Briefly Noted: Turley's Take On The DoJ Trump-No-Obstruction Memo

This is ancient history by now, but Professor Turley's interpretation is that the OLC memo pretty much blows then AG Barr's critics away. His critics, of course, were the usual suspects of the progressive Legal Left. Moonbats like Larry Tribe. This, of course, was one of the good things that Barr did, and you can find the full Turley article here:

Newly Released OLC Memo Shows Staff Lawyers Found No Basis For Obstruction Charges In Mueller Report

This is ancient history in a sense, but will hamper the continuing jihad against Trump. It confirms the poor view of Mueller and the faux impeachers. For our purposes I'll just quote from Turley's concluding paragraphs:

The controversy of Barr’s summary largely focused on a couple lines where he said that the underlying facts from by Mueller would not satisfy the elements of the crime of obstruction. It turns out that staff had made that conclusion as did some of us from existing and controlling case law. Moreover, Barr stated that the reason for the delay in the release was the removal of any grand jury material as required by federal law.

The released portions does not contradict Barr’s claim that he could not simply release a two-volume, 450-page report. One can fairly criticize aspects of that summary but the delay of the release of the report (and need for a summary) falls more squarely on Mueller. Past hearings established that Barr and Rosenstein told Mueller that they wanted his staff to flag grand jury material because Barr wanted to release the redacted report rather than a summary.  Mueller appears to have simply ignored that instruction from his superiors. As a result, a full review had to be performed with Mueller’s staff to remove grand jury material, which is mandatory under federal rules.  If Mueller had flagged and redacted the grand jury material, the redacted report could have been released without much delay as Barr preferred.

The memo also undermines the claims raised in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. I testified in that hearing and disagreed with my three co-witnesses (Professors Michael Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan, and Noah Feldman) who insisted that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. They were not alone. Democrats and the media paraded a letter from over 450 prosecutors who declared unequivocally that “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”  The actual prosecutors at Main Justice found that not only would the allegations not meet the standard for obstruction of justice but that it would still be the case even if Trump was not the President of the United States.  The contrast shows the danger of such gotcha letters. With thousands of professors and prosecutors, it is not particularly difficult to get hundreds of signatories to support one side or another in a controversy. The Justice Department does not prosecute by plebiscite and this is why.

Well, one may be allowed to dispute Turley's blanket assertion in his final sentence as expressing an ideal. I think we all know that that's certainly not the invariable reality--if by "plebiscite" we understand "public opinion" or "political pressure."

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:

SWC Now Thinks It's Van Grack Who's Cooperating With DoJ

Yesterday evening we had a flurry of rumors on twitter, suggesting that AG Barr's Russia Hoax Team has made a breakthrough--they have secured the cooperation of a former Team Mueller attorney in addition to the recently disclosed cooperation of FBI agent William Barnett. For details regarding Barnett see two recent posts:

The Barnett 302

Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

In the second of those two posts I pointed out that, despite all the activity in the last few months regarding the Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack--who had been the lead Team Mueller attorney on the Flynn case--has basically disappeared from view. However, we know that he has returned to DoJ to head the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) section, and so last night I pointed out that Van Grack fits the profile of the type of attorney from Team Mueller who might cooperate with Barr's Russia Hoax Team:

He is still with DoJ, and thus subject to DoJ disciplinary policies--he could have a lot to lose.

While he was not one of the "star" attorneys on Team Mueller--in no way comparable to Michael Dreeben, Jeannie Rhee, or Andrew Weissman, to name three--he nevertheless ended up in charge of the Flynn case. And the Flynn case has turned out to be by far the most consequential of any of the Russia Hoax cases that Team Mueller attempted to make.

Given Van Grack's role in the important Flynn case, even though he was not a "star" on Team Mueller he would surely have been privy to the overall legal strategy, methods, and attitudes of Team Mueller's leaders. He could, in other words, turn out to be an important witness for Barr's Russia Hoax Team.

