Briefly Noted: Grassley, Graham Put Bill Barr on Notice; Review Of Recent Events

There's been a lot going on behind the scenes, with occasional public glimpses. Today Gateway Pundit provides the text of a letter that Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham have sent to AG Bill Barr. As GP says, the two senators put Barr on notice that they expect a deep dive into the FBI's coverup of the Hillary investigations--particularly the email one. I doubt that this has been far from Barr's mind--although he's undoubtedly busy preparing for upcoming Congressional testimony. However, Graham and Grassley no doubt want to keep this issue present in the public consciousness.

An indispensable read for anyone who wants to keep the seemingly disparate events of the last two months or so sorted out is Jeff Carlson's A Common Thread in Events Ahead of Mueller Report. While Carlson's blog is too long to quote, here are a few excerpts to show how he attempts to organize recent events. There's a lot going on, some of which doesn't even rise to the surface of even the best news sources, so this is very helpful.

On March 7, Barr had a meeting with U.S. Attorney John Huber of Utah, who serves as vice chair of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. The meeting was notable as Huber had been appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate “all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us.”

... 

A day after Barr’s meeting with Huber, on March 8, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) released a transcript of a congressional interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr. The release would be the first in an ongoing series of transcript releases ...

...

David Kramer, a longtime associate of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), revealed that he had contact with at least 14 members of the media regarding the Steele dossier.

...

Swedish bank Swedbank “may now be facing substantial fines for money laundering that could put pressure on its capital buffers.” The story was notable as it tied into existing investigations in Danske Bank’s Estonia money-laundering case, which originated with the release of the Panama Papers.

The investigation into Swedbank began in 2016, but new allegations were raised that the the Swedish bank withheld information from U.S. investigators. Allegations were recently made by Swedish press that Trump’s former campaign chairman received “nearly one million dollars in black money through Swedbank” from accounts linked to the former president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych.

This ongoing investigation, which remains under-reported, is looking into allegations of money laundering across major financial institutions in multiple countries. It’s likely that the investigation will only grow larger.

...

On March 22, Catherine Herridge of Fox News released two pages of texts between former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page, some of which related to obtaining the FISA warrant of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Specifically, some of the texts reflect concerns from the Department of Justice (DOJ) over “possible bias of the chs,” or confidential human source, likely referring to Steele.

Page noted that “This might take a high-level push.”

...

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) went on Fox News and stated that he had talked to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz “very recently to get an update in terms of timing,” saying that Horowitz hoped to be done with his investigation into FISA abuse in May or June.

Ratcliffe said that Horowitz was looking into the origins of collusion, along with probable cause used by the FBI to initiate their investigation, in addition to his investigation into FISA abuse. Ratcliffe also noted that Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, has “been dispatched to look into the criminal aspects” that might be associated with Horowitz’s work.

...

Giuliani, who said the Justice Department “should investigate this,” raised questions over foreign government involvement in the origination of the Russia collusion allegations. Specifically, Giuliani asked “how many Ukrainians were involved and was the embassy in the Ukraine involved in helping to develop some of this evidence? That’s all very, very important to pointing out where this started. This was a frame-up. An old-fashioned frame-up.”

And there's lots more.

UPDATED: The Elites Mourn Loss Of A Tourist Attraction

Did you hear? Notre Dame in Paris burned yesterday. And the world mourns the loss of a "cultural and historical site"--but not so much of a house of worship. Nor will you hear any of the Western liberal elite stating the obvious: While the fire at Notre Dame appears to have been a tragic accident, the rising tempo of attacks on Christian faith--whether on the faith of nominees before the US Senate or the widespread and increasing attacks on Christian faith throughout the West--are no more than the predictable, and largely desired, results of the policies of those same elites who fuel the hatred. The efforts to ban Christian believers from public life, from education, from government and the courts, increase daily in virulence. But the globe trotting elites want a few tourist attractions preserved. That the barbarians they have enable care little for such niceties should not come as a surprise. The history of Notre Dame tells us all we need to know in that regard. The rage and hatred that was everywhere apparent was part and parcel of the founding of the modern liberal West as well as of the Marxist movement that in its various forms has succeeded it.

UPDATE: Lifesite News has a story about a former reporter for the BBC who speaks of the anti-Catholicism and crushing ignorance of Christianity at the BBC. The reporter blames this for the inability of the the network "to appreciate Monday’s tragedy as more than the “destruction of a particularly well visited tourist attraction.”

UPDATED: A Reminder While We Wait

I don't normally offer links to the work of others unless I have something to add. This morning, however, while we wait for Thursday--and the promised release of the redacted Mueller report--Ed Rogers offers what I hope portends light at the end of the tunnel that is the Russia Hoax. And I can't do better than to quote from his relatively brief article. It's a warning to Democrats that they just may be about to get what they claim to have wished for. 

