Barr: I Felt Like I Was Reenacting D-Day!

Yeah, I'll bet!

The Hill

@thehill

AG Barr: "As we've been watching the coverage of June 6, 1944 D-Day, I had the thought that my arrival this time felt a little bit, I think, like jumping into Sainte-Mère-Église on the morning of June 5, trying to figure out where you could land without getting shot."

5:45 AM - 8 Jun 2019

 My advice: Get to know your security detail and treat them well.

Michael Flynn, Turkey, And His Serious Judgment Issues

Commenter Mike Sylwester points out an article by J. E. Dyer that appeared just yesterday: Serious question about a Flynn set-up, after Thursday’s Flynn/Manafort two-fer in the collapsing Spygate edifice. I had read the article yesterday and was turning it over in my mind. I'm sure it's been noticed that I'm not totally sympathetic toward Michael Flynn. Dyer's article may serve as a vehicle for explaining my attitude.

The relevant section of the long article--for our purposes--is the last section: "An unexplored aspect of a Flynn set-up". Dyer admits that the thesis she presents is still in its developmental stages, but she wanted to get it out because of the rapidly evolving status of the Mueller case against Flynn.

You can read the whole thing for the details. Basically, Dyer draws attention to Flynn's contract with a Turkish businessman, Ekim Alptekin, for the purpose of "repairing Turkey’s image in the United States." Of course you're asking, Ekim Who? Should I know this guy? The answer is, If you're Michael Flynn, former head of DIA, yes, you should either know who he is or find out who he is, PDQ:

... he’s a Dutch citizen of Turkish origin with an array of connections that include Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, George Soros, and senior U.S. officials ...

Dyer points out that Flynn's company, Flynn Intel Group, entered into this contract, perhaps not so coincidentally, in August, 2016--just as the race to election day was getting under way in earnest. Flynn had been in the running for the Vice Presidential nomination and had played a very prominent role at the Republican convention. He continued as a foreign policy adviser. What Dyer finds odd about this is simply this: Why hire the Flynn Intel Group for this job of "repairing Turkey's image in the US?"

UPDATED: Ken Starr: Mueller Has Put His Integrity In Play

Ken Starr made a great point on Hannity last night. This arose in the context of Mark Meadows' remarks regarding Mueller's omissions and misstatements in his Dossier, and the fact that Mueller never questioned the origin of the Steele "dossier", which everyone knows is "made up." 

When Starr's turn came, Starr went right to Mueller's parting shot, no questions, press conference and the question of Mueller's--and of Team Mueller's--integrity.

In the leadup to Starr's remarks Hannity dwelt on the outrageous bias of Mueller's hires to his Team--citing Andrew Weissmann and Jeannie Rhee--contrasting that with the graciousness of Barr in bailing Mueller out for his misleading remarks. Hannity remarks that Barr pulled Mueller's "sorry you-know-what" out of the fire. Starr laughs, then, still laughing:

STARR: I look forward to Bill Barr being able to speak without the encumbrance of being the Attorney General of the United States, because I think we're going to hear a lot. 

But here's my fundamental point. In [Mueller's] statement to the American people saying essentially, "This is my farewell, this is the last thing I'm going to say"--I hope it's not, I hope he will be subpoenaed if necessary--Bob Mueller said, "I'm paying tribute to the integrity of the people who worked for me." He has put, by his own words, the integrity in play.

Is this the cue for Lindsey Graham at some point? To subpoena Mueller and challenge his integrity and that of his hires.? Starr seems to think so, because he closed by pointing out that when his own integrity was challenged he voluntarily testified to Congress.

UPDATE: Speaking of integrity, who thinks Mueller wants to answer questions about this (below) under oath:

Paul Sperry‏

@paulsperry_ 

Mueller seized and searched his star "collusion" witness Nader's computer in January 2018, yet never charged him w child-porn trafficking or referred such charges to US attorney. A federal criminal attorney told me: "There's no way he could not have known"

12:05 PM - 7 Jun 2019

UPDATED: Mueller Caught In More Deception?

