UPDATED: Bash's Unmasking Investigation: No 'Substantive Wrongdoing?'

RE THE UPDATES: I have three updates below, and I've also updated the title with a "?"

I'm quoting The Hill's summary of an article in the WaPo. The Hill's account can be found here:

'Unmasking' probe concludes without 'finding any substantive wrongdoing': report

I take that to mean that then USA John Bash--recently resigned--who led the investigation simply concluded that no criminal violation could be proved. That understanding is reflected in the WaPo title:

‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report

"Without charges" seems to be the operative conclusion. The phrase "without finding any substantive wrongdoing" appears in the first paragraph of the WaPo article, but is not a quote:

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

In the last paragraph the WaPo states that it was "unable to review the full results of what Bash found." In between the first and last paragraphs you can read paragraph after paragraph of political speculation that doesn't bear repeating here. But there's no further substantive information.

Therefore, the bottom line as we know it is that there will be no criminal charges arising from the unmaskings. That doesn't mean that regulations and guidelines weren't violated, but since those involved are no longer with the government they will suffer no disciplinary action.

UPDATE 1: In support of commenters EZ and Anonymous, I would point out that it would have been easy enough for Durham to have determined that there were no actual crimes committed--without pulling a USA from a large district back to DC to make that determination. That raises the question: What possible crimes did Barr and Durham think they might find? After all--they needed some predication to begin the investigation in the first place. 

A likely supposition would be that the unmasking investigation was part of the leak investigations. The unmaskings may not have been criminal in and of themselves if the unmasked information didn't go beyond persons with the requisite clearance--which everyone we've looked at in the Russia Hoax would have had. But, since the unmasked information was contained in classified documents any leaks to persons without clearances would be crimes.

The question then is, Do the unmaskings and leaks really play no part in the Durham investigation and are being totally dropped, or will they come up later as part of a bigger conspiracy?

UPDATE 2: Commenter Anonymous points out that a week ago it was reported by the NYPost that Bash's replacement in San Antonio, Acting USA Gregg Sofer, would be handling "any matters that John Bash was overseeing" for Barr and Durham: Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will pick up ‘unmasking’ probe: report.

My understanding is that Bash had already informed Barr that he'd be stepping down. Still, if his part of the unmasking investigation was going to be completed within a week, one would have thought he'd stick around for just one more week.

More importantly, the NYPost article specifically states that Bash was looking into the leaks with regard to Michael Flynn, and that Sofer will also be looking into that--which makes sense in line with my suppositions, above:

Acting US Attorney Gregg Sofer will take up the investigation into the “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn after Sofer’s predecessor resigned from the Justice Department, according to a report Tuesday.

...

Barr named Bash in May to look into the process that led to Flynn’s name being revealed after a conversation between him and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was picked up by the intelligence community.

The characterization of the investigation clearly describes a leak investigation. The revelation of Flynn's name came as a result of a leak to the WaPo. Any unmasking of Flynn's name would have been an internal government matter, separate from--albeit related to--the actual leak. 

It makes no sense to me to suppose that Bash or anyone else found no "substantive wrongdoing" in leaking a transcript of a top secret "tech cut" to the WaPo. That's clearly a criminal violation. This doesn't appear to be adding up right now. Perhaps there will be some clarification.

UPDATE 3: Commenter Bebe points to the Fox account of the appointment of Sofer, a week ago. Kerri Kupec is saying basically what I wrote last night--"unmasking" is unlikely, in and of itself, to result in criminal charges. However, it can be important in revealing motives. For example, non-criminal acts, when motivated for certain ends, may help to prove the intent behind a criminal conspiracy. As I also wrote, we find paragraph after paragraph of highly tendetious political speculation in the stories, sandwiched between one basically unsourced tidbit and an admission that the authors haven't seen any documentation:

The Justice Department also, at the time, revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham from Connecticut, who is reviewing the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, was also investigating the so-called unmasking of Trump campaign associates as part of his broader review. That line of investigation was confirmed after Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made public a list of Obama officials who purportedly requested to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn, who at the time was Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big-picture events," Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in May after Bash was tapped to take on the task.