Democrats have been forthright in their eagerness to get the full Mueller report. Those who propped up the collusion narrative are determined to do anything and everything to try to bend the report to their liking and count on their allies in the media to keep the collusion story alive. ... 

The Democrats let everyone know that they were not finished with their quest for collusion, but to their surprise Barr let them know at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week that he was just getting started. Specifically, he said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. ... I think spying did occur." Barr’s delivery was low-key, and his words were few, but you could hear jaws dropping all over Washington. 

It deserves repeating: Even though Mueller is through, Barr is not. Almost instantly, Democrats attacked the attorney general. They are demanding that Barr retract his comments and not investigate spying on the Trump campaign. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went so far as to say that Barr had gone "off the rails.” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) piled on, tweeting that “AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up.” 

Barr has assembled a team to study the “spying” that he says took place. Specifically, he will determine whether the spying was “adequately predicated.” This means asking who initiated the spying, how it was approved and what was done with the information that it produced. ... They will be the factual findings of an attorney general whose only mission is to go where the evidence leads him. 

I have known Bill Barr for decades. He is the right man at the right time. He has been attorney general before — from 1991 to 1993 — and this is probably his last job. He does not need to posture or worry about his post-government career. He won’t be affected by the attacks from partisan Democrats who fear that his investigation may reveal misdeeds by some of their own. ...

If anyone needs convincing that this is necessary, recent revelations that confirm the partisan arbitrariness and disregard for decency that characterized the Mueller inquisition should suffice. That James Comey was regarded as a witness rather than a key subject speaks volumes, as do the revelations of how innocent people were bamboozled by Mueller's vicious partisans. Particularly bad news for the Dems is that the key House investigators are just as eager as the Dems claim to be to get their hands on all the details. That is a desire born of real confidence.

UPDATE: Here's an article that captures the Barr moment--for those of a certain age: Bill Barr’s Key Statement Was Overlooked: The Attorney General's reference to the Vietnam War period is central to today.

A most amazing thing. The Attorney General advises the Senate that he intends to look into whether government intelligence services improperly targeted a presidential candidate’s election campaign, and a Senator felt the need to ask him: “And can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?” 

What a strange question for a senator to ask! As if the targeting of a presidential candidate by government services is an everyday and acceptable occurrence, not worthy of attention. 

Then, in reply, Barr said something which has been little remarked upon, but which to me seems the essence of the Age. He said: “The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government, and there were a lot of rules in place to make sure that there’s an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance.” 

I am of the same generation as Barr, so for those readers too young to remember the old days, let me second his reminder.

What Was Behind The Mueller Appointment?

Allow me a bit of speculation. A sorta jeu d'esprit, if you will

Have you ever asked yourself, why did Bob Mueller ever take the job of Special Counsel--a job that has turned into a turd in the punchbowl of his life?

Obviously the cunning manipulator behind it all--a veritable pícaro, as it turned out, unlikely as it may seem--was Rod Rosenstein. But how did it actually work?

To understand that, I think we have to accept the idea that Rosenstein has put out--that, while he wrote the memo justifying Comey's firing, he never really believed Trump would do it. Whoops!

At that point, when what had seemed unthinkable had actually happened and Rosenstein was taking the blame, it seems clear from most accounts that Rosenstein just about lost all his marbles. He became the focus of vituperation for all the best DC swamp dwellers and opinion shapers whose good opinion he valued. He began engaging in unhinged conduct. How bad did it get for Rosenstein? This bad: he actually engaged in loose talk with McCabe (a true crazy) about removing Trump through the 25th amendment, even volunteering to wear a wire into the Oval Office.

But then, Rosenstein got a shock that jolted him back to reality. Fueled by all that loose talk, McCabe went ahead and opened an obstruction investigation on the POTUS, apparently without consulting first with Rosenstein. The insanity of this move and its legal threadbareness jolted our boy Rod back to reality--and to the extreme precariousness of his position. Gone were fantasies of revenge against Trump. Sheer survival had become the name of the game.

Rudy On A Roll: Pay Attention To Ukraine

Rudy Giuliani was on Fox News last night, as DC waits for Barr's redacted Mueller reported. As one would expect, he had some choice words, but also some possibly significant words. Of course he teed off on Comey (I've done myself to simply reproduce the flow of Rudy's comments):

[Comey] probably perjured himself with regard to the FISA applications.

He presented the Steele dossier as if it was a piece of intelligence.

Never did anything to corroborate it.

Coulda asked Steele, When was the last time you were in Russia?

He'da told ya nine years ago.

Or ya coulda looked at his passport documents.

There was a specific allegation that Michael Cohen was in Prague on a certain date. I can't imagine FBI agents on their own not checking out with the Passport office.

Where it got even more interesting was when Rudy was asked: "Are you going to have a rebuttal ready if there's information that suggests that they came close to obstruction?"

ALREADY UPDATED: Was The Russia Hoax Really About Cyber Crimes?

No. But ...

CTH has a fascinating post up reporting on remarks today by Rod Rosenstein at the Metropolitan club of Washington. CTH quotes a Bloomberg story.

Here's the relevant entirety of the Bloomberg story:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimes during the 2016 election. 

The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance. 

Rosenstein joked that his last day at the Department of Justice will be “one of these days,” the people said. He also said that it will take the U.S. some time to extradite WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange from the U.K. in order to prosecute him.

CTH sees this as the Deep State desperately trying to maintain the legitimacy of the Team Mueller extension of the Russian Hoax (i.e., Crossfire Hurricane), and quotes Barr's summary of the Mueller report to support his thesis:

Briefly Noted: Trey Gowdy On The Opening EC And Consensual Monitoring

CTH has links to a pair of Fox interviews that Trey Gowdy did during the last few days. While there was a great deal of discussion of reaction to Bill Barr's statement about FBI "spying", there were also a few additonal nuggets to be had from the interviews.

First, and very briefly, without providing details Gowdy confirmed that to his personal knowledge consensual monitoring was used by the FBI in their Russia Hoax investigation. This was a topic in our two most recent James Baker posts over the last two days. I presume that Gowdy is referring, at the least, to George Papadopoulos being recorded, but the potential for much wider use by FBI informants is there.

Second, Gowdy addressed Barr's comments re the failure of the FBI to provide the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing about their suspicions, as is normally done. Gowdy stated that, in response to his queries on that score, the FBI told him that when they attempted to provide the briefing one of the persons they had concerns about (in context, Manafort or Flynn) was in the room with Trump. When Gowdy pressed the issue, asking whether the FBI had ever attempted to follow up, Gowdy was told "we have no good answer."

Finally, Gowdy recounted that he had received two different accounts from the FBI regarding the opening of the Russia investigation. The first version was that the FBI had a general investigation going on the Russian threat and over time a few Americans came into focus. However, Gowdy was able to read the opening EC, written by Peter Strzok, and that EC was very specifically focused on the "four Americans" Comey mentioned in his Congressional testimony: Manafort, Flynn, Page, and Papadopoulos.

As I explained (again) in James Baker: Light On Informants And The "Russia" Investigation, there really is no contradiction here. The first account probably referred to a Threat Assessment or Preliminary Investigation, the second clearly to the Full Investigation that we know as Crossfire Hurricane. What is problematic in all this, as discussed in the linked post, is that there are clear indications (as Gowdy notes) that the focus on the Trump campaign began much earlier than the opening EC would have one believe. Count on it--these are issue that are being closely scrutinized by DoJ and Barr. I've always maintained that the opening EC is a bit of a Holy Grail for an investigation of the investigation. As Barr himself stated, he will want to see whether the investigation was adequately predicated (it wasn't). But the same goes for the earlier investigative activity in which Page and Papadopoulos were targeted virtually from the first day they joined the Trump campaign.

Interesting days.

Briefly Noted: Barr's Questions; Nunes Speaks Out

Kim Strassel:

Mr. Barr told the Senate Wednesday that one question he wants answered is why nobody at the FBI briefed the Trump campaign about concerns that low-level aides might have had inappropriate contacts with Russians. That’s “normally” what happens, Mr. Barr said, and the Trump campaign had two obvious people to brief—Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, both former federal prosecutors. 

It wasn’t only the Trump campaign that the FBI kept in the dark. The bureau routinely briefs Congress on sensitive counterintelligence operations. Yet former Director James Comey admits he deliberately hid his work from both the House and the Senate. And the FBI kept information from yet another overseer, the judicial branch, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee had paid for the dossier it presented as a basis for a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a U.S. citizen. 

Why the secrecy? Mr. Comey testified that the Trump probe was simply too sensitive for members of congressional intelligence committees to know about—an unbelievable statement given the heavy publicity he gave the investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s improper handling of classified information. 

Undercover Huber:

Undercover Huber
‏
@JohnWHuber 

@DevinNunes just called the Mueller report a “Mueller dossier” on @seanhannity radio show & said people like Andrew Weismann don’t get special treatment and “will be held accountable” 

Also: zero chance Mueller didn’t know there was No Collusion “the day he walked in the door” 

1:37 PM - 11 Apr 2019

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?

UPDATED: Barr: I'll Be Reviewing Both The Genesis And The Conduct Of FBI/CIA Spying

Whoa Nellie!

You can tell he's using the bottle to hide a grin.
That's a guy who's enjoying himself.

AG Barr testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee today, and Democrats wanted to know where he'll be going with his investigation into the Russia Hoax. What they heard must have them, well, puckering? (Video here.) He wants to investigate "the genesis and the conduct." The genesis, as in, where it all came from. Gosh, that sounds scary thorough!

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: As I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And a lot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of it has been investigated and is being investigated by the office of the Inspector General, but one of the things I want to do is pull everything together from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the [Justice] Department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.

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.