Briefly Noted: News Roundup

It's a bit of a slow newsday. Here are a few items worth noting, however.

Let's start with a couple of tweets from Paul Sperry that tend  to confirm earlier word:

Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry_

BREAKING: House GOP leadership has soured on Comey replacement Wray. They r now convinced Wray's not part of the FBI cleanup & not cooperating w AG Barr & is in fact part of the cover-up of #SpyGate scandal after burying documents & refusing to make people available for interview

7:41 PM - 14 Jun 2019

It has been previously reported that IG Horowitz's wrapup is being delayed by Wray's stonewalling on document release. Difficult to say definitively at this distance, but I've made by view of Wray pretty clear. I'd like to see Barr muscle him. Publicly. Obviously there's politics involved here, but the situation seems unsatisfactory--the legacy Mueller FBI that Wray is running must be stopped in its tracks.

Paul Sperry
‏
@paulsperry_

BREAKING: House Republicans r upset w what they call Sen Graham's showboating since taking over Senate Judiciary from Grassley, who they say was "serious" bout getting to bottom of #SpyGate. But Graham's just putting on "charade" on Fox for S.C. voters & "not doing a f*cking thing"

7:30 PM - 14 Jun 2019

We've seen these rumors before, too. Graham is talking a good game, but what action is he taking? I'm willing to assume that Graham doesn't want to step on Barr/Durham toes and that there's a need for a higher profile pol to do some "showboating" on TV. Could that be the coordination with Barr? Who are the "House GOPers?" We're not told. It's another situation worth watching.

OTOH, significant evidence that Barr hasn't lapsed into somnolence--even as he's threatened with contempt in one area Barr takes "aggressive" action in another. He's clearly not shying away from confrontation:

Why Is Bruce Ohr Still Working At DoJ

This morning commenter Cassander asked: 

Why is Bruce Ohr still an employee of the Department of Justice? 

Really.

I responded (slightly edited and expanded):

I think that comes down to IG Horowitz's FISA investigation--Ohr is key to that inquiry because he's the person who conveyed the dossier directly to the FBI and was Steele's handler. As long as Ohr remains employed at DoJ he's under Horowitz's thumb, so I think some sort of deal for his cooperation was made at a VERY early date. I'll provide a link to an article that points out that Ohr gets exactly ONE mention in the Mueller report. That one mention is simply a cite to a Trump tweet. In other words, Mueller probably never talked to Ohr, but Horowitz has probably been doing so on an ongoing basis. So here's that article:

Mueller 'Strzok Out' With His Whitewash Report:

"On page 323 of the report, the special counsel acknowledges that he is aware of the origin of the Russia hoax because he quotes the president's Aug. 24, 2018, tweet asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI agent Peter Strzok, Justice Department lawyer Lisa Page, DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and Christopher Steele and "his phony and corrupt Dossier." But somehow neither Sessions, nor Mueller, nor anyone else has been able to put 2 + 2 together and come up with the correct answer. 

"Indeed, if you want to gauge the complete inadequacy of the Mueller Report, consider this: President Trump’s tweet is the only mention in the report of Ohr, whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier. It is the only mention of Strzok. It is the only mention of Page. Considering their central role in framing the president, that is the equivalent of the Warren Report somehow relegating Lee Harvey Oswald to a single footnote." 

I think that also means that when Horowitz is done, Ohr will be talking to Durham.

To that let me add something that's quite speculative but, so it seems to me, ultimately has to be relevant.

HUGE? Flynn's Full Legal Team Shows Up

H/T to Gateway Pundit.

I want to be clear right up front. I can't claim to expertise regarding defense tactics, and especially not at this level. The reason I added the question mark--HUGE?--is because the exact significance of this news is unclear. Sidney Powell is the only attorney for Flynn whose name appears on the filing that requests an extension of Flynn's sentencing in the case before Judge Sullivan. It appears at this stage that the three additional attorneys will represent Flynn in the separate case in the Eastern District of Virginia. That case is against Flynn's former partner, and Flynn will be a witness in that case as part of his cooperation with Team Mueller. OTOH, the cases are closely related and I would have to assume that there will be cooperation between all the attorneys representing Flynn. The fact that such a high profile legal ethics expert as Hodes is part of the team is, I think, suggestive.

That said ...

Politico's Darren Samuelsohn, in a series of tweets, reports that Sidney Powell is only one of Flynn's new attorneys. Per Gateway Pundit:

The team consists of new members — Jesse Binnall, Philip John Harvey & W. William Hodes, along with Sidney Powell — to represent him in his ongoing case. 

These attorneys have entered notices of appearance in the EDVA case against Flynn’s former business partner where Flynn is expected to testify.

W. William Hodes is the author of “Law and Lawyering” a nationally recognized treatise on legal ethics that is updated annually. Hodes was a member of the Advisory Council to the American Bar Association’s Ethics 2000 Commission.

This should keep Robert Mueller and his far left “pitbull” Andrew Weissmann up at night.

Per Samuelsohn at Politico:

Assessing The Assessment

A few days ago commenter Mike Sylwester noted in a comment to Brennan's Task Force--The Heart Of The Russia Hoax that the Brennan task force that was assembled to stop Trump appears to have excluded analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of State (DoS) from its work. This, despite the fact that DoD and DoS representatives with Democrat political connections played key roles in propagating the Russia Hoax. The task force's work, of course, included coming up with the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that has been perhaps the fundamental driver of the whole Russia Hoax narrative. As a result, the ICA has been getting renewed scrutiny.

This morning I was taking a look at an article by Ray McGovern, DoJ Bloodhounds on the Scent of John Brennan, which also focuses on reporting that Brennan's task force is being targeted by Barr and Durham. It happens that McGovern's article closes with a pointed reference to the Intelligence Community Assessment and its exclusion of any views that might have been, well, independent. Earlier, in About that IC Assessment: Paul Sperry Has Good News, we quoted Sperry's reporting that GOP Congressional investigators have been honing in on the production of that Assessment and, in particular, the growing likelihood that--like virtually all else Russia Hoax--it was essentially a byproduct of the Steele "dossier":

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the [Steele] dossier. On Tuesday, Nunes sent letters to Obama intel officials responsible for the report. He demanded former top spook John Brennan and intel czar James Clapper provide answers about how they used the dossier in intel reports and when they learned the Clinton camp paid for it. 

Under oath, Brennan has denied knowing the Clinton campaign commissioned the dossier. He also told the House intelligence panel the CIA didn’t rely on the dossier “in any way” for its reports on Russian interference. Committee staff are taking a second look at his May 2017 testimony. 

Clapper, for his part, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the ICA was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

In that light, here are the closing paragraphs of McGovern's article, in which McGovern highlights the exclusion of DIA and DoS from the task force and, therefore, from any voice in developing the ICA:

A Snapshot Of The Mueller FBI

Yesterday at a House Intelligence Committee hearing two retired FBI agents were called by the Democrats as expert witnesses. Per Jeff Carlson:

Witnesses at the hearing—titled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1″—included Robert Anderson and Stephanie Douglas, described by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as former executives from the FBI’s counterintelligence division. Left out of Schiff’s description of Anderson and Douglas was that both witnesses had worked under former FBI Director Mueller prior to his role as special counsel.

Sean Hannity interviewed Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows afterwards. Here are some excerpts:

NUNES: What was amazing to me, ... is there were two retired FBI agents on the stand there, ... What I was amazed at is the lack of concern by these former FBI agents, one of whom Peter Strzok used to work for and, look, they served their country and I'm sure they did a great job, but when I brought up the fact that we probably shouldn't be using counterintelligence capabilities in this country to target a political campaign, they just sat there. ... I know we always say, oh, this happened at the very top of the FBI, but I will tell you, if that attitude permeated throughout the counterintelligence capabilities, and if retired FBI agents think its OK to use counterintelligence against political campaigns, I think we've gone a long way in this country, ...

MEADOWS: ... Even some of the witnesses here today on Capitol hill? They're supposed to be experts? They hadn't even read the Steele dossier!

So how unimpressive is that? Most Americans probably think being an FBI agent, working at the higher levels at FBIHQ, working CI, protecting against espionage and all that stuff--that's pretty impressive, requires smarts and dedication, a sharp, inquiring mind. Right? And here we are, talking about THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN FBI HISTORY, even in US history, and it happened within a few years of them leaving the job. One of them even formerly supervised a major player in all this, Strzok.

So Nunes asks them, What do you think of the FBI using CI capabilities to spy on political campaigns? And "they just sat there." How intellectually unengaged do you have to be, given their background, to have no opinion on that, or none that you're willing to offer?

Durham Is Focusing On The Task Force And The ICA Assessment

Excellent. AG Bill Barr is on the same page we described earlier today: Brennan's Task Force--The Heart Of The Russia Hoax. Barr recognizes the Task Force and the ICA Assessment as twin lynchpins in the Russia Hoax.

