of that magnitude--that basically shredded the key document to get a warrant--that the people at the top, McCabe and Comey, were never told, 'Oh, by the way, our entire case has collapsed.' I'm looking at that.

I believe I can answer that question: No. That's not possible.

=============================

Lindsey Graham Seeking To Declass 40 Page FBI Memo

Yesterday Sen. Graham did a 44 minute interview with Trey Gowdy. Among other topics of interest, Graham mentioned that he has finally been able to review a classified FBI memo--40 pages long--that was referenced by IG Horowitz in his FISA report. Graham states that he is working to get that memo declassified.

The memo in question documents the three day debriefing of Christopher Steele's supposed "subsource." The relevant portion of the interview can be found between the 9:50 and 11:15 minute marks. Here is my transcription of that portion:

... I believe that the FBI was on notice that it [the Steele dossier] was unreliable, continued to use it anyway. I believe that they misled the FISA court, and here's the key question. 

On January 21st through the 24th the Russian subsource, the guy who provided ALL the material for the dossier, is interviewed by the FBI for three days. He's interviewed again in March. There's a memo about that interview. Horowitz found it. It was 40 pages. My staff has finally got to look at it--it's classified. I'm gonna try to get it UNclassified. The Horowitz Report suggests that the result of the Russian subsource interview put great doubt into the reliability of the dossier in terms of being able to get a warrant.  

Here's the question. Is it possible that an interview of that magnitude--that basically shredded the key document to get a warrant--that the people at the top, McCabe and Comey, were never told, 'Oh, by the way, our entire case has collapsed.' I'm looking at that.

I believe I can answer that question: No. That's not possible.

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller comments:

The Justice Department’s office of the inspector general revealed in a report released Dec. 9 that the source, who has not been identified, disputed many of Steele’s allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The source told the FBI that Steele misrepresented or embellished the claims by passing off rumor as fact in the 35 page dossier. The inspector general’s report revealed that the FBI failed to disclose the information in two applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. 

The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s information in applications for the FISAs. The Justice Department deemed two of the four FISA orders against Page to be invalid because of omissions about Steele’s source.

If Graham is stating openly that he's seeking to declassify this memo, I assume he's coordinating those efforts with the Trump administration's ultimate Declassification authority: AG Bill Barr. The existence of this memo is not news to Barr, Durham, or Graham, so the suspicion must be that Barr has decided that the time for declassification is near.

British Court: FBI Knew Steele's 'Ultimate Client' Was Hillary

There's been a story out today about Chris Steele being ordered to pay a relatively modest amount of money to two Russian businessmen for publishing in his dossier statements that were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.” The amount of money involved is only about $22K.

However, of more interest are some of the judge's findings of fact. Here's the most interesting portion, as reported by John Solomon:

The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court.

The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client "is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and 'Democratic Party Associates' but that 'the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.' The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded. 

"I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President." the judge added.

Obviously that's not binding in a US court, but it could prove useful. Especially if Steele were ever required to testify in a US court.

Grennell's Final Declassifications

FoxNews has a story out about formerly Acting DNI Grennell's final declassifications--Grenell declassifies slew of Russia probe files, as Ratcliffe takes helm as DNI. It will now be up to new DNI John Ratcliffe to decide which of the newly declassified documents will be made public. Of course the story leads with what, to my mind, will end up being a non-story--the call transcripts of Kislyak and Flynn. However there is mention of a document that is undoubtedly near the heart of the Durham investigation. It has to do with "manipulation of intelligence," which undoubtedly concerns John Brennan's "shaping" of the ICA, which was the basis for all subsequent coup and fake impeachment efforts. In that case, it's possible that Ratcliffe--undoubtedly in consultation with Barr/Durham--will withhold that document for the time being. As a former USA himself, Ratcliffe will fully understand whatever the dynamics are in that decision:

The documents include transcripts of phone calls that then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak had in December 2016, during the presidential transition period. Grenell said publicly last week that he was in the process of declassifying those files, after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked that he do so. 

Fox News has learned that the declassification review of those transcripts is now complete, and it will be left up to Ratcliffe on whether to release them publicly. 

Fox News has learned that Grenell also completed the declassification review of other documents related to the origins of the Russia probe — including one that a senior intelligence official told Fox News was “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.” 

The official could not provide further details on that newly declassified document, but said that it will also be up to Ratcliffe to decide whether to make it public.