Deception--that would be the polite way to say: lies.

John Solomon's latest Thursday night bombshell is a biggie.

Do you remember Konstantin Kilimnik? He was a key Ukrainian associate of Paul Manafort, and he ended up being charged by Mueller with obstruction and conspiracy. He's said to have coached witnesses, preventing Mueller from getting to the real truth. Kilimnik is so important to the whole narrative that Mueller flags him right up front--on page 6 of his Dossier:

“The FBI assesses [Kilimnik] to have ties to Russian intelligence.”

That's so that each time you see Kilimnik's name mentioned throughout the rest of the Mueller Dossier you'll say to yourself: "Ha, that guy with Russian intelligence ties again--talking to the Trump campaign!" And you'll draw the conclusion Mueller wants you to draw: there was no way to prove collusion, but there was still something fishy going on. It also helps to keep alive the myth of "all out" Russian "meddling" in the election. How convenient that Kilimnik is another of those elusive Russians (Ukrainians?) who Mueller indicted but will never see the inside of a US courtroom.

And, wouldn't you know, the NYT picked up on that angle, too, when they learned that Paul Manafort had shared polling data from the Trump campaign with Kilimnik and even--the horror--discussed a peace plan for Ukraine! It must be collusion!

... during the campaign, Mr. Manafort and his Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, discussed a plan for peace in Ukraine. Throughout the campaign and the early days of the Trump administration, Russia and its allies were pushing various plans for Ukraine in the hope of gaining relief from American-led sanctions imposed after it annexed Crimea from Ukraine. 

Prosecutors and the news media have already documented a string of encounters between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates dating from the early months of Mr. Trump’s bid for the presidency, including the now-famous meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton. [This] disclosure appeared to some experts to be perhaps most damning of all. 

But, we're told, this information is the worst of all:

“This is the closest thing we have seen to collusion,” Clint Watts, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said of the data-sharing. “The question now is, did the president know about it?”

What did Trump know and when did he know it?

MULTI UPDATES: Big Flynn Development?

To my mind it seems very unusual that Flynn should change lawyers at this very late stage in the proceedings. I can't begin to say what's up. After all, Flynn was recommended no jail time and has vociferously maintained his guilt--under oath. I've always thought that Flynn was poorly served by his lawyers, Eric Holder's firm. Wait and see what develops.

Techno Fog‏ @Techno_Fog

NEW - General Flynn is getting new lawyers. Flynn "is terminating Covington & Burling LLP as his counsel and has already retained new counsel for this matter" Interesting development at this stage...

8:15 AM - 6 Jun 2019

UPDATE 1: Jack Posobiec says he's been told that Flynn's new lawyer is very high profile, appears regularly on TV, name will be known to all of us.

Will Chamberlain predicts Flynn will withdraw guilty plea. That makes sense to me. In my last Flynn post I stated "God helps those who help themselves." Maybe Flynn has decided to help himself instead of knuckling under.

UPDATE 2: Techno Fog is now noting a Minute Order from earlier today in the Flynn case--he speculates, as he did the other day, that the transcripts may have been turned over to Judge Sullivan under seal (because of classification issues). To understand what Techno Fog is saying, note that the minute order from 6/4 says "the government is not required to file any additional materials or information on the public docket." The 6/6 minute order grants the governments motion to file documents under seal, i.e., NOT on the public docket.

Techno Fog‏ @Techno_Fog

With the information we have, can't be 100% certain the transcripts were produced to Judge Sullivan. (Leaning that way, however.) We'll see. Court Order below. The Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal isn't on public docket.

9:51 AM - 6 Jun 2019

UPDATE 3: Of course, "not at liberty to discuss" doesn't necessarily mean, Yes.