The NYT has an article out that reports that AG Bill Barr's prosecutor of choice for the Russia Hoax "review", John Durham, "wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016." That means, the Task Force. And the NYT understands that:

In the summer of 2016, the intelligence community formed a task force housed at the C.I.A. to investigate Russian interference. The group shared intelligence with F.B.I. investigators who opened the bureau’s Russia inquiry ...

Further, Durham is focusing on the analytical process behind the production of the ICA Assessment.

Specifically, the article (Justice Dept. Seeks to Question C.I.A. Officers in Russia Inquiry Review) reports that Durham will soon seek to interview two CIA employees who were key to that CIA/FBI cooperation in 2016--and it should come as no surprise that the same personnel who were involved in the Task Force were also involved in the production of the ICA assessment (Peter Strzok, on the FBI side, was also involved in both):

One of the C.I.A. officers he wants to question works at the agency’s counterintelligence mission center that would have been one conduit for the C.I.A. to pass intelligence to the F.B.I. about Russian attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign, or information that the agency uncovered about Moscow’s interference campaign. C.I.A. officers at the center work closely with the F.B.I. on complex cases like hunting down traitors and helping validate the agency’s informants. 

The senior analyst whom the Justice Department wants to talk to was involved in the C.I.A. assessment of Russian activities in 2016, ...

The article makes two additional points:

Sperry Tweets Highlights Of HPSCI Hearing

Paul Sperry is tweeting highlights from today's HPSCI hearing, at which two FBI officials testified. Here are a few of his tweets:


Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry_ 

4 hours ago
BREAKING: In (LIVE) hearing, Nunes just pronounced: "The counterintelligence department over at the FBI is in big trouble."  

40 minutes ago
BREAKING:Rep Stefanik asserted that Comey "circumvented" requirements to brief Gang of 8 about counterintelligence investigations of a federal campaign in March 2017 & instead broke the rules to publicly confirm for 1st time the FBI was investigating members of the Trump campaign

60 minutes ago
BREAKING: Rep. Ratcliffe suggested during line of questioning in today's HPSCI hearing that the FBI had "exculpatory" info (likely ref to alleged transcripts of recorded convos) re Papadopoulos & yet w/h it from FISA affidavit, which names him as part of alleged Russian conspiracy

1 hour ago
Nunes pointed out that "numerous" current government officials and former officials -- including anti-Trumper Gen. Hayden -- have appeared many times on RT and some have even taken RT money, and yet they were not put under counterintelligence investigation like Lt. Gen. Flynn.‏

2 hours ago
All Schiff & Dems & their witnesses have in terms of any "collusion" is Manafort sharing polling data to Kilimnik even tho Kilimnik was US asset (not Russian agent) & he was Manafort's partner in political consultancy & the polling data came from firm contracted by consultancy!

2 hours ago
BREAKING: Schiff's FBI witnesses -- both of whom worked for Mueller when he was FBI director -- claimed under oath they have never read the Steele dossier

No, I don't believe that last bit either.

Brennan's Task Force--The Heart Of The Russia Hoax

Mark Meadows is promising us indictments in the Russia Hoax "this month"--June, 2019. In the meantime, while Bill Barr plays his cards close to the vest and the Dems play at impeachment theater, it may be worth our while to review some matters that we haven't looked at for a while. Barr talks about getting to the "origins" of the Russia Hoax, which we know could go back well into 2015. However, in a compelling article dating back to March, 2018, J. E. Dyer makes the case that the period July - Mid-October of 2016 is crucial (The heart of Russiagate: Probes by Nunes, Grassley, and Graham will point to Obama task force).

To illustrate her point, Dyer constructs a timeline for that period. What develops from the timeline is that all the major players come together during this period, and the common element that ties them together is the Steele dossier. Additionally, Dyer draws attention to the Russia Hoax task force that Brennan formed toward the beginning of this period. Obviously Barr's and John Durham's prosecutors and investigators won't focus solely on this time period but, because of the way that the various players interact during these three months, thanks to our knowledge of the task force, a focus on this period has the advantage of pointing toward those exercised overall direction of the Russia Hoax. That knowledge, in turn, will help focus all other investigation.