Speaking with Tucker Carlson, FoxNews' Ed Henry focused on the documentation regarding the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), stating that, if some of the other newly declassified documents are released, "it could get sticky for John Brennan in particular, because of some of the other info":

Chris Steele: Hillary Knew, Susan Rice And Victoria Nuland, Too

The Alfa Bank's defamation suit against Christopher Steele continues to bear fruit. John Solomon has an excellent round up of what's been learned from Steele's testimony in depositions:

Steele reveals he believes Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice knew about his anti-Trump research

Rice denies former British spy's account, which comes in a novel litigation by three Russian businessman suing over Britain's data laws.

Importantly, Steele testified that it was his clear impression--based on statements by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS--that he was ultimately working for the Clinton Campaign, no matter what the technicalities of the money being laundered to Fusion GPS through the DNC and the Perkins Coie law firm.

But the bombshell--something I'm sure John Durham is also aware of--is that Steele passed that knowledge about the Clinton sponsorship of the dossier on to the FBI, and Steele kept notes to that effect.

Steele Testified That He Was In Direct Contact With Clinton Lawyers

There's been a bit of a buzz about the tired old Alfa Bank story lately, and tonight The Daily Caller has a lengthy article on the origins of that hoax. Or sub-hoax, if you will.

Dossier Author Christopher Steele Had Previously Undisclosed Meetings With Lawyers For DNC, Clinton Campaign

The Russian Alfa Bank has sued Christopher Steele for defamation, over the September 16, 2016 memo that Steele wrote, which claimed that there was some sort of secret communications channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, routed through Alfa Bank's server. In testimony last month--March 17 and 18--Steele traced the story directly to Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann as well as to the Clinton campaign's opposition research shop, Fusion GPS. Sussmann, of course, is the top Dem election lawyer, lawyer for the DNC, and has been for years. Steele also met personally with Marc Elias, the Clinton campaign's top lawyer, just a week after writing the hoax memo.

In his testimony, Steele explicitly states that the Alfa story was provided to him by Sussmann and that Glenn Simpson, Steele's employer at Fusion GPS, "directed" Steele to write the story up as a report. In other words, Simpson told Steele to frame Sussmann's phony story as an "intelligence" report. The Clinton lawyers and Steele then peddled the story to the FBI, the State Department, and various media outlets. Steele's testimony provides a glimpse of just how directly the Clinton campaign was involved in the production of the dossier--including its content:

What Did The CIA Give The FBI In 2016?

In A Tale Of Three Dossiers I failed to include a major point that Devin Nunes included. Nunes included among the current areas of focus for investigators: What information did the CIA give the FBI in 2016. Here's exactly what Nunes said:

In 2016, we know from great work that Trey Gowdy did at the time … that the CIA gave information over to the FBI in 2016. We now are laser-focused on that. We need to know: Exactly what did the CIA give to the FBI in 2016?

That's it--no other explanation. Fortunately, J. E. Dyer is on the case and, thanks to emailer Todd, I've finally finished reading her lastest. As we'll see, what Nunes said actually ties in to his main point about the Three Dossiers. Here's the link:

Why you should care that Nunes says House intelligence focus is on ‘info CIA gave to FBI in 2016’

The article is long and somewhat complex. Here's what I take to be the 25 words or less (well ...) version of it.

Dyer begins by noting two things that Brennan said in testimony before the House in May, 2017:

I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons…and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation.

...

I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign was shared with the bureau [FBI].

Dyer boils that down to these bullet points:

Brennan stated [that] 

1. he gave information to the FBI about Russia-U.S. person contacts;  

2. [] some of the information involved the Trump campaign;  

3. and [] this information served as the basis for the FBI investigation.

A Tale Of Three Dossiers

A tale of three dossiers--that's what Devin Nunes says the Russia Hoax investigation largely boils down to, and it's hard to disagree with him. Here are the three dossiers, all of which involve, says Nunes, "lots of lies and omissions":

The Steele Dossier - We're familiar with that one, which involved the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS (a sub-set of the Clinton campaign). Nunes says it also involves the FBI, so I'll leave readers to decide how the FBI fits in with the other two. To be fair, I'd very much want to include the CIA in this.

The Brennan Dossier - That would be the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), and is the CIA Dossier par excellence. Says Nunes: "that was the document that said, oh yeah, the Russians were trying to help Trump" and, in doing so, "not only misled Congress but misled the American people

The Mueller Dossier - Popularly known as the "Mueller Report". Also a tissue of "lies and omissions.

Nunes insists that all three must be investigated to get to the bottom of the Russia Hoax, but he also adds that he and others in Congress are focusing currently on "three Russians" or, properly speaking, Russian-Americans.