What could have changed so drastically in one week to make Kupec's statement inoperative? Nothing, I would say. I think our skeptical commenters, Cassander and others, have the right approach.

 

Andrew Weissmann Is Freaking--And That's Good!

I actually saw this story yesterday but, quite frankly, it all seemed so obvious that I thought: What's the point? Of course Andrew Weissmann--generally considered the true leader of Team Mueller--is freaking! Who, in his shoes, wouldn't be freaking? Bill Barr just attended a hearing in the Dem's House. True, he mostly just listened, but in the intervals of unhinged harangues, Barr did manage to get in a few words edgewise. One of those words was: "No." No, he would not commit to not release a report before the election in November. I take that to mean that Barr also will not commit to not indicting anyone before November--and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Weissmann took Barr that way, too. Reason enough to explain Weissmann's op-ed in the NYT:

James Comey Wrote a Letter in 2016. What Will Bill Barr Do?

Two investigations appear to be potential fodder for pre-election political machinations.

I won't keep you in suspense. The title of the article may be a bit coy, but there's nothing coy about the article itself. It's an extended rant about how evil Bill Barr is because he just might do something that could lead people to, well, reconsider voting for a Dem. Because Dems would never do anything like leaking false "information" to influence an election, such as a midterm election. Barr is on to that little game. He'll have no compunctions whatsoever about doing the right thing by the American people. How Weissmann ever mistook Barr for a guy who would give a sh*t about an op-ed in the NYT by someone who is clearly in Barr's crosshairs is anyone's guess. Dems have this notion that words repeated like an incantation can somehow work magic, change reality. That's not gonna work with Barr. He's seen it all before.

So, why should Andrew Weissmann in particular be worried?

A Reminder About USA John Bash's Unmasking Investigation

It's hard to remember all the events and names surrounding the Russia Hoax and the subsequent investigations of the hoax. This morning I thought it was news that USA John Bash had been named to investigate the unmaskings that were conducted so broadly by the Obama administration. In fact, however, I did a post on that back on May 20.

However, there was an interesting tidbit in Bill Barr's exchange today with Jim Jordan. Jordan--obviously not up to speed on this issue--asked whether Durham was investigating the many unmaskings in the final days of the Obama administration. Barr responded that, "actually," Bash's investigation covered "a much longer period of time." So, NOT just "the final days" of the Obama administration.

With that in mind, here's what I wrote back in May, quoting Kerri Kupec, who stresses that the unmaskings can "add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events." I like that!

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

News: Bash, Rosenstein, Sullivan

Catching up on the news right now--we can do it quickly.

AG Barr has appointed John Franklin Bash III--currently US Attorney for the Western District of Texas (i.e., San Antonio) to probe more deeply into "certain aspects" of the Deep State unmaskings of Donald Trump and members of his campaign and administration--which is to say, the "certain aspects" will concern unmaskings that took place both "before and after the 2016 election." That's according to FoxNews. DoJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec noted that while unmasking isn't illegal, what Barr is having Bash examine could play into the bigger picture investigation that John Durham is conducting:

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events."

"Big picture?" Can you say "conspiracy"? I sure can. As I noted last night in a comment, Bash will certainly be examining whether any unmaskings can be associated with illegal leaks targeting the Trump administration, which have been rampant right up to the present. However, even unmaskings that cannot be associated with specific criminal acts may be associated with the "big picture" conspiracy. If those unmaskings can be seen to be in furtherance of the conspiracy, they become criminal acts in and of themselves. Obviously Barr thinks that Durham has come up with something that's worth pursuing regarding the unmaskings. He wouldn't be pulling a US Attorney from a major metro area if he didn't think so.

Interestingly, Bash has the distinction of having been one of the very few non-girl law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh.