We know that the first installment in what became known as the Steele dossier turned up dated June 20, 2016. How long the project had been in preparation is difficult to say, but once started events began in earnest--on both sides of the Atlantic. Let's run down a few of them:

UPDATED: Sidney Powell Is Flynn's New Lawyer

I've only read the news at Fox. My initial take is that this is a clear signal that Flynn will now challenge his own guilty plea. No other reading makes sense, given Powell's high profile as an appellate attorney, her vocal criticism of the entire Mueller Inquisition, and her past experience with and continued sharp criticism of Andrew Weissmann's tactics in particular. This from the Fox account will give you a flavor for Powell's profile in this current case and why I think Flynn could only be intending to put up a real fight:

Powell has repeatedly criticized Andrew Weissmann, a top lawyer involved in the prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. In a 2017 piece, Powell wrote: “Judging by Mueller's staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.” 

Powell accused Weissmann, once the director of the Enron Task Force, of “prosecutorial overreach” in past cases and said it could signal what was in store for President Trump and his associates in the Russia probe. 

Powell was so outraged after one case involving Weissmann that, in 2012, she filed a formal complaint of prosecutorial misconduct with the Texas bar and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility. She also wrote a book about the experience called “Licensed to Lie.” She has argued that Weissmann and his task force “made up a crime,” alleging the team gave the defendants “false and misleading summaries of what witnesses had told the government.”

Sound familiar?

This goes back to the Enron Task Force, in which Powell handled an appeal for a Merrill Lynch executive. Her experience led her to write Licensed To Lie--a remarkable book for a practicing attorney.  In that book she recounts the abusive techniques used by DoJ attorneys like Weissmann years ago, as recounted here in her interview with Mark Levin. I go into more detail on Weissmann's background with Mueller in Why Andrew Weissmann? Again, all this should ring bells:

What's Important In The DoJ Letter To Nadler

Stephen Boyd, Assistant AG, has written a letter to Jerrold Nadler in response to Nadler's request for information regarding the "review" that DoJ is conducting into "certain activities" with regard to the 2016 presidential election--"and related matters." You can read the letter here.

Boyd states that

"it is well established that, in 2016, the U.S. government and others undertook certain intelligence-gathering and investigative steps directed at persons associated with the Trump Campaign ... there remain open questions relating to the origins of this counter-intelligence investigation and the U.S. and foreign intelligence activities that took place prior to and during that investigation.”

Boyd goes on to note activities that have been undertaken thus far, mostly to coordinate with other agencies:

1. Preserve relevant records, 

2. Ensure the availability of witnesses, 

3. Identify and assemble relevant materials. 

For my money, however, the key is in the first paragraph. Boyd makes no bones about how broad the scope of the "review" is. The review includes not only the actions of the US intelligence services, it will also seek to illuminate the role of foreign intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals:

UPDATED: Re Social Media As Public Accommodations

I think that's the way the debate is framed, right?

Anyway, John Zmirak tweets his new article, David French Versus … the Civil Rights Act? which demonstrates the bankruptcy of NeverTrumpism and DavidFrenchism:

John Zmirak‏

@JZmirak

Anyone on the Right who tells you "Go found your own Facebook" ... would he have told black Americans "Go start your own chain of lunch counters and hotels!"?
8:39 AM - 10 Jun 2019

Here's how Zmirak begins:

Who In The World Would Ever Cooperate With The FBI Or The CIA?

Carter Page was interviewed today by Maria Bartiromo. I found the interview to be generally unsatisfactory--Maria repeatedly set Page up to provide incisive commentary, and Page usually ducked those opportunities, preferring to talk about ancillary matters. However, beginning at about the 2 minute mark there is an interesting segment that runs as follows:

PAGE: I had a longstanding relationship with the CIA going back decades, essentially, ... and in this fake Mueller report they just refer to this as, Oh, he's "colluding", if you will, with these Russian intelligence officers.

I'm acting as a source, doing it for our government and, oh, by the way, doing it for free as opposed to these DNC consultants" [who were getting paid by both the DNC and Russian oligarchs, but were also receiving "eleven payments" "as Judicial Watch has revealed"]. 

That last is a clear reference to Christopher Steele, who received 11 payments from the FBI.

So, Page is essentially saying: I had a longstanding relationship with the CIA [as well as with the FBI], I was providing them with information, gratis, and this is how they pay me back--they accuse me publicly (through leaks) of being a Russian agent.

Who in their right mind would cooperate with US government agencies that treat cooperating witnesses/informants like that? AG Bill Barr speaks of restoring credibility to the DoJ and the Intelligence Community--after revelations like these, that's a long road.