Nunes didn't name those three and I'm not entirely sure who he's talking about. I can offer two guesses.

One of the Russians might be Anatoli Samochornov, the translator for Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at the famous Trump Tower meeting--Mueller’s hidden evidence: Translator exonerated Don Jr. in Trump Tower meeting:

In Robert Mueller’s final report on the Russia investigation, a little-known translator named Anatoli Samochornov played a bit role, a witness sparsely quoted about the infamous Trump Tower meeting he attended in summer 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a mysterious Russian lawyer. 

The most scintillating information Mueller’s team ascribed to Samochornov in the report was a tidbit suggesting a hint of impropriety: The translator admitted he was offered $90,000 by the Russians to pay his legal bills, if he supported the story of Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskya. He declined. 

But recently released FBI memos show that Samochornov, a translator trusted by the State Department and other federal agencies, provided agents far more information than was quoted by Mueller, nearly all of it exculpatory to the president’s campaign and his eldest son. 

Despite learning the translator's information on July 12, 2017, just a few days after the media reported on the Trump Tower meeting, the FBI would eventually suggest Donald Trump Jr. was lying and that the event could be seminal to Russian election collusion. 

Samochornov’s eyewitness account entirely debunks the media’s narrative, the FBI memos show. 

“Samochornov was not particularly fond of Donald Trump Jr., but stated Donald Trump Jr.’s account with Veselnitskya as portrayed in recent media report, was accurate,” according to the FBI 302 report on its interview of the translator. “Samachornov concurred with Donald Trump Jr.’s accounts of the meeting. He added ‘they’ were telling the truth.”

I for one would certainly like to know what Veselnitskaya's "story" was going to be, if Samochornov knew. I'd also like to question Samochornov about his conversations with the FBI and with the Team Mueller prosecutors--in great detail.

The other Russian who comes to mind is Hank Greenberg, the Russian American FBI asset who approached Michael Caputo and Roger Stone and offered to sell "dirt" on Hillary Clinton--a deal which Caputo and Stone rejected out of hand. That happened in May of 2016, long before Crossfire Hurricane. FBI guidelines require that some sort of case be open before an asset can be used in that way. I'd like to discuss all that with Greenberg.

Who can name the third Russian?

Steele Denies His Dossier Was Bogus

Toward the end of January we ran a short post relating the verdict of well-known Brit "spy expert", Nigel West, regarding the Steele "dossier": NEWSFLASH: Steele Made It All Up! That was West's conclusion--the dossier was "totally fabricated." This past week Orbis Business International, aka Chris Steele, denied that the "dossier" was a total fabrication and claimed, to the contrary, that three individuals---John Sipher, Chuck Rosenburg and Anthony Ferrante--had "confirmed" the dossier. The Gateway Pundit has a nice roundup on the story.

It turns out the three individuals are more or less the usual suspects--well known Deep State actors who have long since either outed themselves or have been exposed by investigative reporters. Of the first two,

John Sipher, was a member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service.  He wrote an article in September 2017 where he claimed the dossier was reliable.

We know that Chuck Rosenburg was disgraced former Jim Comey’s Chief of Staff.

The third person, former FBI agent Anthony Ferrante, was exposed in an excellent investigative article by Paul Sperry, which we covered in Sperry's OIG Bombshell: Comey Targeted Trump. At that time, July of 2019, Sperry reported that Ferrante--who had been detailed to the NSC essentially as Comey's spy within the White House--left the FBI in April, 2017, and

"contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site's efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit."

In other words, BuzzFeed paid Ferrante to say that the Steele "dossier" was legit because BuzzFeed was being sued for having published it. BuzzFeed paid to rent Ferrante's supposed credibility as a former FBI agent.

What's new is that Chuck Ross quickly responded to Orbis' self serving tweets with this:

Chris Steele's firm published a letter to the editor suggesting that ex-FBI official Anthony Ferrante had validated the dossier. 

The firm did not disclose that a.) Ferrante did not validate the dossier, and b.) BuzzFeed paid Ferrante $4 million to try to do so. pic.twitter.com/YeBnHXNZVG 

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) February 25, 2020

I assume that Durham is checking all of this out, too.

Documentation That Bruce Ohr Was Pushing The Steele Dossier

We all know Bruce Ohr's story--Hey, I told the FBI this Steele "dossier" thing was unverified, that Steele had strong political motives, and all that. I was just a conduit of information. It was the FBI that ran with it.

