What James Baker Told Congress

Kim Strassel at the WSJ has an article today that addresses James Baker's testimony to Congress. Baker, of course, was General Counsel for the FBI under the leadership of his good friend, James Comey. That made Baker Comey's closest legal adviser and the top lawyer at the FBI. We've gone over the parts of Baker's testimony that have been leaked through Jeff Carlson. The relevant posts include:

James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited

James Baker Identifies Another Source Behind the FISA Application

It's James Baker's Turn To Throw Rosenstein Under A Bus

Strassel writes behind the WSJ's subscription wall. For those who don't subscribe, here are the main points that Strassel makes in What FBI’s Counsel Told Congress: Baker’s testimony shows Comey wasn’t being fully candid about the dossier.

The title tells Strassel's central point. Comey tried to "play dumb" about what he knew regarding most of the Russia Hoax. The reality, however, was that Comey--and the FBI generally, at the executive level--had a very clear understanding of who the players behind the "dossier" really were, and that they represented the Clinton campaign:

The general counsel [Baker] explained that the FBI’s application to eavesdrop on Carter Page through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was one of the few he ever personally reviewed. Why? Because it was “sensitive” and “controversial” and targeted a person with “connections to a candidate for the office of President of the United States.” 

That, Mr. Baker said, was also why in its FISA application “we were obligated to talk about Simpson [Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Clinton oppo researcher] and what the hell we knew about him”—namely to “alert the [FISA] court to the fact that there were a range of issues with respect to the providence [= provenance] of this information and the relationship that we had with respect to Mr. Simpson and his credibility.” Mr. Baker nonetheless fails to explain how that “range of issues” was communicated via the obscure footnote the FBI ultimately included in its application, which vouched for Mr. Steele and made only vague reference to an “identified U.S. Person” who might (or might not) have political motives. 

As to Mr. Sussmann and his documents, Mr. Baker similarly says he “was concerned about the nature of this material from the first instance.” He knew Mr. Sussmann was involved with the DNC and had also given his documents to the New York Times.

Of course this isn't news, but I think we can count on it that Baker's testimony will get much closer to center stage as the Russia Hoax continues to unravel. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page ... Baker's cooperation is very bad news, and it will get worse.

Please refer to the links above to refresh your recollection if necessary.

Do All Roads In The Russia Hoax Lead To Ukraine?

I've been mentioning the Ukraine angle to the Russia Hoax in comments and asides for several weeks. Yesterday evening, with a Zerohedge post (Real Collusion: Ukraine Launches Criminal Investigation Into Pro-Hillary Election Meddling) and several articles there the story may have achieved liftoff.

As with all aspects of the Russia Hoax this is complicated, so we'll need to work our way into it one step at a time.

Paul Manafort

A good place to start is with Paul Manafort. Recall that Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March, 2016--coincidentally or not, at the same time that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were brought on board. Manafort was campaign manager for almost exactly two months (June 20 to August 19) before being abruptly fired. But the real point is that from 2003 right up to 2016 Manafort had been a "political consultant" in Ukraine.

How did Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign actually come to pass? It turns out that that remains a bit of a mystery. As explained by Time magazine (How Donald Trump Hired and Fired Paul Manafort), the standard, Wikipedia endorsed theory, is that Manafort was recommended to Trump by a close Trump friend, Thomas Barrack, Jr. But, as Time notes,

... probe a little deeper and none of the sources familiar with the details can quite agree anymore how Trump came to decide hiring Manafort was a good idea. At least three differing and at-times-contradictory versions are offered by sources in Trump’s orbit.

There's the Barrack story, of course, but another account has it that Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, recommended Manafort to Papa Trump as someone who knew the ropes of political conventions and would be more "professional" than the upstart Corey Lewandowski, who had helped propel Trump through the primaries. And some claim that Roger Stone was the connection to Manafort.