Shipwreckedcrew initially speculated, yesterday evening, that Van Grack isn't the cooperating attorney, reasoning that--since we have heard nothing negative about him since he left the Flynn case, whereas we've heard a continue stream of criticism of the FBI's conduct--there was probably no circumstance that could be used to pressure Van Grack. This morning, however, SWC has come around to the view that Van Grack may, in fact, be the cooperator: Clues About Who From SCO Prosecution Team Is Cooperating Are Found in Interview of FBI SA Barnett. In making that switch he notes that cooperation need not be as a result of pressure--it can also be purely voluntary, and he speculates that that my be the case if Van Grack is the cooperator.

Here are what I take to be the main points SWC is making, and they're worth considering.

First of all, as I pointed out in the linked posts (above), it's notable in the Barnett 302 that three Team Mueller attorneys are singled out--by name--for criticism by Barnett: Weissmann, Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein. There are references to other Team Mueller attorneys, but their names are all redacted. The inference I drew from this circumstance was that Barr's Team is focusing on those three named attorneys--Weissmann, for one, has been squealing loudly in public--and that one or more of the attorneys whose names were redacted could be cooperating. This circumstance goes to the overall issue of whether, in fact, any former Team Mueller is cooperating with Barr's Team--and it tends to support a positive conclusion.

Secondly, as readers here probably noted themselves, it's also notable that in his interview Barnett appears--in rather stark contrast to Barnett's views regarding the named threesome--to have a positive attitude toward and relationship with one Team Mueller attorney in particular: "SCO Atty 1." In point of fact, Barnett recounts that he shared his negative views of the named three with SCO Atty 1, with whom he said he had worked in the past and whom he liked. My experience is that prosecutors get quite uptight and defensive when an agent criticizes other prosecutors in their presence, so to me that's an indicator that SCO Atty 1 must have shared at last some of Barnett's negative views of those named three.

Third, proceeding from the supposition that the cooperating former Team Mueller attorney may be cooperating voluntarily, SWC suggests that a likely candidate could be SCO Atty 1, who appears from the Barnett 302 to identify to at least some degree with Barnett's negative attitude toward the named three.

That SCO Atty 1 is, in fact, Van Grack appears likely. Van Grack is a relative newcomer at DoJ--having only about four years of experience. That experience was in the rather specialized field of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. What was SA Barnett doing for the years prior to being recruited to be case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane Team's Manafort and Flynn cases? He was working Chinese and Russian espionage cases, according to the 302, making it likely that he would have been in contact with Van Grack.

All in all, Van Grack seems to be a likely cooperator. It's speculation at this point, but it seems an educated surmise.

NOTE: I've taken to referring to those investigating the Russia Hoax as "Barr's Russia Hoax Team." That seemed advisable since we know that John Durham is now working with at least two additional US Attorneys--Jeff Jensen and John Bash--and the exact lines of demarcation, especially with regard to Durham and Jensen, aren't totally clear. What we do know is that they all report to AG Barr, and we can be sure that Barr is requiring close coordination among them.

Lindsey's Three Buckets

At the end of his interview with Maria Bartiromo today, Senator Graham stated that there would be another revelation coming soon that would be even more shocking that what they had been talking about. What they'd been talking about was the FISA abuse and the Barnett 302. However, Graham was too cagey for me to even make a guess at what that revelation might be.

Then, to close out the interview, Graham summarized the Barr investigation as being composed of "three buckets":

1) Was there any predication at all for Team Mueller?

2) The Carter Page FISA abuse.

3) The Michael Flynn case.

I see #1 as being the most significant. The wrongdoing in the second and third buckets has been known for a long time. However, the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is now openly suggesting that the Team Mueller witchhunt had no predication--i.e., was illegal--is a major positive development. It certainly confirms what I've been saying since Durham was appointed: Team Mueller is in the crosshairs. We saw that, implicitly, in the Barnett 302, and now Graham is saying that pretty explicitly.