Darren Samuelsohn‏Verified account @dsamuelsohn

In a text message to @POLITICO Rudy Giuliani said he was not Flynn’s new lawyer. Alan Dershowitz replied that he’s not representing Flynn. Joe DiGenova in an email wrote, “We are not at liberty to discuss.” https://politi.co/2IAOTKr  w/ @joshgerstein

11:06 AM - 6 Jun 2019

UPDATE 4: Very interesting point. In the write-up Flynn appears to be very forthcoming. Indeed, one wonders--why is he telling the FBI this stuff? Still, it's easy enough to see that if Flynn had multiple meetings with Russian and other diplomats, maybe he'd forget or mistake some details. The point, of course, is that they were looking to "get" Flynn.

Techno Fog‏ @Techno_Fog

Flynn "volunteering" info that he and Kushner had a "sensitive meeting" w/ the Russian Ambassador at Trump Tower is significant -- It may show why Strzok thought he was telling the truth: because he was volunteering - and not hiding - the extent of his contacts w/ the Russians.

4:22 PM - 6 Jun 2019

UPDATED: Scorched Earth

This isn't really a blog. Rather, it's a simple reading recommendation. The article, Paul Sperry's lengthy account of the ordeals that persons caught up in the Russia Hoax Mueller Inquisition underwent is called 'Scorched Earth': Mueller's Targets Speak Out. It covers the stories of the usual people you've heard of--Papadopoulos, Page, Corsi--but other victim/targets as well. It illustrates the police state Left/Progs will institute if given half a chance.

One thing to pay attention to. Many have suggested that Mueller knew there was no collusion and therefore pursued only obstruction. As I have argued, this isn't really true. Yes, it's true that they knew from the start that there was no collusion, but no that does not mean that Team Mueller didn't seek to frame people up on "collusion" charges. To the contrary, the inquisitors went to great--even absurd, if not so serious--lengths in their efforts to obtain any scrap that might allow them to credibly claim "collusion."

“They seemed desperate to find something to hang onto the narrative” of Russian collusion, ..." 

Their firsthand accounts pull back the curtain on the secret inner workings of the Mueller probe, revealing how the special counsel's nearly two dozen prosecutors and 40 FBI agents used harshly aggressive tactics to pressure individuals to either cop to crimes or implicate others in felonies involving collusion. 

Some subjects of investigation said Mueller’s agents and prosecutors tried to pressure them into admitting things to give the appearance of collusion. They demanded to know if they had spoken to anyone with a “Russian accent.” They threatened to jail them "for life" and to drag their wives or girlfriends into the investigation. 

 “Are you protecting Donald Trump?” Corsi said Rhee barked at him. She and the other prosecutors “were out to prove that I was the link between [Wikileaks founder Julian] Assange and [Trump confidante Roger] Stone — the key link to Assange that the prosecutors had to establish to advance their Russian collusion narrative.”

IMO, this is an important read. We'll be seeing more of these accounts, now that the targets have escaped Mueller's clutches.

ADDENDUM: In the spirit of full disclosure, it seems that Sperry spoke with former FBI agents in preparing this story, and they aren't uniformly proud of what Mueller has done to the FBI's reputation:

“The charges are lying and obstruction, so they dress out like this was a Waco assault? C’mon,” retired FBI special agent Michael Biasello said, adding that Mueller clearly was trying to intimidate Stone. 

... 

Schmitz said Mueller’s investigation was a costly and terrible waste of time. Even federal law enforcement veterans say the probe was overkill. 

“[He] put the country through two years of divisive trauma based on an investigation that he knew was baseless,” former FBI agent and lawyer Mark Wauck said. 

After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Biasello said, he was one of 10 FBI agents selected to serve on Mueller’s team to investigate and research the hijackers assigned to American Airlines Flight 77.

"In this case,” he said, referring to the Trump-Russia probe, “he obviously was corrupted by his personal relationship with [former FBI Director James] Comey and politics. The glaring failure to produce a thread of a case against the president caused him and his office to resort to unethical investigative and prosecutorial methods." 

Ex-Trump campaign official Michael Caputo,who went public earlier, complaining he had to remortgage his house after having to hire expensive Washington lawyers, wants Mueller and his team investigated for “prosecutorial abuses.” “Ruining lives was blood sport for them,” he said. 

Moore agreed: “You look at the lives ruined — Corsi, Michael Flynn and others. That alone is enough to warrant a special investigation.”

"Even federal law enforcement veterans?" I wish I could say "especially."

I'll also say this: Barr's investigation will be incomplete if it doesn't address these abuses. Trump is a victim, but by far not the only victim. Our constitutional order has been victimized.

AOC: Free Paul Manafort From Solitary

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hopefully Manafort's appeal succeeds and it doesn't come to this:

Spies Are The New Journalists

That's the title of Lee Smith's latest article--a real tour de force. I'll paste in the opening and closing paragraphs and hopefully that will whet your appetite for the in between. Some real LOL moments--at least there were for me. Here's where you'll find it:

Spies Are the New Journalists 

And with the help of big names in media they’re turning journalism into an intelligence operation 

By Lee Smith

There are two sets of laws in the United States today. One is inscribed in law books and applies to the majority of Americans. The other is a canon of privileges enjoyed by an establishment under the umbrella of an intelligence bureaucracy that has arrogated to itself the rights and protections of what was once a free press. 

The media is now openly entwined with the national security establishment in a manner that would have been unimaginable before the advent of the age of the Dossier—the literary forgery the FBI used as evidence to spy on the Trump team.

In coordinating to perpetrate the Russiagate hoax on the American public, the media and intelligence officials have forged a relationship in which the two partners look out for the other’s professional and political interests. Not least of all, they target shared adversaries and protect mutual friends. 

... 

Rather than unraveling the lies that sustained the FBI’s dirty Russiagate investigation, the press’ selective reporting served rather as a shield to defend intelligence officials spying on Americans who were guilty only of supporting the wrong presidential candidate.  

There is little chance the Post or Times reporters will be prosecuted for doing what Assange did—and much worse. However, the Assange indictments coupled with the rewards reaped by America’s premier newspapers for their role in a spy agency information campaign send a clear message not only to journalists but also to the public at large. In abusing both the rights of a free press and national security programs designed to keep Americans safe from terrorism, the press and intelligence bureaucracy have made us less free and less safe. The larger message they’re sending is, it’s not your country anymore. It’s ours.

[Deleted on advice of commenter Forbes. See below.]

DiGenova: What Might We Expect From Steele's Testimony?

Joe DiGenova has an important article at Fox News, in which he considers what Christopher Steele's emerging agreement to testify to US investigators--probably led by John Durham--could mean for AG Bill Barr's crusade to get to the origin of the Russia Hoax. Bear in mind two things:

1) The announced--or, at least, projected--cooperation deal with Steele may be only the public version of what could be a broader US/UK deal for cooperation on the Russia Hoax--including protection of British interests (recall Trump's jest about May being a good negotiator?), and

2) While DiGenova rightly warns of the potential consequences for the Democrat Party, the spectacle of the Republican Party revealing itself as a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce (in case you had any doubts) shows that Republicans are not immune to suicidal impulses. The calculated attempt to cut the legs out from under Trump while he is absent from the country, on a triumphal tour of the UK, with wind at the back of conservative movements around the world, is one of the most despicable displays in US politics--ever.

In what follows, note that DiGenova walks back his statement last night that for sure Steele will be talking to Durham rather than to IG Horowitz. For my part, I agree with the implication in DiGenova's statement--that it doesn't really matter who Steele talks to because they'll all be on the same page. Horowitz is every bit as experienced a prosecutor as Durham, and deeply knowledgeable about the DC Swamp. Durham's advantage in having Grand Jury powers at his back aren't really relevant in this context, and if Horowitz does the interview the results will go straight to Durham and his team.

From what we've seen thus far, Steele seems to have been kept insulated from the highest levels of the conspiracy. However, that doesn't mean that he won't have information that can lead higher. His close relationship with Bruce Ohr and Glenn Simpson are certainly tantalizing indicators in that direction. So, too, as I pointed out yesterday, that he met at least once with Andrew Weissmann before the election. What does he know about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians, and who might have been behind it? There's a lot of potential here beyond just the dossier.