All of these accounts--or a mix of them--are possible, of course. Nevertheless, they tend to leave one asking, Is it possible that some clever person or organization worked through these Trump associates to get Manafort a spot near the top of the Trump campaign. Consider--as Time suggests, that hiring Manafort was "a good idea" wasn't exactly self evident, in the circumstances, so how was persuading Papa Trump managed? And then that coincidence--or non-coincidence--that Manafort came on board at basically the same time that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos did seems a bit like lightening striking the same place three times. (For the view that Page and Papadopoulos may have been "lured" into the Trump campaign for the purpose of setting them up, cf. The Spy In The Trump Campaign.)

Zainab Ahmad Has Also Left Team Mueller

Following closely upon the departure of Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weissmann, from Team Mueller it is now being reported that another key prosecutor, Zainab Ahmad, has left Team Mueller. It has been widely reported that Weissmann was given the boot by new AG Bill Barr. With regard to both departures, Rep. Jim Jordan noted that he and Mark Meadows had sent a letter to Barr accusing both prosecutors of a conflict of interest. Jordan raised the same issues we alluded to in The FBI: Working Hand In Glove With Clinton Operatives:

When Ohr met Steele again in either late September or early October, 2016 he did so in company with quite a group: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page from the FBI, and three DOJ career officials from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman--currently Robert Mueller's deputy. Note that while Crossfire Hurricane was a CI case and Strzok was second in charge of Counterintelligence at the FBI, the DoJ officials were all from the Criminal Division. For prosecutors to meet with an asset at this early stage strongly suggests they were planning strategy. But this also probably means that they were planning for the FISA application, given that the application was submitted on October 21, 2016, immediately after Steele's October 20 report--the report in which Michael Cohen's famous trip to Prague for a "clandestine" meet superseded the clandestine Moscow meet of Carter Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign. Which leads to the supposition that this meeting with Steele was to tell him, inter alia, that more detailed information was needed for the FISA application--which Steele duly provided, in the form of the now famous Cohen-Prague miscue. 

All in all, it's an interesting picture: three officials from DoJ's Criminal Division meeting with the second in command of the FBI's CI division (accompanied by the Deputy Director's counsel) to plan for a FISA on--in effect--a candidate for the presidency. Coaching the asset on what was now needed for the FISA to go through, which would be typical Weissman tactics. And all this without informing the Acting AG, Sally Yates. Or so they say.

In possibly related news, Team Mueller has missed a filing deadline, citing the press of other business.

UPDATED: The Rosenstein Exit Delay

For anyone wondering what the recent reports that Rod Rosenstein's scheduled departure from DoJ has been delayed means--and, especially, how to square it with Paul Sperry's tweet that OIG is looking at Rosenstein--I suspect that CTH has hit this nail squarely on the head:

Taking in all of the recent developments, the simple explanation here is that new Attorney General William Barr is not letting Rosenstein exit the DOJ until the DAG cleans up the mess he created by initiating the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. 

Any incoming executive would not want to be left holding the bag of consequence for a legal and political fiasco created by a subordinate executive who now attempts to head for the exits.  One can reasonably project that AG Barr would tell DAG Rosenstein he ain’t leaving until the mass of crap he created has been resolved, reconciled and reduced to a manageable level. 

Ask any effective senior executive and they’ll affirm: 

…”Sorry skippy, once you start the bus, you ain’t getting off til the rides over”…

Again, as long as Rosenstein remains at DoJ, he'll be required to respond to all questions from OIG. We've seen this dynamic at work in the past. FBI/DoJ officials held on long after they "should have been" fired. But if they had been fired the legal dynamics would be greately altered. This would also explain why Bruce Ohr--whose past activities have everything to do with OIG's reported interest in Rosenstein--is still at DoJ. It tells us that Ohr was a very central player in the Russia Hoax.

What remains to be seen is whether and how this development plays into the departure of Andrew Weissmann, who has long been reported to be the author of Mueller's report.

UPDATE: Jack Posobiec is providing further detail on what's going on with Rosenstein and Barr. According to Posobiec, Barr asked Rosenstein to write for him a summary of Russia Hoax events. It's not clear how much the summary was supposed to cover: the events in which Rosenstein was personally involved or events as he has come to know them for the entire 2+ years? However, Posobiec does specify that Barr is specifically inquiring into the Carter Page FISA warrant and renewals, one of which Rosenstein signed off on. Whatever the case may be, Posobiec further states that, while Rosenstein completed the summary two weeks ago, Barr still has questions. Which, of course, puts Rosenstein on the spot. Any lack of candor in his summary and he's in trouble. This, says Posobiec, is all part of Barr's own internal review that is focused on FISA abuse.

One assumes, therefore, that if Barr is focusing on FISA abuse he is also in talks with IG Horowitz, whose FISA abuse report has yet to be released. Earlier I pointed out that Horowitz's long awaited report has again been pushed back, and speculated that Horowitz had been waiting for an AG--Barr--who would give him a free hand, that Horowitz felt that Rosenstein had tied his hands. All of this has to make Rosenstein feel that he's on the hot seat.

Posobiec also repeats his claim that both Russians and George Soros linked Ukrainians served as "sources" for Christopher Steele.

Nunes Airs His Big Picture Theory Of The Russia Hoax

Shortly after the Lisa Page testimony was made public, on March 12th, Rep. Devin Nunes, former head of the HPSCI, did an interview with Sean Hannity. In the interview Nunes lays out is, in some important respects, his view of the big picture of the Russia Hoax--who's behind it, what were it's origins, what needs to be done. Some of what he says is speculative, and he acknowledges that. Also, while he and his GOP colleagues are preparing criminal referrals to DoJ, Nunes openly states that "the best possible thing that could happen" would be for DoJ to take this investigation in hand, because there's still plenty of work that needs to be done.

I've done a transcript of the interview--the first nine minutes--that's largely word for word, but cleaned up a bit to eliminate cross-talk, stumbling for words, etc. You can listen to the interview here, but I think reading and thinking about what Nunes is saying may prove provocative. There's lots to ponder in what he says. I'm pleased to be able to say that Nunes confirms many of the things that I and commenters here have been saying over the past two years. Among other items of note, Nunes maintains strongly that the FBI was "thick into" the anti-Trump effort from the beginning of 2016 and not, as their "essentially fake narrative" maintains, only beginning in July. He clearly suggests that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was a major source for the dossier operation, and he openly states that Andrew Weissmann--nominally Mueller's deputy--is "running the operation."  If reading this sparks your curiosity, as it really should, I highly recommend the linked posts below, because Weissmann was centrally involved in the Russia Hoax long before there was ever a Team Mueller--possibly as much as a year before:

The FBI: Working Hand In Glove With Clinton Operatives

Why Andrew Weissmann?


****

So, here's the interview, with some comments added:

SH = Sean Hannity
DN = Devin Nunes

Oh My! Meet The "Meticulous" Chris Steele

You may recall that Christopher Steele was sued for defamation by a Russian, Aleksej Gubarev, for allegations about Gubarev that appeared in Steele's infamous "dossier." The deposition of Christopher Steele's deposition in that case--which was released to the public yesterday--turns out to be a bit disappointing, in that only the parts that related directly to Gubarev were released. You can read what's available here.

Nevertheless, that limited glimpse of Steele's methodology should utterly destroy any residual credibility he may have--if, indeed, any remains at this point. It should also have the same effect on the entire FBI/DoJ Russia Hoax operation.

If you want to see the detailed analysis, check out Undercover Huber's thread. To give you some flavor of what just this limited glimpse reveals about Steele's research methods--and FBI vetting of his reliability--I'm providing some snippets. You can also refer to a post from August, 2018: Just How Reliable Is Christopher Steele?

And remind yourself as you read: This is the type of stuff the whole Russia Hoax is based on. Chris Steele--and his principals at Fusion GPS--used this stuff to keep our politics in a perpetual uproar of anti-Trump hysteria for the past two years. Aided and abetted by a media and political class that knew better.

Has Barr Unleashed The Dogs Of War?

Earlier today I referred to the reports that AG Bill Barr ordered Team Mueller and Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weissmann, to shut down their plans to try to squeeze Michael Flynn to get damaging information against Jared Kushner and Don Trump, Jr. The basis for Barr's order was simply that Team Mueller had no credible reason to believe either Kushner or Don Jr. had engaged in criminal activity. Barr effectively forced Weissmann out of Team Mueller and the DoJ. That was a strong sign that, as I said, Barr intends to be Attorney General in full.

A second sign came last night when Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a Special Counsel who would investigate FBI/DoJ wrongdoing in both the Hillary related investigations as well as the Russia Hoax. Ordinarily one might dismiss that as mere rhetoric--except that Graham's statements tracked those of Barr himself. As far back as 2017 Barr had told the NYT that a failure of DoJ to look into the Uranium One case could be considered dereliction of their duty. Something seems to be afoot.

Of course the continuing release of witness transcripts from the House investigation--with nary a peep of reproval from Barr--seems to be another strong leading indicator of more to come. Rod Rosenstein had steadfastly stonewalled the House GOP's calls for the release of those documents.

Now, Paul Sperry tweets:


Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry

BREAKING: DOJ IG Horowitz is investigating who in the sr ranks of FBI & DOJ--including Rosenstein & Yates--knew Bruce Ohr was back-channeling anti-Trump dirt from Steele to the FBI after Steele was terminated by the FBI as a confidential source. Ohr is fully cooperating in probe.

9:01 PM - 13 Mar 2019

I emailed a friend this morning: If Barr gives IG Horowitz free rein to investigate it could be Katie bar the door time. While OIG does have limits to its authority, when it comes to investigating internal wrongdoing it is a formidable player. Horowitz has several hundred employees--lawyers, accountants, investigators, forensic specialists--at his disposal. He can do any job Barr asks him to do, no matter how extensive. He has the resources.

Barr came back to DoJ with a hard earned reputation as a pit bull of a litigator. He knows scorched earth. Does he intend to bring it to the Russia Hoax?

Strzok Interview Released

Developments coming hot and heavy today. Read it here. 312 pages. Should be interesting. And we're getting more Nellie revelations as well. My work is cut out for me.

Will The Tables Turn? The Lindsey Graham Interview

Earlier this morning I suggested that AG Bill Barr has loosed the reins that Rod Rosenstein had imposed on IG Michael Horowitz, regarding internal investigations of wrongdoing at the FBI and DoJ (Andrew Weissmann To Leave Team Mueller And DoJ). Last night, speaking to Sean Hannity, Lindsey Graham, new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referenced IG Horowitz's long anticipated report regarding FBI/DoJ abuse in the Carter Page FISA application, and he did it in an interesting way. Rather than say, We need to see OIG's report--long rumored to be complete--Graham spoke of the report as if there is still work to be done. As if Horowitz may have resisted release of the report because his hands had been tied.

Graham then went on to call for a Special Counsel to investigate the whole complex of highly irregular events surrounding the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia Hoax. (Video below)

I'm not sure how AG Barr feels about the whole concept of a Special Counsel--he may oppose it on principled conservative grounds. However, recall that as far back as summer of 2017 AG Barr went on public record--that's what speaking to the NYT means, I think--regarding this complex of investigations:

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.

Possibly Senator Graham's call for a Special Counsel needs to be viewed in that perspective.

