James Baker: Light On Informants And The "Russia" Investigation

It has long been known that the FBI used informants or assets ("confidential human sources" in bureaucratese) in attempts to "lure" persons associated with the Trump campaign into incriminating statements. These "lures" took place both in the United States and abroad (OCONUS, Outside the Continental US). Interestingly, we know from the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that the FBI was seeking approval for the use of the "OCONUS lures" already in late 2015, well before Trump had won the GOP nomination and also before Carter Page and George Papadopoulos had joined the Trump campaign. Nevertheless, as soon as Page and Papadopoulos joined the campaign in late March or April, 2016, the FBI swung into action with their informants to target these two. All this is now well known, and it seems notable that the FBI's interest was already focused on Republicans rather than Democrats with ties to Russia and Ukraine.

This knowledge takes on greater importance going forward when we examine the new information to be gleaned from a NYT article yesterdays (h/t/ CTH), in which we learn, all the way at the end, that IG Michael Horowitz has launched an investigation into one of those FBI informants, Stefan Halper:

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.

Barr Notes: Prefers To Lead Investigation of FBI/DoJ Himself

Apologies for the somewhat crappy formatting.

As I've said in the past, I had questions about Barr's attitude toward the Special Counsel as an institution--even though he appointed Special Counsels the last time he was AG. So it's not altogether surprising that Paul Sperry is reporting:

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

BREAKING: I'm told AG Barr not fan of institution of the special counsel/prosecutor & feels public corruption cases should be dealt w inside DOJ by the attorney general, making chances of his appointing special counsel to investigate Obama FBI/DOJ officials in SpyGate scandal slim

8:45 AM - 8 Apr 2019

I think this is overall very good news. Barr has strong views on "what's been going on" and even went on record with the NYT, back in 2017, that the Hillary investigations seemed to him to be more important than anything to do with Trump:

"Of 10 former attorneys general contacted Tuesday, only one responded to a question about what they would do in Mr. Sessions’s situation.

“There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” said William P. Barr, who ran the Justice Department under President George Bush. “Although an investigation shouldn’t be launched just because a president wants it, the ultimate question is whether the matter warrants investigation.” 

"Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he said."

Jack Posobiec is reporting the same, noting that

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:

The Big Picture Behind The FBI's Really Big FISA Problem

Those who have been following the Russia Hoax, having suffered through periods of information drought, are now in danger of suffering information overload. With more and more transcripts being released and more of the central players giving interviews, researchers are going back to connect previously unconnected dots (for one example).

Readers of this blog will know that I've long advocated for the absolute centrality of the famous Trump Tower meeting of June 9, 2016. That was the meeting between the Trump campaign (represented by Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort) and a gaggle of Russians, including the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The meeting was supposed to be about "dirt on HIllary" but turned out to be Veselnitskaya advocating for a relaxation or elimination of the sanctions imposed on Russia by the Magnitsky Act.

As is now well known, Veselnitskaya was only present in the US courtesy of the Obama Administration--she had been excluded from entry but DHS decided, “in concurrence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Southern District of New York,” then headed by Preet Bharara, to allow her in just that one time. Also well known is the fact that Veselnitskaya had dinner with Clinton oppo research supremo Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS both before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Further, other Clinton activists were in close communication with both Simpson and Russian participants in the meeting.

DC Whispers has a fascinating big picture view of the entire Russia Hoax, based off an original at Big League Politics. What I particularly like about his presentation is its emphasis on the centrality of the Trump Tower meeting. That centrality is borne out by the reports that have noted that this was a topic virtually always touched upon by Team Mueller's inquisitors, as well as by the fact that Congressional Dems have carped on it for the last two years.

My oft repeated view has been that the whole purpose of the meeting was to try to create at least an appearance of a corrupt quid pro quo between Trump and Russia: on Trump's side, a promise of relaxation of sanctions in return for (on the Russian side) help against Hillary. That would, IMO, almost certainly violate the federal bribery statute (and possibly other laws), which applies to those who are prospective members of the government, not just current members.

DC Whispers quotes an "FBI insider" who describes what the Trump Tower meeting was originally all about--and I find it persuasive:

Is There Another Special Counsel In Our Future?

We know that AG Bill Barr has no constitutional problem with appointing a Special Counsel--he actually had extensive experience with the office the first time he was AG. Now the question is, Will he appoint a Special Counsel to get to the bottom of the Deep State plot to steer a presidential election and/or oust an elected President?

Paul Sperry reports that the decision is being run through a process inside DoJ. This should come as no surprise, since Trump and Barr are really all about restoring constitutional and legal procedure in decision making. None of which means that Barr will feel bound by the recommendation he receives. He made it clear in his confirmation testimony that he'll do what he thinks is right. Sperry:

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

I am told that AG Barr has to wait on US attorney Huber's report recommending (or not recommending) a special counsel before moving on a special counsel. Hurry up and wait!

8:38 PM - 29 Mar 2019

UPDATED: Nadler's Subpoena

There's been a fair bit of commentary regarding House Judiciary Chairman's Jerrold Nadler's subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller Report. Nevertheless it may be helpful to go over the issue a bit more.

To begin with, the Special Counsel as we currently know it follows from provisions in the Ethics in Government Act. Those provisions were allowed to expire in 1999, but were replaced by the current DoJ Special Counsel regulations (28 CFR 600). While the previous Independent Counsel provision under the Ethics Government Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court (with only Justice Scalia dissenting), it had come under fire by both Democrats and Republicans

Justice Antonin Scalia provided critiques of the Act, based on both Constitutional law and the potential for harm in practice, in his dissenting opinion in the case Morrison v. Olson. Justice Scalia, a judicial conservative, noted that the U.S. Constitution granted consolidated power to enforce the law exclusively to the Executive Branch. The Act extended the power to initiate criminal investigation to the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, which Scalia viewed as a violation of the separation of powers. He believed that the House of Representatives' investigation through the use of a special prosecutor "[arose] out of a bitter power dispute between the President and the Legislative Branch".

Even some Congressmen who had voted for the Act criticized it privately, leading to speculation that "if it had been an anonymous vote, it would have been voted down two-to-one". ...

Specific provisions of the Act have faced criticism as either too weak or too strong. The Special Prosecutor created by Title VI was empowered to pursue investigations with minimal evidence, and was required to pursue any accusation that the District Attorney could not disprove. It allowed for legal harassment of political opponents, even in cases that prosecutors stated they would have dropped in any other federal court. ...

Evil Genius?

Obviously, if Trump has been able to evade all the slings and arrows--not to mention the snares and strategems--of Team Mueller's Russia Hoax dragnet, pulling off something like this should be child's play: A Volcano That Could Completely Cover Mexico City With Volcanic Ash Just Erupted 200 Times In 24 Hours.

It seems pretty obvious that Trump did this to stop migrant caravans--ever try walking through choking clouds of volcanic ash, or running ahead of 60 MPH super-heated pyroclastic mudflows? Just in case you're wondering, Mike Snyder via Zerohedge helpfully explains the problem:

No human on the entire planet can run that fast.  If people are able to get to their vehicles in time they would have a chance, but in reality the highways would quickly become completely clogged as thousands of escaping vehicles all converged at the same time.

So honking your horn wouldn't help, either.

How bad is this, potentially? This bad:

Authorities are saying that the odds of more volcanic activity at Mt. Popocatepetl are “immediate to high”, and if a full-blown Plinian eruption were to occur it would be the worst natural disaster in the modern history of North America.  Approximately 26 million people live within 60 miles of Popocatepetl’s crater, and so we are talking about the potential for death and destruction on a scale that is difficult to imagine.  In ancient times, Mt. Popocatepetl buried entire Aztec cities in super-heated mud, but then it went to sleep for about 1,000 years.  Unfortunately for us, it started waking up again in the 1990s, and now this is the most active that we have seen it ever since the volcano originally reawakened.

Await further details, developing details, from Rachel Maddow, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler. Nancy Pelosi says this violates the principles of her "Catholic" faith. Chuck Schumer? He says not to worry--the Intelligence Community has "six ways from Sunday" of getting back at Trump for this evil scheme. Reached for comment, James Comey cryptically responded: "So many questions."

Trump? He be laffin'.

Evil Genius.

What Bill Priestap Had To Say

Today Doug Collins released Bill Priestap's testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, which took place on June 5, 2018. Priestap's testimony was a relative nothing burger compared to the testimony of others, but it does provide some useful insights into the top reaches of FBI management as well as important aspects of FBI internal procedures. The focus of the questioning was heavily on the Hillary email case, but the Russia Hoax was also addressed. What emerges is that Priestap was pretty much absent in place, and the incredulity of the questioners shows through at certain points, despite their efforts at civility. It seems clear that Strzok was more in charge than his nominal superior, Priestap.

In what follows, I'll work through Priestap's testimony in its original order, highlighting a few areas of interest. In doing so I'll quote Priestap at some length.

The first area has to do with the nature of FBI investigations. A lot of bad information has been spread, especially by Andy McCarthy (who has, however, corrected some of his earlier assertions in this regard), to the effect that FBI Counterintelligence investigations do not involve criminal violations. Nothing could further from the truth, and this is particularly relevant to Crossfire Hurricane which, as I have argued, had a criminal predicate at its origin. In one of his more lucid moments, Priestap corrects that whole misconception:

Q: Sir, it seems like the intent of a counterintelligence investigation may not be prosecution, and that's maybe something that distinguishes it from sort of a more traditional criminal investigation. Would that be correct?

A: Yeah. No, I appreciate you saying that. Our objective, again, is to protect vital assets. Sometimes the best way to protect is via prosecution. Often, it's through a whole variety of other things, from intelligence collection to disruption to you name it. The goal is to protect. The goal isn't -- the primary goal isn't just prosecution. Prosecution is one tool we use to protect.

Q: Are there ever situations where you have sort of a case which involves a hybrid, because --

A: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Q: Yeah. So, for example, if there's conduct that, you know, may be a violation of the criminal law of the United States, and at the same time, obviously, there's a strong counterintelligence interest in that.

A: Absolutely. We do a number of cases that are prosecuted, but it's just -- again, it's one way we can go with cases. It's not the only way. What I'm trying to say is we do have a lot of law enforcement experience, but that's not the extent of our toolkit. It's just a part of it. (pp. 35-37)

Is It Just Me?

On March 31, 2019--four days ago--I did a pretty detailed analysis of Nellie Ohr's Story--Puzzlements. This afternoon Techno Fog provided ... the same analysis. Coincidence? I dunno. The same sort of thing has happened before. Hey--hats off to real journalists who give credit when it's due. People like Lee Smith and Paul Sperry.

I suppose the bottom line is that if you're not on social media--Facebook, Twitter--you're basically invisible to most people. And yet I just don't want to go there.

UPDATED: Lull Before The Storm?

I think so. For right now, post Mueller Report - Barr Summary, things are somewhat quiet. What I mean is that for right now there are no major factual revelations that add significantly to what know, no apparent changes in the tactical lay of the land since Barr has taken charge--and shown that he means to be in charge.

I don't think this will last long. The House Dems are can't help themselves. They are courting a major electoral backlash with their all-conspiracy-theory-hate-hoax-all-the-time strategy. They are stiffening the resolves of GOPers, who can have no doubt that it's them or us and now know they have a leader in Trump and a field general in Barr. This should lead rational Dems to adopt a cautious approach, but rationality is in conspicuously short supply on the Left. Perhaps by definition, Leftism is a defiance of reality. In that regard it was interesting to listen to Devin Nunes yesterday, who is just as interested in any Dem to see the full unredacted Mueller Report, but for very different and far more cogent reasons (see update below).

So we should see overt developments soon, followed by Trump's counter offensive of investigations, reports, hearings, declassifications, and, yes, prosecutions.

IG Michael Horowitz' FISA report might signal the counter offensive.

UPDATE: Ah, I see George Papadopoulos is thinking along the same lines--Dems are delusional:

George Papadopoulos
@GeorgePapa19 

The democrats have absolutely no idea what they are wishing for in terms of releasing the full Mueller report. It will detail all the western intelligence operatives and US allies (UK, Australia, Italy) involvement in trying to set up Trump and his guys. Nothing Russia!

9:00 PM - Apr 1, 2019

BOMBSHELL: Mueller Goes Public, Releases Unredacted Report

Robert "Bob" Mueller, the highly respected former Special Counsel has gone public with the release of an unredacted copy of his report that totally validates the Steele "dossier", Adam Schiff, and Rachel Maddow. Full details: Leaked '401'-Page Mueller Report Proves Barr Lied, Collusion Theorists Vindicated. Impeachment to follow as soon as this afternoon.