With that said, DiGenova:

Judge Sullivan Folds

I don't really have the heart to go through this. There's really not much to say that isn't contained in the CTH subject line: Disappointing – Judge Sullivan Folds, Accepts Mueller Team Non-Production…. Then again, what do you do to help a guy who insists under oath on saying that he's guilty of a non-crime? Repeatedly. I understand the pressure he was under, and hope that I'll never be under that kind of pressure, but ultimately God helps those who help themselves. Read sundance's patented War and Peace length post if you want the details.

3 UPDATES: Christopher Steele Said To Be Willing To Be Interviewed By OIG

The Times of London is reporting that Chris Steele, of Steele "dossier" fame, has agreed to a limited interview with DoJ's Office of the Inspector General. Previously, Steele has refused to speak with John Durham, the US Attorney conducting the investigation into the origins of the Russia Hoax. Zerohedge summarizes the Times story. If OIG goes forward with the interview, it will be limited in scope to Steele's dealings with US intelligence:

Steele, a MI6 Russia specialist for more than two-decades, has worked with the FBI as a confidential source since 2010. According to the report, he will retain the services of a top American attorney if the interview goes ahead, and is only willing to discuss the narrow scope of his dealings with US intelligence. Steele also wanted US officials to seek the approval of the British government. 

Overall, despite the limitations, it may be worthwhile to go ahead with the interview while pursuing other avenues of investigation into Steele's activities.

UPDATE 1: I don't get how this would work (below). How would speaking to OIG--which is certainly carries the threat of prosecution for false statements--let Steele off any hook, or limit his criminal exposure? If Steele speaks to OIG it will be a voluntary interview, not compelled, so there's no immunity. OIG has no authority to grant immunity--they're not prosecutors and can't make those decisions.

Undercover Huber‏ @JohnWHuber

That would let him off the hook for lying about leaking to the press and his dealings with Clinton/DNC + State / other agencies Also limits his criminal exposure by not talking to Durham

7:47 AM - 4 Jun 2019

UPDATE 2: CTH has a thorough summary of what's behind this: IMPORTANT Report: Christopher Steele Willing to Cooperate With U.S. Investigators… which is worth reading for its own sake. The main point is that Steele's testimony could expose FBI lying:

His testimony could be a key issue to expose corruption within the FBI that was previously identified by Senator Chuck Grassley.  The FBI said Christopher Steele never told them he was shopping his dossier to the media; however, Christopher Steele told a British court the FBI was fully aware of all his media contacts, and they used the dossier anyway. 

Christopher Steele had no motive to lie to the FBI about his media contacts.
The FBI had tons of motive to lie about their knowing Steele talked to the media.
It’s just common sense. 

Christopher Steele wasn’t meeting in secret with the media, it was well known.  

He was traveling around to meet them in August and September 2016.  Why would he lie to the FBI about such transparently well known action in October?  Answer: He wouldn’t.

Of course this doesn't affect the fact of Brit involvement in the Russia Hoax. OTOH, that wouldn't have happened without the active encouragement of our own IC, so I'd have to put the priority on exposing that.

As commenter Yancey Ward states, the fact that this story is coming out while Trump is in London is probably no coincidence. It probably represents the American takeaway from a deal that's been reached, with the Brit takeaway left unspoken:

• Americans get to interview Steele, thus receiving some help in exposing IC corruption. And possibly unpublicized cooperation as well.
• Brits get assurances that their full involvement won't be revealed.

UPDATE 3: Joe DiGenova spoke on Hannity tonight and had some major clarifications regarding Steele's deal to testify to US authorities. The big clarification is that Steele will be talking to Durham and Durham's people. Which makes sense. As I stated above, I couldn't see the point of talking to Horowitz, I couldn't see the difference it would make:

Well, he [Steele] obviously made a strategic decision because he’s going to be interviewed by John Durham. It’s not the inspector general from the Department of Justice who is going to talk to him. Because he doesn’t have any reason to talk to Mr. Horowitz. He’s going to talk to John Durham and his people. So there’s obviously been some sort of deal that’s been worked out. This is great news. According to some reports there are limitations on his testimony. I can't believe Durham would agree to such limitations. But this is what's important: he has to tell the truth to Durham, because even though his testimony will be given overseas, he can be indicted in the United States if he lies to Durham. So I assume he’s going to tell the truth now because this is the big casino now. And what he’s going to prove is the FBI lied in the FISA warrants, and they lied to Congress and they lied to everybody about what they knew about Steele’s behavior. The walls are beginning to close in on the FBI fraudsters.