It was always a very unlikely story, but Jeff Carlson has done the digging in the Horowtiz Dossier and has come up with documentation that Bruce Ohr contacted Steele's handler, Michael Gaeta (ak "Handling Agent 1"), within days of Ohr handing the "dossier" to McCabe and Lisa Page, to find out whether the FBI was doing anything with the Steele nonsense. Ohr had regular contact with the top levels of FBI management right there in DC--he didn't need to ask the Bureau's guy in Rome about that. Except that he probably wanted to pretend to be dealing at arms length with FBIHQ.

1) P. 99 of IG Report: Handling Agent 1 [Gaeta] stated that, prior to sending the reports [Steele Reports 80 & 94], ASAC 1 had contacted him to explain that the reports would be placed in a sub-file in NYFO and thereby "walled off" from agents in NYFO...

Josh Cremeans “DirtyTruth”
@AKA_RealDirty
Replying to @AKA_RealDirty

@LindseyGrahamSC tells @MariaBartiromo he wants to find out how Andrew McCabe knew to get the document in New York when they couldn’t get the warrant in July of 2016. He wants to know how he even knew to go to New York.

10:02 AM - Feb 23, 2020

2) ...and that the Assistant Director in Charge of NYFO and the "Executive Assistant Director (EAD) level" [Michael Steinbach] at FBI Headquarters were aware of the reports' existence. 

3) Date of Steinbach's awareness [FBI HQ] likely just prior to 8-4-16.
But outside possibility that it was as early as 7-13-16 [Date ASAC first spoke w/Handling Agent 1]
See: Footnote 224 & P. 99 

4) Additional confirm - P. 273:
On August 3, 2016, Ohr emailed Handling Agent 1 asking to speak to him. Handling Agent 1 told us he talked with Ohr, who asked him if he had seen Steele's election reports and whether the FBI was doing anything with them.... 

5) Handling Agent 1 stated that he told Ohr that an executive assistant director at FBI Headquarters and executive management in the New York Field Office (NYFO) knew about Steele's reporting and were addressing it. 

I'd say the walls are closing in on Ohr. It seems clear that, in fact, Bruce Ohr was advocating for the Bureau to take action--albeit discretely. But this is undoubtedly not a new development. I imagine we'll be hearing lots more about Michael Gaeta as well as Joe Pientka.

Durham Has Brennan In His Sights

Breaking tonight in the NYT: Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings. I suspect a lot of this is actually old news and that Durham has been focusing on these matters and collecting documentation since at least the summer.

Excerpts (I've omitted the considerable pro-Brennan spin):


WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

...

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

...

Mr. Brennan has come into Mr. Durham’s sights as he has focused on the intelligence community assessment released in January 2017 that used information from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency to detail Russia’s meddling. They concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s chances by damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

...

“The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories — baseless conspiracy theories — in American political history,” Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016, publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the bureau did.

Mr. Barr has long been interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf, perhaps the intelligence report’s most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.

...

Instead, a C.I.A. informant close to the Kremlin was a key source for that finding. Mr. Durham has been trying to learn more about any internal debate inside the C.I.A. over the conclusion, former intelligence officials said.

[In fact, the claim that the source was "close to the Kremlin"--an idiotic phrase--is highly dubious.]

...

Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, said the C.I.A.’s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow’s intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.

...

Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know to more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment.

Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump’s allies have long asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence agency’s assessment.

Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out the assessment, while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix. Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele’s information with the team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.

Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper about the bureau’s efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be “credible on its face.”

But C.I.A. analysts still wanted to leave the dossier out of the assessment, as it was not vetted. Mr. Brennan’s allies have said he was among the officials who wanted to omit the dossier from the assessment.

Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele’s information.

Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele’s material in the appendix. After BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment about Russia’s election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper  about his decision to publicly state that the intelligence community “has not made any judgment” about the document’s reliability.

Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.

Mr. Brennan told Congress that he had no firsthand knowledge of any attempts by the F.B.I. to vet the dossier. Mr. Clapper went further, testifying at a separate hearing that no evidence existed in the entire assessment to definitively say whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russian officials. He also said that the intelligence community “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” of Mr. Steele’s dossier. 

Mr. Brennan’s defenders said he always kept the dossier at arm’s length, arguing against using its findings about the Russian interference campaign in the assessment. The C.I.A. viewed it as “internet rumor,” an F.B.I. official told the inspector general.

It is not clear how much information the C.I.A. has provided investigators, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The intelligence agencies are continuing to cooperate with Mr. Durham’s investigation, a person familiar with the inquiry said.