The Barnett 302

I'll do this in a sort of impressionistic way--concentrating on overall impressions taken from the FD-302 of FBI Agent William Barnett. That "302" memorializes the interview of Barnett that was conducted by FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the handling of the Michael Flynn case.

First of all, imagine how Barnett felt going into this interview, and what the circumstances of the interview tell us.

Barnett, a law enforcement official of the federal government, had hired an attorney to be present with him at the interview--even though he was just a witness. He may have been just a witness, but he knew this was a high stakes interview and he couldn't simply trust to his own integrity.

He was interviewed by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors--one of them Jeffrey Jensen, a USA who had also been an FBI agent. Barnett knew there'd be no BS-ing his way through this interview, and that this interview was supremely important from the government's standpoint.

Right at the start we learn something very important. Barnett had worked on both the Flynn and Manafort investigations. In fact, he was the case agent for both investigations at the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO), having been specifically recruited to join the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) team by SSA Joe Pientka. He continued working those cases once Team Mueller was set up. That means that he would have interacted regularly with the prosecutors who led those investigations for Team Mueller. We learn later that Barnett is able to recall the attitudes and words of Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, so it's a good guess that Durham/Jensen are very much interested in those two Team Mueller alumni.

Durham v. Mueller

I've repeated several times my view that John Durham almost certainly believes that he has unfinished business with the Mueller FBI. The Comey FBI was really little more than a continuation of the Mueller FBI, and the Team Mueller SCO was, to a significant degree, a resurrection of the Mueller FBI to defend the Deep State against the existential threat of a fully functional Trump administration.

Techno Fog today has a pair of tweets that provide a sort of snapshot of that Durham v. Mueller dynamic. It very simply illustrates the very different understanding the two men have of the injunction to "do justice." These two tweets will also, hopefully, buoy confidence in Durham as we await results--buoy confidence that Durham is doing all in his power to "do justice." He is not the man to easily allow these crimes to go unpunished or to pull up short when he's on the trail. Please excuse my clumsy embedding job:

I don't know what John Durham will do. But I can add perspective.

Keep in mind -

In 2000, he uncovered evidence the FBI framed 4 innocent men for murder.

Durham has already exposed one of the biggest scandals in FBI history. Don't think he's shy. pic.twitter.com/lRenNUtm7E

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 23, 2020

Durham's efforts - he went right to the courts and to their attorneys - freed the two surviving men from prison.

Meanwhile, Mueller's FBI was arguing the exculpatory evidence didn't mean the men were innocent. 🤔

"Do justice." pic.twitter.com/XLHEvx8ek4

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 23, 2020

UPDATED: Andrew Weissmann Out To Settle Scores?

Andrew Weissmann's book is out tomorrow.  “Where the Law Ends”. Search it at Amazon if you're interested.

The book is basically an account of how everyone else on Team Mueller--but especially Mueller's chief of staff, Aaron Zebley--screwed up and prevented Weissmann from saving the country. Commenter Mike Sylwester has linked to an interview Weissmann did with The Atlantic: The Inside Story of the Mueller Probe’s Mistakes. I haven't read it, but Shipwreckedcrew has, and he says the interview is "a doozy."

In the past I've written about Weissmann, pointing out that after the ethical shambles of the Enron case, resulting in a 9-0 and strongly worded reversal from the SCOTUS for Weissmann, Weissmann become a pariah at DoJ. It was Bob Mueller who twice gave Weissmann a landing place at FBI, "to lick his wounds" as SWC puts it.

SWC, however, has far more of a DoJ insider's perspective on Weissmann than I ever had, and he explains what's going with Weissmann's holy war against Zebley.

Here are a few samples.