In the same panel discussion, Victoria Toensing stated that the OIG report is being delayed because IG Horowitz has run into difficulties getting documents from FBI Director Chris Wray--surprise!

UPDATED: Manafort To Be Sent Back To Solitary--At Rikers Island

Fox News is reporting that sources close to Manafort say he will be sent from a minimum security prison in Pennsylvania--where he's serving a 7-1/2 year sentence for bank fraud and tax evasion--to New York's Riker's Island prison comples. There he'll be held in solitary confinement "for his own protection". Riker's island has become notorious for violence and corruption. According to Fox:

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was sentenced earlier this year to nearly seven years in prison in connection with two federal cases, will be transferred later this week from a minimum security facility in Pennsylvania to New York City’s Rikers Island, a source close to Manafort told Fox News. 

Rikers Island is the famous jail in the shadow of LaGuardia Airport. It has been the temporary home of some of the most high-profile violent criminals in the city, including  David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam; and Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon. 

"He’s not a mob boss," the source close to Manafort said. 

RIKERS ISLAND HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR VIOLENCE 

A New York State judge ordered the transfer at the request of New York City District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. He will be held in solitary confinement for his own protection, the source said. The move is expected to happen as early as Thursday. 

Vance, a Democrat, said in March that a New York grand jury charged Manafort with 16 counts including residential mortgage fraud, falsifying business records and other charges. He said at the time that “no one is beyond the law in New York.” Manafort cannot be pardoned by President Trump for state crimes. 

Vance’s office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News late Monday. Manafort’s defense team is planning an appeal, according to the source.

Is this pure sadism, or does Vance think that he can break Manafort and get him to lie about Trump?

UPDATE 1: Commenter Brad Crawford asks whether the US Government has a say in Manafort's transfer to state custody. The answer is: Yes. I'll paste in below some information that I gleaned from the US Marshal's Service (USMS) site. Basically, the state has to file a writ for habeas corpus ad prosequendum. However, compliance with the writ is not automatic; rather, it's discretionary with the USMS. One ground that Manafort's appeal will likely cite is his medical condition, which cannot but be adversely affected by solitary confinement:

Writs of Habeas Corpus & Special Requests for Production
   
WRITS FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN U.S. MARSHALS CUSTODY:  

In 1981, the Office of General Counsel for the Department of Justice issued a ruling on the transfer of federal prisoners to the physical custody of a state or local agency for production in a state or local court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or ad testificandum. ... 

TRANSFER OF CUSTODY OR REFUSAL OF WRIT 

Federal prisoners in USMS custody may lawfully be transferred to the custody of a state or local government pursuant to a state writ of ad prosequendum (see 28 USC 2241).  The transfer of federal prisoners under the provisions of this section are intended to expedite local prosecutions at reduced costs to local, state and federal agencies. ...

...

Discretion in Honoring Writs:  The U.S. Marshal is not required to honor a request for a federal prisoner in his or her custody pursuant to a state or local writ. Generally, the writ is not honored until the completion of the prisoner’s sentencing. In honoring a state or local writ, the USM will exercise discretion when a prisoner is a protected witness, has medical problems, or is a high security risk.

UPDATE 2: Via Zerohedge--I briefly examined the law in question, and it is the one referenced (without citation) by the USMS, including the exercise of discretion re medicals problems:

Federal officials agreed to honor the writ for Manafort under something called the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, a federal law that governs transfers of prisoners between states when they are facing unrelated charges in different jurisdictions.

Remember, Manafort was confined to a wheelchair during part of his trial in Virginia, and his lawyers have claimed that he is in consistently poor health.