UPDATED: Shoddy Legal Analysis, Or ...?

Life's too short to read hundreds of pages of "we didn't find anything." However, one thing is fairly clear--when Bill Barr wrote his famous 19 page memo trashing the Special Counsel office's (i.e., Weissmann's) obstruction theory, he was basically spot on. Yes, Rod Rosenstein claimed Barr didn't know all the facts. Of course he didn't, but he saw where things were heading and he was basically right. Rosenstein might argue that he never would have allowed Mueller to claim obstruction for a perfectly legal act by the President, but if that were really the case why allow the charade to continue? And why subject the country to the continuing hoax?

Perhaps Rosenstein had real doubts about the Weissmann obstruction theory--any honest attorney would!--and that might explain the abusive unlimited time that was allowed to try to coerce Flynn and others into claiming something that somehow seemed like "collusion." Something, anything, to hang a hat on, even if that hat was only: We can't prove "collusion" so we're not charging it, but we still suspect it. And so we think Trump was obstructing. But as of February 14, 2019, they had still come up with nothing.

And that's the point at which Barr stepped into the picture and shut the little game down.

Will Chamberlain puts it nicely:

Will Chamberlain‏

@willchamberlain

This shoddy legal analysis kept the investigation going for 18 months Into acts that were clearly not criminal. The damage Weissmann and Mueller have done by entertaining this garbage is incalculable.

8:45 AM - 18 Apr 2019 from Washington, DC

Of course, the real question is: Was it "shoddy legal analysis" motivated by a willingness to to act outside the law to "get Trump"?

I'd love to have been privy to the conversations Barr had with Rosenstein and Mueller.

UPDATE 1: Sean Davis sees it that way, too, re "collusion":

Sean Davis
‏
Verified account

@seanmdav

The breathless tone of the collusion section of the report and the blatant omission of material facts pertaining to actual Russian collusion by the Clinton campaign makes clear that Mueller and his lawyers were desperate to find collusion by Trump. And yet they still found none.

9:08 AM - 18 Apr 2019

UPDATE 2: Here's my bottom line. If you read the report you'll drive yourself crazy because--if you know anything about the actual events--you're going to quickly realize that it's a tissue of misrepresentations. At best. People on Twitter are knocking themselves out even now pointing out one misrepresentation--whether by commission or omission--after another.

This is why Giuliani is coming out with his rebuttal report.

The fun will start there, and will continue when Mueller is dragged before the House by Nadler. A foolish move by Nadler, because the GOPers want nothing better than to get a chance to grill Mueller over his misrepresentations in court filings and failures to disclose exculpatory evidence. Not to mention his clear conflicts and his hiring of a radically biased staff.

James Baker Enunciates His Obstruction Theory

Day Two of former FBI top lawyer James Baker's House testimony, now available, contains some fascinating moments. By far the major portion of the testimony was devoted to the question of obstruction of justice, and Baker was quite forthcoming with regard to his own views as well as the obstruction discussions that took place within the FBI. Before turning to that, however, I'd like to address some other matters that tie into recent blog posts here.

CONSENSUAL MONITORING

In discussing the various levels of FBI investigations yesterday (James Baker: Light On Informants And The "Russia" Investigation) I mentioned once again what I refer to as "consensual monitoring" -- I'm not sure what the current terminology is. This term simply refers to recordings, whether in person or over a phone, made with the consent of one of the parties. Obviously the consenting party is either an FBI agent or a cooperating witness/informant. Unlike FISA, a special court order is not required to conduct consensual monitoring, although specific approval is required. Nor is it necessary, as with FISA, to have a Full Investigation in place (Crossfire Hurricane). Nothing, to my mind, would be less surprising than to learn that this technique was deployed against Trump associates, such as Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and others--whether before the opening of Crossfire Hurricane or after. Rep. Mark Meadows seemed to be under the impression that this technique is "extraordinary," but such is not the case. Here's a portion of Meadow's exchange on this subject with Baker (I've removed interjections by the FBI's lawyer):

Mr. Meadows: Was George Papadopoulos surveilled by extraordinary measures?
...

Mr. Meadows: So, in any event, you're instructed not to answer it. Would it surprise you to know that there is credible evidence that Mr. Papadopoulos was surveilled in a manner with either tapes or some kind of recording device? Would that surprise you?
... 

Mr. Meadows: So, Mr. Baker, then, let me ask it in more of a generic sense. Is it common practice for the FBI to actually surveil individuals without their knowledge, U.S. citizens, and tape them for investigative purposes with confidential human sources?
Mr. Baker: So, as a general matter, it is an approved investigative technique under Attorney General guidelines and internal FBI policy to allow that to occur with appropriate predication and appropriate approvals. (pp. 101-102)

Now, the context in which the possibility of such consensual monitoring becomes particularly important relates to George Papadopoulos (who, unlike Carter Page, was prosecuted and pled guilty). The question would be, did Stefan Halper--for example--record any of his conversations with Papadopoulos? Did those recordings contain exculpatory statements by Papadopoulos (as he claims), and were those recordings made available to Papadopoulos' lawyers--as they should have been?

The Comey Memos And More Obstruction

THE COMEY MEMOS


CTH has a fascinating piece today regarding the long running and ongoing litigation between CNN and the FBI. CNN has been seeking the release of the memos that James Comey wrote to document his meetings with President Trump. Only, a newly released filing by the FBI (originally filed on October 13, 2017) reveals that those memos contain a lot more than just documentation of those meetings. Apparently, each time Comey met with Trump he went back to FBIHQ and wrote up a memo which embodied not only his version of the meeting but also a complete update of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation--what had been done up to that point, what additional investigation was planned, what sources and methods had been and would be used, etc. Not surpisingly, the FBI says that release of the Comey memos would "suggest a map of possible investigative activity."

For example, in paragraph 8 we read:

"the memos discuss sensitive details regarding the progress of the pending Russia investigation [Crossfire Hurricane] ... Specifically, additional witnesses are identified and a confidential human source is identified by both true and code name, as well as evidence obtained therefrom, and investigative steps taken or not yet taken in the investigation as of the dates of the meetings [with President Trump] ..."

Two quick points:

1) To identify a confidential human source by both true name and code name in the same document is a huge No-no. That's the kind of thing that would lead to serious disciplinary action against an agent and his superiors. Worse, if Comey removed these documents or copies of them from FBIHQ after his firing for however short a period that would clearly constitute theft of official documents--documents that should have been highly classified.

2) Any judge reading this filing in October of 2017 would undoubtedly assume that as of October of 2017 the FBI and the Special Counsel had complete faith in the legitimacy of the Russia Hoax and that the investigation was focusing on President Trump.

Overall--and we may learn more about this with AG Barr's release of the Mueller report--the impression you get from this is that Comey was conducting investigative interviews with President Trump. Just how legitimate that was would, of course, depend on the legitimacy of the entire Crossfire Hurricane in the first place--which we now know for certain was zero.  Even such hard core anti-Trumpers as Strzok and Page knew at the time that there was likely "no there there." There seems to be no doubt at all that Trump was being targeted for removal. When Comey went to speak with Trump, Comey saw himself as conducting evidence gathering expeditions. The only thing needed was some connection to the "four Americans" whom Comey says were the subjects of Crossfire Hurricane. And all this was, essentially, being done against the POTUS on the basis of Chris Steele's creative writing and imagination, which every single official who has testified to Congress has stated was unverified.

Briefly Noted: The Full Story, Obstruction Theories, Nadler's Plans, Ukraine

I've decided that when there is no new information or events concerning which I believe I'm able to comment usefully at length--based on background and experience--I'll nevertheless briefly note new developments that may point toward the direction that investigation into the Russia Hoax may take. For now it seems clear that Bill Barr will, to a great extent, be calling the shots.

Most recently, in The Big Picture Behind The FBI's Really Big FISA Problem, I linked to a very lengthy article at DC Whispers: The Full Story of How Obama, Hillary and Brennan Carried Out The Crime of the Century. It really does offer an excellent overview, and I especially like the early part that goes over the interaction between Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe on the one hand with the Congressional Gang of Eight, leading up to the appointment of the Special Prosecutor. In that light, Trump's successful removal of Paul Ryan and Bob Corker from Congress probably tells us a lot about which RINOs were most involved in colluding with the Dems.

One area of disagreement that I have with the "Full Story" is the claim that the in a redacted provided to Devin Nunes by Rosenstein that bears on the Carter Page FISA, “the name of a country and the name of a foreign agent who supplied information ... is Germany and the foreign agent was either Angela Merkel or someone who worked for Angela Merkel in foreign intelligence." I strongly believe, based on all available evidence, that the country in question must be the UK.

On related topics, Andy McCarthy offers a succinct portrait of Rosenstein and the possible motives behind his legally insupportable actions:

REUPDATED: Mueller's Emerging Strategy?

​It appears we're starting to see a pattern emerging from recent reports of Mueller's activity--a pattern that may amount to a strategy. Recall that on February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russians for attempting to create confusion during the 2016 Presidential election. Of course, there are other credible theories, such as that the laughable activities of these Russians amounted to no more than attempts to make a bit of money off gullible intenet users. Certainly, as Andy McCarthy pointed out,

"Mueller’s team made it clear that the Russians neither colluded with any U.S. citizens nor had any material effect on the election’s outcome." 

Further, the 13 Russians are all in in Russia​ and will therefore never stand trial--which means Mueller will never have to prove the dodgy charges in the indictment.

Now, according to NBC News via Gateway Pundit, Mueller is said to be preparing indictments against more absentee Russians--more risk free indictments that he'll never be called upon to back up. This time the claim will be that these Russians were responsible for the famous DNC hack. That would be the famous DNC hack in which the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine their server: DNC Refused FBI Access to Its Servers … Instead Gave Access to a DNC Consultant Tied to Organization Promoting Russia Conflict. Once again there are alternative explanations, such as that the "hack" was done by an insider--perhaps a Sanders sympathizer--simply by downloading the data onto a thumb drive.

Of course none of that has been proven, tantalizing as some theories may be. But has Mueller and his Gang had access to the DNC server, the better to bolster their indictment and rebut alternative explanations? As of December 17, 2017, Andy McCarthy believes the answer to that is: No. And as McCarthy asks: "... if not, what’s the point of his investigation?" Good question. Maybe the point is more political than anything else.