More On The Complexities Facing Durham

The resignation of a key aide to John Durham--Nora Dannehy--has led to natural speculation concerning her reasons for resigning (she also resigned from DoJ), as well as concerning what role Dannehy actually played on Team Durham. Shipwreckedcrew has surmised that Dannehy actually functioned in a non-prosecutorial support role, but a role that is absolutely critical when DoJ in effect "inherits" a case that has already been handled by OIG. We summarized SWC's theory at the link, above.

SWC has also dug up an article by Sara Carter that's nearly a year and a half old, but remains a fine piece of reporting. We'll get to that in just a bit.

By now we all understand how complex the Barr/Durham investigation is. The investigation of the investigators started out as an investigation by OIG of FISA abuse by the FBI. That OIG investigation appears to have been triggered by concerns about fraud involving the Carter Page FISA, but the investigation into the sources behind the Page FISA quickly revealed problems with the entire predication for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation--no surprise, since the predication for both was related. At the same time, FBI and CIA abuse of the 702 search function with regard to NSA's databases also came to light--again suggesting ties to the Russia Hoax. While details are murky, it appears that John Durham may actually have been called on to examine some of these issues beginning as early as the late summer of 2018--before Bill Barr was even nominated to replace Jeff Sessions as AG.

The only reason that Durham would have been called upon to undertake any sort of internal review of such issues would have been because of concerns regarding possible illegalities or even criminal behavior by DoJ and FBI officials. In that context, and around the same time, Barr wrote his now famous 19 page memo to Rod Rosenstein in which Barr challenged the legal theory of obstruction that Barr believed Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation was pursuing. Barr's challenge to Mueller's "obstruction" theory--actually, a classic Andrew Weissmann theory--while not directly challenging the predication of the Russia Hoax, certainly challenged the predication for an obstruction investigation of President Trump.

Add to the above the fact of numerous "leak" investigations, which were to continue and even intensify in the runup to the Fake Impeachment.

UPDATED: Lindsey Graham Would Be Shocked

I watched Senator Graham on with Sean Hannity last night, and he didn't actually look shocked when the two discussed all the trouble Team Mueller lawyers had with their government issued phones. Amused would be the word I would use to describe Graham's reaction, although he did point out the obvious: If these guys and gals couldn't manage their own phones, why would we trust them with a major investigation?

Then he added:

But stay tuned, Sean. You think you're mad about the phones being wiped? Stay tuned! We'll talk in about ten or twelve days and we'll see if there's something else you could get mad about. Just stay tuned.

That's a tease, but also, in my opinion, a promise. I've said many times that I'm sure that Graham has coordinated closely with AG Barr. Graham has taken a lot of flack for the slow pace of his committee's investigations, but I'm convinced that that has to do with the necessity of not compromising John Durham's investigation. Graham has played it close to the vest but, like others in DC, he knows more than he's letting on. Perhaps the slow drip of revelations about the Flynn case will produce that "something else"--days before the scheduled hearing in front of Sullivan. That would be unsurprising, now that Kevin Clinesmith's plea deal is cemented in place. The substance behind the plea deal had to do with the Carter Page FISA, but Clinesmith was heavily involved in Team Mueller ops, too. But that's a guess based on timing  and could be coincidental. We'll see, but I doubt that Graham is just blowing smoke at this point.

And that would fit in with this, from his introductory remarks, about what would shock him:

As to future prosecutions--I would be shocked if the only person prosecuted is Clinesmith.

UPDATE 1: By the way, if some wiseguy tries to sucker you into betting that the government will never be able to recover the data from those wiped phones, do not take him up on that. Jen Dyer has the tech details: Should we despair over phones wiped by Mueller team members? Maybe not; see the Strzok/Page text incident. The bottom line is that the phones were government property and were for (mostly) official business only--which means, they were for creating government data which the government is entitled to recover and retain. As Dyer explains, there may well be ways to do this. And it's possible that this revelation is intended to shake certain members of Team Mueller out of a false sense of security. We know that revelations coming from Barr's DoJ are almost always have some purpose.