Moving on.

When the DC Circuit took up the Flynn camp's petition for a mandamus directed at Sullivan, the three judge panel, in addition to ordering Sullivan to respond, "invited" the government to also file a response. DoJ has confirmed, as expected, that they will file a brief that will reiterate the position they stated previously: that the Flynn prosecution should be dismissed with prejudice.

No surprise here. It would have been passing strange if DoJ had ignored the DC Circuit's invitation.

Finally, we learned yesterday that Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy AG and Acting AG and ringmaster for all things Russia Hoax related--especially Team Mueller--will voluntarily testify before the Senate next week. If some really obvious questions are asked--and pressed--Rosenstein's testimony might prove to be of interest. Presumably Senator Graham has consulted with AG Barr about the parameters for Rosenstein's testimony--which may be circumscribed by some prior agreement with Barr and Durham.

The Russia Hoax world seems to be divided into two camps: those who think Rosenstein was either a dupe or a Trump mole in DoJ, and those who regard him as an evil weasel. I'm pretty firmly in the latter camp. In that regard, Debra Heine has dredged up some of Rosenstein's emails dating back to 2017, and it's all highly incriminating as regards Rosenstein's total complicity in the plot against the president. We've seen these before, but it's an excellent reminder--Key Questions Former DAG Rod Rosenstein Should Be Asked at Senate Oversight Hearing Next Week:

Woops! Look The Other Way!

FBI 'Mistakenly' Releases 9/11 Bombshell In Court: Key Saudi Diplomat Who "Tasked" Hijackers Named

UPDATED: Is This The Big Unmasking News?

Obama's Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, unmasked Michael Flynn on January 5, 2017. That was the date of the big Pow-Wow in the Oval Office, where Flynn was very much the topic of discussion among Obama, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Biden, Yates, and Susan Rice.

Coincidence? Not!

UPDATE: Devin Nunes telling Lou Dobbs, It gets much worse because Flynn is only one of the people being surveilled and unmasked.

Was Flynn 'Unmasked'?

Sundance today at CTH is arguing that Flynn wasn't 'unmasked' because there was no 'incidental monitoring'. Flynn, he says, was the actual target:

Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was an active target in an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation.  Flynn was THE target.

I'll be the first to say, Color me surprised if this turns out to be true. However, I believe there's some confusion here.

Yes, Flynn was the target of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation. We've seen the opening and closing ECs for that investigation, which appears to have been a Full Investigation. However, ...

As I've explained, being an "active target" of a Full Investigation does NOT translate ipso facto into authorization for "active monitoring". Having your communication activities "actively monitored" as a "target" can only mean being the target of a FISA order, and thus far we have no reason to believe there was a FISA on Flynn. Probable Cause as required for a FISA on an USPER goes far beyond predication for a Full Investigation (and I don't concede that there was such predication). IMO, we've seen how labor intensive a FISA application is--I doubt the FBI would have undertaken two in Crossfire Hurricane at the same time.

We've seen that a FISA can be ginned up very quickly--the Carter Page case is a good example. However, the predication in the Flynn case--refer to those ECs--may have been good enough for Crossfire Hurricane CYA opening purposes, but it would have been a very bad joke if submitted to the FISC. Just compare those ECs to the Carter Page FISA application. If a Flynn FISA application got through the FISC, then that 'court' definitely needs to be totally dismantled.

Now, in her testimony to the Senate, Sally Yates makes a very good point. She points out that at her level much of the intel reports on USPERs come already 'unmasked'--which even an outsider should realize upon reflection makes perfect sense.

Reread What does "CR cuts" Mean? I believe that when Strzok refers to "CR cuts" he's speaking loosely. Rather than meaning that CR (Flynn) is the subject of the FISA on which CR conversations were picked up, I believe it simply means that CR appeared on other FISAs and that reports or "cuts" from those FISAs were routed to the CH team that was handling the Flynn case: