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.

The President's Lawyers Speak

With Team Mueller shut down and the Barr summary public, President Trump's lawyers have been speaking out: John Dowd, Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow (but not Emmett Flood, who I don't expect to speak publicly in the near future). John Dowd, Trump's first lawyer has spoken on a number of forums, perhaps most notably an hour long interview with Byron York.

Dowd's interview with York is a somewhat rambling affair, although it has its definite points of interest. Personally, I grew a bit impatient with Dowd's repeated protestations of respect for "Bob" (Mueller) and how "polite" and "considerate" everyone on Team Mueller was. I guess I know where Dowd is coming from, but I found it frankly tiresome--especially in view of some of what he revealed.

According to Dowd, Trump's first lawyer, the whole thing began with Rosenstein's announcement of the Special Counsel with no warning, no head's up. Sessions was actually speaking with Trump when the announcement came down, and Sessions immediately offered to resign. But, really, what was Trump supposed to do at that point? Dowd says that Rosenstein was a guy he "just didn't get."

Of course, the whole Russia Hoax was and is a political operation as much as--or maybe more than--a legal operation. From that standpoint, Dowd's strategy--approved by Trump at the time--of total cooperation and transparency can be said to have made sense. Dowd states that this strategy was based on discussions with "Bob" and the understanding that "Bob" would seek to wrap the whole thing up within a year. Right.

As it developed, by December, 2017, if not earlier, Dowd was completely convinced that Mueller had nothing on Trump, but "Bob" just kept working away. By early 2018 Dowd wrote a letter to Rosenstein asking for an explanation for why Team Mueller wasn't wrapping things up, given that there was no collusion. In response, says Dowd, Rosenstein simply "blew me off." At which point Dowd says he lost all respect for Rosenstein. But that, apparently, made no difference in Rosenstein's life, either.

Later, when "Bob" came to Dowd demanding that Trump submit to an interview or be subpoenaed, Dowd exploded. "Bob" acknowledged that Trump had "no exposure" (no prospect of criminal charges) but claimed he "needed to know what was in the president's mind". That told Dowd that it was really all about "obstruction." At that point he basically invited "Bob" to bring the subpoena on--the president's lawyers would welcome the opportunity to take it to court. "Bob" dropped it.

This episode, and the footdragging, really irked Dowd. He recounts that he repeatedly told "Bob" that the president needed to get this over with, because in negotiations with foreign leaders Trump would be asked: "But, Donald, will you still be here?" Somehow, considerations like that appear not to have impressed "Bob".

One other minor point. Dowd says there were two guys he "just didn't get." One, of course, was Rosenstein. The other was Comey. It's clear that Dowd regarded Comey as simply a very strange guy, possibly not fully in touch with reality. That would be one explanation. Another might be that Comey is a peculiarly malevolent and narcissistic personality.

Overall, and in hindsight, it's easy enough to see the possible benefits to Dowd's strategy, despite the obvious frustrations over the past years. Those benefits may become especially apparent when Barr releases the longer report, because Barr will probably find ways to emphasize the extreme cooperation and transparency of Trump to blunt the liberal PR offensive.

That said, however, you have to wonder whether it would have been better to have pursued a more legal and less political strategy. I've maintained for the past two years and more that there never was a basis for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation to start with--as Devin Nunes has recently stated. Andy McCarthy, NeverTrumper that he is, seems to agree. Would it not have been better--arguably--to have challenged the Special Counsel appointment in court for legal insufficiency, lack of authority, based on the clear lack of probable cause? That I think, is where the legal debate will go in the future.

Nellie Ohr's Story--Puzzlements

Reading Nellie Ohr's testimony to the House (October 19, 2018) is a bit of a frustrating experience. In the first place there's a significant amount of recurring legal wrangling over the scope of the spousal privilege that Nellie is claiming with regard to her husband, Bruce Ohr, who testified to the House on August 28, 2018. Beyond that, however, Nellie is, when compared to any of the previous witnesses, tight lipped. She volunteers virtually nothing, constantly asks for questions to be rephrased, and generally professes ignorance on most matters that she's questioned on. Nevertheless, there are possibly significant points in her testimony, so let's take a closer look.

Probably the biggest surprise in her testimony is her confirmation that Ukrainian legislator Serhiy Leshchenko was a "source" for Fusion GPS. One point of interest in this is the entire line of questioning--as of October 19, 2018, I don't think Serhiy Leshchenko was on any researchers' radar screens, but he was definitely on the House GOP's radar screen. Nellie herself states that she was quite familiar with Leshchenko as an "anti-corruption" activist in Ukraine--a George Soros connected angle that we recently explored in The Soros, Ukraine, FBI Connection and Do All Roads In The Russia Hoax Lead To Ukraine? The exchange regarding Leshchenko between Nellie and the Committee is a bit ambiguous toward the end, but there's no doubt that the questioners believe that Leshchenko was providing information about the travels of Trump family members--and area of research that Nellie was engaged in. As I say, it's somewhat unclear whether Nellie actually confirms that, although the probability is that she does--but suggests that there may have been more to Leshchenko's source information than simply Trump family travel. You decide (pp. 113-115):