UPDATE 2:

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_

U.S. Attorney John Durham's #SpyGate investigation is one of the most important and consequential investigations in this nation's history. He has to get it right. No pressure.

3:11 PM · Sep 10, 2020·

Fortunately for Durham, we know he's not simply on his own. He's got help. Along with Barr, there's Bash, Jensen, maybe others.

UPDATED: About Team Mueller's Phone Problems

TGP has an excellent summary of what's known regarding the mass wiping of Team Mueller phones:

NEW: DOJ Records Show Weissmann, Other Mueller Henchmen Claimed to Have “Accidentally Wiped” at Least 31 Phones Used in Russia Probe

For anyone who hasn't accidentally wiped their phone, here's how you might accidentally do that (paraphrase):

You put your phone in airplane mode, lock it and then nuke the phone by repeatedly entering the wrong password.

The wrong password must be entered 10 times in a row in order to nuke the phone.

As it happens, this accident happened to Andrew Weissmann with two of his three phones.

Does this suggest that Team Mueller lawyers and investigators new they might have something to hide? Yes it does.

UPDATE 1: A fried asked me whether Weissmann and others could be in trouble over this. The short answer, of course, would have been: I don't know. But I don't usually do short answers, so I sent an email. I still don't know, but we'll probably be learning more of the facts of the situation. In the meantime:

It sounds at first blush like some kind of obstruction--obstruction of an investigation. What we need to know is whether OIG asked for the phones in connection with a criminal investigation or simply some sort of internal review. If it was criminal, yes, big deal. If not, the penalties are disciplinary and could lead to being fired. Woops! They've mostly all left or been fired anyway.

Here's a link to a document put out by FTC's OIG--but I assume the situation is similar with DoJ's OIG, and it illustrates the weakness of all OIG investigations. The doc goes on about how important it is to cooperate with OIG. Here's the key passage, though:

Failure to cooperate with an OIG request for information or records is serious misconduct and may lead to disciplinary action up to and including removal. Further, furnishing false information or concealing any type of information from the OIG or obstructing OIG investigations, audits, or other inquiries could constitute a violation of law and result in disciplinary action or criminal prosecution.

So, we need to know more.

Shipwreckedcrew says he's working on this, so maybe he'll be able to find out what was involved in the specific circumstances. My belief, however, is that this was not in connection with a criminal investigation.

However ...

If Durham should come up with some sort of indictment in which the operations of the SCO is an issue--say, in connection with the Flynn case, etc.--then the wiping could come in. Perhaps not as direct evidence, that would depend on a lot of evidentiary rules specific to the case, but almost certainly for impeachment purposes if the defendants took the stand.

UPDATE 2: Sidney Powell on fire:

What's Up With The Carter Page Woods File?

A few days ago, September 1st to be exact, Sara Carter broke a story about the Woods file re the Carter Page FISA going missing, and having to be recreated by Team Mueller. Or something like that:

Carter Page’s FISA Related ‘Woods File’ Docs Disappeared, Was It ‘Malice Or Incompetence’

Unfortunately, from Carter's account it's difficult to be sure exactly what the story is. Here's how Carter explains it:

The original Woods file on former campaign advisor Carter Page went missing more than two years ago, and according to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com, those documents had to be recreated by the FBI and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2018 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application used by the bureau to obtain the warrant on Page.

In other words, Carter is saying that the entire Woods file went missing and had to be recreated. The way that would work would be like reverse engineering: You look at the actual FISA application, figure out what statements needed to be supported with a reference to a case document, and include that document.

UPDATED: McCabe And The Big Picture Conspiracy

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

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

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

The Mifsud 302

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

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

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

Clinesmith And The Big Picture Conspiracy

Shipwreckedcrew has a terrific article today, the title of which won't really suggest to non-prosecutors the substance of what he discusses: Andrew Weissmann Wants Kevin Clinesmith to “Stop Snitchin”. What he's talking about is a topic near and dear to me, one that we've discussed here for a long time--the "big picture conspiracy." SWC goes into the way in which such a case is built.