UPDATES: Andrew Weissmann To Leave Team Mueller And DoJ

It's being widely reported this morning that the driving force behind Team Mueller, rabid partisan Dem and ethically out of control prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann will soon be leaving Team Mueller and returning to private practice. In irony that surely must be unintended, NPR reports:

Andrew Weissmann, the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, will study and teach at New York University and work on a variety of public service projects, including his longstanding interest in preventing wrongful convictions by shoring up forensic science standards used in courts, the sources added.

NPR, like many others, take this as a sign that the whole Team Mueller enterprise withchhunt is winding down--and that may well be the case. However, there are hints that there may be more going on behind the scenes.

Gateway Pundit is reporting, via Jack Posobiec, Attorney General Bill Barr confronted Mueller and Weissmann over their proposal to continue to yank General Flynn around in hopes of further "cooperation," demanding that they produce evidence that Flynn could provide probable cause that would lead to any other case. When Mueller and Weissmann were unable to do so, Barr--over their objections--told them to shut it down.

This is an indicator that Bill Barr may actually be reeling in Mueller’s out-of-control inquisition — a stark contrast from Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein.

Lisa Page's Confirmatory Bombshells - Day One

Lisa Page's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee--released yesterday by Rep. Doug Collins (Ga.) is 365 pages in length and was conducted over two days. It includes questioning in alternating rounds by the GOP and Dem Representatives. In what follows I will confine myself to the questioning by the GOP Reps, since the Dem questioning is mostly in the nature of damage control.

While there is overall little new in what Page says, her testimony is strongly confirmatory of the positions I have maintained over the past years regarding the Russia Hoax. I particularly welcome her testimony because it directs the focus to what I believe is the fundamental legal issue, which is: the basis for initiating the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) investigation. In that sense I refer to Page's testimony as containing "confirmatory bombshells." She removes any remaining doubt regarding the corruption that characterized the entire process.

ROUND ONE: TREY GOWDY QUESTIONING

The hearing leads off with Trey Gowdy doing the questioning. My impression at this point--as throughout--was pretty much in line with what the GOP Representatives who did the questioning stated at the time: Page gives every appearance of being a very forthcoming witness. True, Page is at times defensive, but she presents as sincere and credible, answering all questions forthrightly unless instructed not to answer by FBI counsel. Even then she attempts to provide as full a response as possible. Her narrative of an FBI that was alarmed at the possibility that the Trump campaign had been infiltrated by "the Russians" comes across as perfectly sincere. And yet ...

The actual effect of her testimony is quite otherwise when it's subjected to a close analysis. In fact, the actual thrust of her testimony is to strongly confirm that the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation (the FBI codename for the investigation into the Trump campaign) was fundamentally based on ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele's totally unverified "dossier". Further, it soon becomes apparent that the FBI was applying a double standard to Hillary Clinton related investigations as opposed to Steele's outlandish allegations against Trump.

Brief Sentencing Updates

First: General Flynn's sentencing was put off for another 90 days. Flynn requested the delay so he could testify in the trial of "Bijan Rafiekian, who faces charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign government agent for Turkey." Team Mueller did not oppose the request and specifically noted (paragraph #3) that, in their view, Flynn's cooperation with Team Mueller is complete. In other words: Ain't no collusion.

Second: Paul Manafort was sentenced by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Again, there was no hint that any of this related to Russia or "collusion." Based on the Zerohedge account it appears that, while she gave Manafort a tongue lashing, she also gave him a relatively lenient sentence that was in sharp contrast to what Team Mueller was asking for:

During the hearing, Manafort asked Judge Amy Berman Jackson for leniency during Wednesday's hearing, ... 

Jackson agreed with Manafort that the original 19-24 year sentencing guideline "overstates the seriousness of this offense."  

... 

In response, prosecutor Andrew Weissmann suggested that Manafort should be given no quarter.  

"I believe that is not reflective of someone who has learned a harsh lesson. It is not a reflection of remorse," said Weissmann.

Of more interest: Tomorrow the depositions of Christopher Steele are set to be made public. It has been reported that in the depositions Steele attempts to distance himself from the dossier.