While SWC largely leaves the focus of the Durham investigation as something for the reader to infer, that focus should become apparent very quickly. As I've maintained, the original Crossfire Hurricane (CH) investigation--CH before Team Mueller--is basically small potatoes as compared to the concerted effort of to force Trump from office by hook or by crook. That, of course, is what Team Mueller was all about. I'm not discounting the criminality of what took place beginning in the summer of 2016 up to Trump's inauguration, nor the Flynn setup, but Team Mueller marked the point at which all the resources of the FBI and DoJ could be openly marshalled against Trump. There was no longer a need to hide what was going on. The coup forces were protected from effective counterattack under the color of law. This is why Barr and Durham are so focused on Team Mueller, as I've long maintained.

Thus, SWC begins his article by basically pointing out that Weissmann's entire focus was on Trump. If there was a conspiracy--and there was--Trump was at the heart of it:

John Ratcliffe: Durham's Investigation Is About Predication

Maria Bartiromo had Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on her show this morning for a fairly wide ranging interview. All the topics were of interest, but one that especially caught my attention was the segment dealing with the John Durham investigation. We've been hearing rumors about Durham nearing, if not the end of his whole investigation, then the end of a certain phase of it. The Clinesmith guilty plea has whet our appetites for more information, but it's been slow in coming--despite promises that we'll be hearing more before the end of the summer. Before we get into that, however, a few remarks.

As we know, as a Congressman, Ratcliffe was a key part of the investigation into the Russia Hoax--as an experienced former prosecutor he showed himself to be a skilled questioner who knew the value of careful preparation. Trump's decision to replace veteran Deep State operative and former senator Dan Coats with Ratcliffe as the head of the Intelligence Community was a shrewd pick. Coming at a time when the Barr/Durham investigation was picking up momentum, there was an obvious need for a DNI who could break through the bureaucratic logjams that Coats and others had constructed to protect the Deep State. The fact that Ratcliffe was an experienced former prosecutor who would understand what was involved in such a major investigation and, especially the legal issues involved in coordinating with a grand jury investigation was an important plus. When you add to that he years of experience in Congress investigating the Russia Hoax, his knowledge of the all the players both in Congress and the Deep State as they overlapped, it came as little surprise that the Deep State and GOP senators closed ranks against Ratcliffe. In the end, however, Trump (and probably Barr) persisted and won the day.

In the transcript of the relevant portion of the interview, note that Maria has focused on some key issues that we've been discussing in recent days. First, of course, she located the tape of then Congressman Ratcliffe clearly referring to disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's "changing evidence." Maria astutely relates the Clinesmith guilty plea to the entire three year investigation--and Ratcliffe picks up on that.

Note that Ratcliffe relates what Clinesmith did--"changing evidence"--not just to the final FISA application but to the origination of the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation. As he puts it, what Clinesmith did had to do with continuing the entire investigation. What's left unsaid, however, is that the continued focus of Durham--and Ratcliffe!--on the predication for Crossfire Hurricane also relates directly to the predication for Team Mueller witchhunt--the two are one and the same. Further, at the heart of his is Joe Pientka, who was the supervisor for the Crossfire Hurricane team and who wrote the EC recommending its closing. Also note that Ratcliffe, without being prompted, brings up the topic of the Intelligence Community Assessment--that can't be a coincidence.

Place Pientka into this context when you read about the ongoing coordination between Ratcliffe and Durham. The willingness of Durham to allow Ratcliffe to declassify some of the Pientka related documents and to allow Pientka to talk to Senate investigators in a tightly controlled setting suggests that Durham is still very much focused on the big picture conspiracy. Things appear to be coming to a head.

Coup, Coup, Coup

Three good reads today, all relating one way or another to the coup-coup crazy Dems' anti-constitutional efforts to seize total control since Trump's unapproved election victory.

Thomas Lifson leads off with a startling article on the Dem strategy, working off recent public statements by Pelosi and Hillary. As Lifson notes, those statements give the game away:

Dems no longer even bothering to hide their strategy to steal the election

The statements themselves could be termed 'unhinged', except that they unquestionably reflect thinking and strategy at the highest level of Dem organization. Here they are:

Hillary: “We’ve got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that… Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”

Pelosi: "One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election, ... the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States ... enemies of the state."

That's right. Pelosi labeled the Trump and the entire GOP as "domestic enemies", "enemies of the state."

Important: FISA Search Of Carter Page Premises

A FISA warrant is usually associated with the collection of electronic communications. However, they often cover much more, such as surreptitious physical entries to premises used by the subject and searches of those premises and everything in them. Carter Page has complained of such searches, including the seizure of sensitive or possibly embarrassing items, that he says were unrelated to any legitimate investigative purpose.

Undercover Huber reminds us:

Has everyone fully internalized that *after Mueller became Special Counsel*, the FBI physically broke into locations used by Carter Page, under FISA warrants that even the DOJ now says lacked probable cause, and the searchers broke FBI procedures too?

3:12 PM · Aug 12, 2020

"After Mueller became Special Counsel" also means months after the Danchenko interview completely debunked any probable cause value that the Steele "dossier" was claime to have. Peter Strzok knew about the Danchenko interview and he became the lead investigator on Team Mueller. Who else should be presumed to know? If I'm John Durham, I really want to know. For example, did Andrew Weissmann know? Who else?

K. T. McFarland On Who's In 'Big Trouble'

Former national security official K. T. McFarland went on Fox this morning with Sandra Smith, who interviewed McFarland about recent activity on the part of the GOP controlled Senate: Lindsey Graham's release of damning FBI notes that show the FBI misled the Senate Intelligence Committee and Ron Johnson's subpoenas to the FBI and Director Chris Wray. Along with the usual talk, McFarland made some important points that should help to maintain perspective as we hear about all the important players in the Russia Hoax getting a pass.

Smith first asks McFarland about the documents that Senator Ron Johnson has subpoenaed from the FBI (as well as Director Chris Wray). McFarland goes over the items that we've all heard about on the news--the documents that were turned over to the IG, the Crossfire Hurricane documents. Then she turns particular attention to a third category of documents, which I hadn't heard were subpoenaed:

But interestingly, he's also asked for all documents that the GSA--Government Services Agency, General Services Agency [sic, it's actually General Services Administration]--had collected during the transition into the Trump administration and asked for what documents were there. I mean, what documents were turned over to whom? Who was turning them over to the FBI? So when I'm looking at this for those three requests, I think some of this is indicating that they're also looking at the Mueller investigation. Not just at incompetence at the FBI or potential wrongdoing.

I've been maintaining exactly that, that AG Barr and John Durham are definitely focusing on Team Mueller from a number of angles. Recall: You can't investigate Crossfire Hurricane without also investigating Team Mueller, which was a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. The same goes for the Flynn case.

Now, the GSA documents that McFarland is referring to were the very first group of documents that Team Mueller went after. It was a very controversial and aggressive move on Team Mueller's part, because these were documents of the Trump transition team, not the Trump administration, and GSA simply turned them over to Team Mueller without informing the Trump administration. It was a typical Andrew Weissmann and inside the DC establishment move. One angle that Durham could be looking at might be whether Weissmann, in demanding these documents from the (all too willing to cooperate) GSA, may have misrepresented his official authority to obtain those documents without process or notification to the persons and the entity that created those documents.

In my opinion, the fact that the Senate is looking at this event does, indeed, mean that they're looking at Team Mueller. But I think you can take this to the bank as well: The Senate wouldn't be doing this unless they knew that Barr and Durham had already done so.

McFarland continues:

In any event, I think Christopher Wray is in big trouble. Because, Sandra, he did one of three things. He either knew what was going on in the FBI and he uncovered it--and he kept it covered, y'know, cover it up. He, secondly, didn't want to know, and so he's just sort of, 'Don't tell me about it, I don't wanna know.' Or, he's just completely incompetent. I mean, either way, all three of those are pretty bad indictments against the current FBI director.

Assuming Trump is reelected--Wray is unceromoniously fired. My opinion.

Sandra then pivots to disgraced former FBI Director, James Comey, noting that McFarland also thinks that Comey is in 'big trouble'. McFarland responds:

Yeah, because, not just particularly with this subpoena that you just referred to, but it's the testimony that's happened in the last couple of weeks. So you had Sally Yates saying last week, 'Well, the FBI Director, Jim Comey, he went rogue--I didn't know what he was doing.' And then Rod Rosenstein, who testified a couple of weeks ago, he was the Attorney General, acting Attorney General, he said, 'I didn't know anything about it, I would never have signed those requests coming from the FBI if I knew now what I knew then [sic].' And so Comey has a lot to answer for. Either he was rogue and he was running a rogue operation in the FBI--Comey, McCabe, and his senior officials--or he's being set up to take the fall, if in fact it was not a rogue operation, if it has origins that were higher up.

And the other thing, Sandra, to remember, is that Susan Rice wrote herself a memo for the record on Inauguration Day, saying, 'President Obama wants everything done exactly by the book.' So, in other words, 'Jim Comey, if he does something that's not by the books, it's not on us!'

If you watch the video, you can tell from McFarland's body language that she doesn't necessarily believe Yates and Rosenstein, but whether they're telling the truth isn't the real issue. The point is simply that nobody's going to bat for Jim Comey, nobody's arguing--as Chris Swecker recently did--that, gosh, it's so hard to prove intent. They'd all be happy to have Comey take the fall. And, in fact, if he turns out to be the fall guy he'll certainly have earned the distinction. But I think Durham's looking at others, too.

The interview ends up with some general remarks riffing off Lindsey Graham's call for people at the FBI--or who were formerly at the FBI--to go down. IMO, McFarland's remarks here will resonate with any jury, and that dirty cops will receive no sympathy:

Now what we're finding out, whether they lied to the FISA court, whether they lied to Senator Graham, whether they lied to even President Trump, or that they lied to the American people--there were documents being falsified, there were people who were lying, senior officials of the FBI. And I think Lindsey Graham is saying, 'I wanna get to the bottom of it.' These are actual crimes. This is not just leaks to the media. These are actual crimes where people knowingly lied to other government officials and to people.

Uh Oh! Is This Why Andrew Weissmann Is Freaking?

I can't recommend highly enough that you read Shipwreckedcrew's latest:

New FBI Document Released by Senate Judiciary Comm Shows FBI — AND Mueller — Deliberately Misled Senate About Steele Memos

Two points, however.

1) Unfortunately, Shipwreckedcrew screws up big time in his crucial timeline--thus missing an important point: Andrew Weissmann. And this also means he misses something about AG Bill Barr.

2) For a bit of perspective and corrective, please read CTH's two posts today re the Senate and especially re Lindsey Graham, who released this document today. You have to ask yourself:

If this document had been released a bit earlier, what would have become of Team Mueller and the Fake Impeachment?

Is it just possible that a lot of what's playing out in DC is not only about the Dems going after Trump but also about the GOPe trying to control Trump? If so--and I think it is--the Impeachment Theater was probably in large part about that GOPe effort. And this also shows how important an ally Bill Barr is for Trump. As I've stressed: Bill Barr is all about protecting the Executive. Period. He will work with Lindsey Graham and others, but he will not compromise on principle, and Executive powers are his principle. We all know that. Everyone in DC knows that.

So, what's up with this new document? Here's how CTH describes it:

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: