Pages

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trisha anderson. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trisha anderson. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Trisha Anderson Quibbles

What is a "spy"? What is the meaning of the verb "is"? Who knew our high level FBI officials had a taste for such arcane speculation? Jeff Carlson has shared some additional tidbits from Trisha Anderson's House testimony, Testimony by FBI Lawyer Trisha Anderson Reveals Extensive Role in Trump, Clinton Investigations, which reveal that Anderson possessed that penetrating type of mind.

It may be well to refresh recollections regarding exactly who Trisha Anderson is. We previously cited a press release from the DC law firm of Covington & Burling, where she was a protege of Eric Holder, who recruited her to DoJ. Her government legal experience ran like this (most recent first):

* Federal Bureau of Investigation, Principal Deputy General Counsel 
* U.S. Treasury Department, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement & Intelligence 
* U.S. Department of Justice, Associate Deputy Attorney General; Attorney-Adviser at the Office of Legal Counsel 

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Trisha Anderson Clarifies

Jeff Carlson has more excerpts from the testimony of a key Russia Hoax player at the Epoch Times today. Previously, in Trisha Anderson: Andy McCabe and Sally Yates Read The FISA Application "Line By Line", we reviewed Gregg Jarrett's summary of Anderson's testimony. In that post we noted that Anderson, as head of the National Security Law Branch (NSLB) at the FBI, was in a key position to know pretty much all there was to know about the Carter Page FISA application: all FISA applications had to be signed off by her for approval. Further, while in the case of "ordinary" FISAs one might have expected the top leadership at DoJ and FBI to rely on people like Anderson to vet the application in detail, in the case of the Carter Page FISA application, Anderson told the House, it was FBI Deputy Director McCabe and Deputy AG Yates who read the application "line by line." In the normal course of approval, Anderson would have vetted the application for "probable cause," and she would have been the final approver to demand to know whether the probable cause had been verified--before the application was sent to the top officials for their signatures.

Today, we learn from Carlson, Senior FBI Lawyer Did Not Read Carter Page FISA Before Signing Off on It: Congressional testimony by Trisha Anderson highlights unusual process used by FBI and DOJ to obtain FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, that Anderson did her best to distance herself even further from the approval process, and in the process of distancing herself did two things:

* She made clear that all the normal FISA approval procedures were essentially reversed for the Carter Page FISA; and
* She thereby threw Andy McCabe and Sally Yates under the wheels of a bus that is moving at top speed with no brakes.

Here's how Anderson's Aug. 31, 2018, testimony went--as far as we have it:

Mr. Breitenbach: You had mentioned earlier that all FISAs have to be signed off, have an approver at an SES [Senior Executive Service] level. In OGC? Or is that anywhere inside the FBI?

Ms. Anderson: In NSLB, in my particular branch. 
Mr. Breitenbach: In NSLB? 
Ms. Anderson: Yeah. Uh-huh. 
Mr. Breitenbach: Okay. Who was that SES approver for the Carter Page FISA?
Ms. Anderson: My best recollection is that I was for the initiation. 

What Anderson is saying is that, for the first or initial authorization of FISA coverage on Carter Page, she was the SES approver. As we know, there were also three renewals of that initial authorization, but the underlying probable cause for those renewals remained essentially the same, relying heavily on the Steele "dossier"--the "crucial" factor, as McCabe stated in his testimony.

However, Anderson was at pains to emphasize that her role as approver was to serve as the last "backstop," meaning that she relied on the previous review by "many people," both in the FBI and at DoJ. Here's how she explains that:

Monday, August 24, 2020

Clinesmith Is Lying About Lying

That's the contention of Andy McCarthy's latest:

Clinesmith’s Guilty Plea: The Perfect Snapshot of Crossfire Hurricane Duplicity

McCarthy contends that, while Clinesmith's guilty plea allocution may have been legally sufficient, it was just barely so. McCarthy's expressed hope is that DoJ will have much more to say about that when it comes time for sentencing. In McCarthy's view it was only a "sort of" guilty plea.

In “admitting” guilt, Clinesmith ended up taking the position that I hoped the judge, and especially the Justice Department, would not abide ... 
... in my view, Clinesmith is lying about lying. His strategy is worth close study because it encapsulates the mendaciousness and malevolence of both “Crossfire Hurricane” (the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation) and the “collusion” never-enders who continue to defend it. A defendant’s lying about lying does not necessarily make a false-statement guilty plea infirm as a matter of law. The bar is not high. Still, his story is ridiculous, in a way that is easy to grasp once it’s placed in context.

And so McCarthy proceeds to provide the context in masterful fashion. I highly recommend the article.

For our purposes, I want to point out just a few things.

First, McCarthy makes this very important point:

Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ Motives

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Trisha Anderson: Andy McCabe and Sally Yates Read The FISA Application "Line By Line"

Gregg Jarrett at Fox News has a new article up, just over an hour ago: Testimony in Russia probe shows FBI and Justice Department misconduct in effort to hurt Trump. This appears to be another in a series of leaks of testimony given by FBI and DoJ officials before the House Intelligence Committee, going back to when Republicans were still in control. Jarrett leads with this:

Newly revealed testimony by a former top FBI counterintelligence lawyer shows that former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe examined “line-by-line” the faulty warrant applications to spy on Trump presidential campaign adviser Carter Page.

The former to FBI lawyer in question is Trisha Beth Anderson, an Eric Holder protege. She was working at Holder's firm, Covington & Burling, and was recruited for DoJ. The Covington web page provides this summary of Anderson's stint with the Federal government before returning to Covington:

Ms. Anderson rejoined the firm after over a decade of service in the federal government. She held senior positions at the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury. Most recently she served as Principal Deputy General Counsel at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where she handled complex and sensitive matters relating to national security and cyber intrusions. 
Previous Experience 
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, Principal Deputy General Counsel
  • U.S. Treasury Department, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement & Intelligence
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Associate Deputy Attorney General; Attorney-Adviser at the Office of Legal Counsel  

Obviously these were all sensitive positions. Principal Deputy General Counsel at the FBI means she was the principal deputy to James Baker, currently leaking to the NYT and under criminal investigation for other leaks as well. Since she handled "complex and sensitive matters relating to national security and cyber intrusions" she would very likely have been knowledgeable about such "cyber intrusions" as the potential intrusions into Hillary Clinton's illegal home brewed email server as well as the DNC "hack."

Sunday, November 3, 2019

Briefly Noted: Eric Ciaramella, Tashina Gauhar, Dana Boente

A few brief, but nevertheless important, stories today.

First, Larry Johnson makes a compelling case that, given Eric Ciaramella's known contacts, it's highly probably that Ciaramella was part of the John Brennan's "Task Force" that ultimately produced the Intelligence Assessment that was so instrumental in launching Team Mueller and maintaining the Big Lie of the Russia Hoax: Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force. Peter Strzok, of course, was the FBI rep on that Task Force and did further duty running back and forth, to and fro, and amongst and between Brennan, Comey, and Clapper. That Task Force is also a central focus of the Barr/Durham investigation--as it should be. Presume that Durham has had his eye on Ciaramella for some time now.

Next, CTH relays rumors of a possibly significant personnel move at DoJ: Tashina Gauhar is said to have left. Gauhar worked on FISA applications during all relevant periods of the Russia Hoax. And what's especially significant about her move is the timing:

Rumor in the DC grapevine is that a few weeks ago Tashina Guahar [sic] was quietly removed from her position as lawyer for the DOJ National Security Division (in charge of FISA applications).  This removal happened immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft report to Attorney General Bill Barr for classification review.   Ms. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing.
If confirmed, Guahar’s [sic] exit in advance of the IG report could indicate helpful participation, or DOJ Main Justice may be providing cover to protect Tash Guahar [sic] as they did with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.

Sundance is absolutely correct that the timing of Gauhar's departure most likely indicates that she has been kept on while cooperating with internal investigations related to her duties. Which is to say, the Russia Hoax, especially from the FISA standpoint. Gauhar would have had contact with anybody who touched a FISA application at DoJ, and with many at the FBI.

Bearing in mind that another DoJ/FBI attorney who worked in that field, Trisha Anderson, testified that the Carter Page FISA was pretty much pushed through over the heads of everyone else by Andy McCabe and Sally Yates, it's interesting to go over a list of people we know that Gauhar would have interacted with on a regular basis and concerning whom she would have been questioned:

Sally Yates, David Laufman, John Carlin, Trisha Anderson, James Baker, Andy McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page.

We also know that Gauhar was among the DoJ attorneys who persuaded Jeff Sessions to recuse himself, so we can add two more names to that list:

Rod Rosenstein and Dana Boente. 

Dana Boente, of course, is the top in house counsel at the FBI for Chris Wray, but before he did that he was at DoJ as Acting AG and Acting DAG. He also signed off on a renewal of the Carter Page FISA.  No doubt Boente has also had long, interesting conversations with DoJ investigators.

You can imagine that both OIG and the Durham team have been very busy.

Thursday, November 21, 2019

MULTIPLE UPDATES: CNN Claims FBI Official Under Criminal Investigation Re Page FISA

See bottom for additional UPDATES.

UPDATE: CNN has updated their reporting. The "FBI official" is now reported to be a "former FBI lawyer," so I've changed the body of the blog. See bottom for additional UPDATES.

Further, we learn:

During one of interviews this year, [OIG] confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said. 
The lawyer, who was a line attorney, is no longer working at the bureau, said a person familiar with the matter. A line attorney is a lower level lawyer within the FBI. 
No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.

But Durham is on the case. The fact that this was a "lower level lawyer" strengthens my belief that this is probably a misrepresentation rather than a physical alteration. Nevertheless, since the FISA in question concerned unquestionably the most consequential case in Bureau history, I refuse to believe that a "lower level lawyer" just did this on their own account--whether it was a misrepresentation or a physical alteration. Durham must be pushing to find out who's behind this. Also, while this lawyer is no longer working at the Bureau, the fact that he/she was interviewed by OIG makes it a near certainty that he/she was still employed when the interview took place.

Now begins the original blog:

---------------------------------

It's difficult, well, not possible, to be sure what's being said in this CNN story: FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe. On the face of it, it seems clear enough, but as soon as you start asking questions it becomes more elusive.

Here are the main factual statements:

A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN. 
... 
It's unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI's investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

There are multiple ways to explain this, so I'll try to keep this simple.

Saturday, March 7, 2020

A Closer Look At The FBI's Carter Page Investigation (Part 2)

Let's continue with our "Closer Look" at the FBI's investigation of Carter Page, as explained in the Horowitz FISA report.  Part I of our "Closer Look" dealt with the origins of the investigation in the FBI's New York Field Office's (NYFO) dealings with Carter Page--which stretch back to 2009--and stopped at the point that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened (July 31, 2016) and a separate sub-investigation was opened on Page. Here we will look at Horowitz's account of FBI investigative activity with regard to Page prior to the FBI's supposed first knowledge of the Steele "dossier" on September 19, 2016.

Once again I've pasted in several pages from the OIG report--the full section, with footnotes. The page numbering is included as before: (paper doc page number/pdf file page number). My comments are in "quote" format.


(77/110)

IV. Investigative Steps in Crossfire Hurricane Prior to Receipt of Christopher Steele Reporting on September 19

Friday, August 16, 2019

UPDATED: What Was Up With Bruce Ohr's Bonus?

After a brief hiatus, John Solomon is out with another provocative article. I take nothing away from Solomon's hard work, but his recent string of stunning revelations has the definite appearance of DoJ deliberately feeding information to Solomon, or pointing out available information that needs emphasis. And I love it! That seems to again be the case with New evidence shows why Steele, the Ohrs and TSA workers never should have become DOJ sources.

I'll dispense with some of the more or less extraneous information in the article and focus on what I view as essential. Solomon, for our purposes, first points out abuses in informant programs runs by federal agencies. Note that the abuse involves paying a federal employee for reporting information that he should be reporting in the first place:

Some examples of the DOJ’s problems with informers fall outside the Russia case but mirror the same issues unmasked in the now-debunked probe of Trump. 
Take, for example, the DOJ inspector general’s finding this month that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was paying other government officials at the Homeland Security Department’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to work as informants.  
The IG spared few words in decrying the idiocy of allowing government security officers collecting a federal salary to double-dip into taxpayers’ money by receiving informant pay to report criminal activity they were required by their jobs to disclose.

What does this have to do with the Russia Hoax? Was Bruce Ohr an actual informant for the FBI? A paid informant? At this point I believe the answer is, No. No, but only because DoJ and the FBI were a bit more clever than DEA.

Monday, July 8, 2019

UPDATED: OIG, OPR, And The Epstein Case

Readers may have noticed references to internal disciplinary matters at DoJ (including the FBI) being handled by both OIG under current IG Michael Horowitz as well as OPR (the Office of Professional Responsibility). I've never looked into the division of responsibilities between the two offices before, but we've seen this in the Russia Hoax and it has arisen once more in the Epstein Case. Wikipedia has a succinct explanation of the division of responsibilities--OPR investigates DoJ attorneys, OIG investigates the peons, non-attorneys:

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is part of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for investigating attorneys employed by the DOJ who have been accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions. The OPR promulgates independent standards of ethical and criminal conduct for DOJ attorneys, while the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has jurisdiction of non-attorney DOJ employees. Corey Amundson became the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility in September, 2018.

The important point is this: OIG, while part of the DoJ, has an independent basis in federal law. OPR has no statutorily independent basis. That doesn't mean that OIG can't be pressured or interfered with by an AG or his DAG (think: Rod Rosenstein), but the OIG has a stronger ground for independent action that steps on political toes than does OPR. Looking forward, the names of Mueller and his entire team of attorneys arise. This helps explain the regular calls for the investigation of the Russia Hoax to be turned over to a US Attorney who can empanel a Grand Jury. Oh, wait--John Durham!

This division has long been a source of of accusations of favorable/lenient treatment of attorneys, often done secretly, i.e., with no public release of findings. This was famously the case with Andrew Weissmann, as recounted by Sidney Powell (Michael Flynn's new lawyer, author of Licensed To Lie). This also suggests that Bruce Ohr's case, for example, is being handled by OPR, as would then probably be the case with all the other DoJ attorneys (prominently David Laufmann and Rod Rosenstein) involved in the Russia Case, including FBI attorneys such as James Baker, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and quite a few more. I may be missing some jurisdictional nuances here, but we need to be aware of this.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Nice Margot Cleveland Article On FBI Targeting Of Papadopoulos

I don't want to quote much from Margot Cleveland's article,

Newly Declassified Papadopoulos Transcript Exposes Crossfire Hurricane Corruption
A newly declassified transcript calls into question the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation: Why was it started, and why did it continue?

because it deserves to be read in full. What I like about it is that it gives an insight into the kind of thinking that was swirling around (think: toilet bowl) in the Crossfire Hurricane team. Either the top levels of the FBI were staffed by complete bozos who could not distinguish what they wanted to be true from their obligation to share relevant information with professionals who might come to a different conclusion, or ... they were totally corrupt.

Here's the short story.

Monday, March 11, 2019

More Thoughts On Bruce Ohr's Testimony

My overall impression, derived from reading the recently released full transcript of Bruce Ohr's House testimony rather than just excerpts, is this: I didn't find Bruce Ohr to be a terribly credible witness, and the GOP Representatives who questioned him--most of them former prosecutors themselves--clearly did not trust him.

Margot Cleveland has an article today in which she discusses 11 Key Things Inside The House Interview With Spygate Figure Bruce Ohr. Most of these items have been discussed already, but I want to point out at least one issue that is worth keeping in the conscious part of our minds.

In #2 on her list, Cleveland discusses an issue that clearly troubled the GOP Reps. Just as clearly, they remained unsatisfied and unconvinced by Ohr's attempted explanation. This issue was the fact that during Ohr's one and a half years of serving as the cutout between Chris Steele and the FBI--including after Steele had been "fired" by the FBI--he claimed that he never informed his superior (DAG Sally Yates) of the highly irregular role he was playing. But he did inform other DoJ officials who were somewhat beneath him in rank--people like Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, and Bruce Swartz. Weissmann and Ahmad, of course, later became key members of Team Mueller or, from another possible point of view, were key players in recruiting Mueller to serve as the figurehead of their team--since their well known connections to Hillary precluded them from fronting for the lawfare coup attempt.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Was There A Conflict Of Interest Between Flynn And His Lawyers?

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist isn't given to speculation. However, today Cleveland offers just that, regarding what's really going on with Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case. Yesterday in Judge Sullivan Enters Dispute Between Flynn Lawyers, Past and Present I noted the unusual and marked manner in which Judge Sullivan had interjected himself, on his own motion, in the matter of the delay by Flynn's prior legal team from Covington and Burling in providing the full Flynn case file to Flynn's new legal team, led by Sidney Powell--long time and noted critic of the legal tactics pioneered by Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann. Covington and Burling, as has been frequently noted, is the law firm of Eric Holder and Trisha Anderson.

Today Cleveland asks whether there may be more to Judge Sullivan's intervention, touching on matters that may be very much at the heart of what will almost certainly develop into a challenge of the guilty plea that Flynn entered into with Team Mueller: Judge Orders Ethics Training For Michael Flynn’s Former Lawyers--Was there a conflict of interest between Michael Flynn and his Covington and Burling attorneys who used to represent him? New facts unfold.

Cleveland bases her speculation on two factors. The first is the fact that Judge Sullivan set the date for the meeting with the ethics officials and the lawyers a few days before a regularly scheduled status hearing--August 27, only three days before the scheduled hearing on August 30. Why, asks Cleveland, would the judge not wait the three extra days to handle all the business at one hearing? Especially given that Powell expects provision of the case file to be complete by then?

Cleveland finds the clue to the explanation in a phrase from Powell's response to the Government's statement on the effect Flynn's changed posture in the "Bian Kian" trial might have on sentencing of Flynn in Flynn's own criminal case. In Flynn's Legal Team Responds To The Government I pointed out that, while Powell saw no reason why sentencing should be affected by that change in posture, she took the opportunity to signal to Judge Sullivan the direction in which her representation of Flynn was moving:

Sunday, April 14, 2019

What Was Behind The Mueller Appointment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 6, 2020

Sally Talks To The Senate--What Was That About?

Sally Yates performed pretty much as expected--and I use the word 'peformed' advisedly. She was putting on a show, reprising all the worn out and discredited Russia Hoax talking points, smearing once again people who did nothing wrong but were framed by the DoJ and the FBI for political purposes.

How did the GOP senators do? Josh Hawley--a very smart lawyer but without prosecutorial experience--got high marks for aggressively challenging Yates' non-credible denials that she knew, well, anything.

Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, has had extensive prosecutorial experience and has demonstrated that he's an adept cross examiner when he wants to be. After rewatching a portion of his questioning it strikes me that we need to ask ourselves exactly what Graham--as, in my view, the lead questioner--was trying to accomplish.

I have in the past suggested, repeatedly, that Graham coordinates his committee's activities with regard to the Russia Hoax with AG Bil Barr. In other words, Graham makes sure that he does nothing that might involve stepping on John Durham's toes in any way. And that means that Graham calls no witnesses until he gets a go ahead from Barr and Durham.

From this standpoint, what would be the purpose of these witness inteviews and, in particular, the Yates interview. Obviously it satisfies the senatorial need for a certain amount of grandstanding for their constituents. Beyond that, I suggest the serious purposes are strictly limited--no one should expect any witness before the senate to break down and abjectly admit to criminal wrongdoing. That happens in movies or on TV, and it may happen in plea negotiations, but Graham's goal in questioning Yates yesterday were likely more modest and closely circumscribed after consultation with Barr. Those purposes may well have been achieved in Graham's questioning.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

What's Wrong With The Bureau?

Regular readers will know that I like to blame the FBI's current dysfunction on the practice of "parachuting" top management in who are predominantly former federal prosecutors--a disproportionately liberal demographic at odds with Bureau culture. Add to that the now top heavy presence of attorneys and a revolving door between FBI and DoJ, as well as the practice of many of these same people rotating between government service and the private sector. Think, at the Director level, Mueller, Comey, Wray. All have gone through that revolving door of private law practice and government office. Add to that some of their top legal people--Andrew Weissmann and Aaron Zebley. And then there's the lower level types--Lisa Page, Trisha Anderson. And the list goes on. It has led to a radical cultural change at the FBI, which now has an institutional culture that is informed by the prosecutorial mindset of 'anything goes for a conviction that will enhance my career.' That change came on top of the institutional change that emphasized career advancement as a professional manager rather than developing a specific expertise. Together it has spelled disaster.

For some time Shipwreckedcrew has been having a dialogue on this subject on his twitter thread: What's wrong with the Bureau. As a former prosecutor, SWC is sympathetic to the Bureau, although he speaks as an outsider. Just the fact that he uses the phrase 'gun and badge' rather than 'badge and gun' tells me that he's an outsider. It may seem like a small thing, but it jarred on my ear. Nevertheless, he sees the Bureau's problems in ways that are similar to the way I view them. His solution is to appoint as Director someone who rose through the ranks.

That does hit on some of the problems I've described, but unfortunately the problem is bigger than that and won't be solved that easily. In a sense Louis Freeh is the proof of what I'm saying. Freeh had started his career as an agent and was supposed to bring with him the understanding of the agent point of view that SWC talks about. Of course, Freeh had quit the Bureau because he failed to make director in five years, or whatever his master plan was. Under Freeh, problems simply metastasized, even though in his previous life he had been an agent. He lacked a broad understanding of the Bureau's mission. His tenure culminated with the Robert Hanssen debacle. Nuff said. Lots of other things went wrong.

Unfortunately, nothing in life is so simple as the suggested solution of putting an agent in charge of the FBI. By now the Gramscian long march through the institutions--spearheaded by the takeover of Human Resources officers and the career support people--has also marched through the Bureau. The Bureau, like any other social institution, will ultimately reflect the society around it, and so the solution can only be cultural--and those types of solutions are precisely what the Progressive takeover of our legal system is in place to prevent. Trump's latest executive orders may begin to have a salutary effect on that, but at best we're looking at a years long struggle. Many years. To think otherwise is simply naive.

Nevertheless, you may be interested in SWC's latest exchanges on this topic. I've put it in Q & A form, with SWC being "A".


Q: Most law enforcement agencies are headed by people who have been on the gun & badge side themselves.  But the FBI and a few other fed agencies seem to pick a lot of prosecutors or ppl who’ve been attornies [sic] for most of their professional life. Agents would prefer one of their own.

A: This is a much bigger issue than most understand.  The "gun and badge" folks have less interest in the "politics" of the position.  But POTUS has always looked for a "political" actor for the job.  It's a mismatch that hurts the environment.

It's like if all the "Generals" in the military were civilians.

Q: The very thing people are complaining about now is the result of picking people from the outside.

Q: You're an institution man. That doesn't make your views more "justified," it exposes you to the same errors in judgment necessitating inspectors general. The same kind of thinking that causes people to compromise themselves because they place an organization above individuals.

A: Not true. It gives me a window into why the Bureau is dysfunctional in some ways.  Public assumes one thing -- but public lacks facts.  Facts show problems originate elsewhere.  Correct those and public perceptions will change.

Q: I know nothing how the internals of the FBI work, but it seems to me this type of in house hire should be a major field office director, like Ted Gunderson was supposed to be.

A: Agree--the individual must COMMAND respect from the rank and file to get them to perform. Bringing in outsiders who lack the necessary POV of the working agents is detrimental and creates a division between working agents and senior management. "Us v. Them" = blame shifting.

 

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Huge: The Durham Investigation's Expanding Timeline

This really is big--although it comes as no surprise: Durham investigation into origins of 2016 Trump campaign surveillance expands its scope. Here's the key part of the story:

John Durham, the U.S. attorney reviewing the origins of the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign, is probing a wider timeline than previously known, according to multiple senior administration officials. 
Fox News previously reported that Durham would be reviewing the days leading up to the 2016 election and through the inauguration. 
However, based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel. 
Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham traveled to Italy recently to talk to law enforcement officials there about the probe and have also had conversations with officials in the U.K. and Australia about the investigation, according to multiple sources familiar with the meetings.

Here's why I think this is so big.

If you're John Durham and the timeline of your investigation just got expanded in this manner--probably on your own recommendation--who would you want to pull in front of the Grand Jury? My list starts this way, and just keeps expanding:

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Perspective On The Intel Community Assessment (ICA)--and James Comey

Stephen McIntyre makes a useful observation regarding the new revelations regarding the joint FBI/DoJ interview of Christopher Steele's "Primary Subsource" ("PSS", now known to be a Russian expat, think tank analyst in the US, Igor Danchenko). We now have confirmed that by late January, 2017, just days after the Trump inauguration, Danchenko over a three day period essentially debunked the entire Steele "dossier". And yet the FBI and DoJ--later including Team Mueller--continued to use an active FISA warrant nominally against Carter Page but in reality targeting President Trump. That FISA was originally obtained in October, 2016, by carefully failing to verify the Steele material that Danchenko debunked in January, 2017, but concealing that lack of verification from the FISA court. The same debunked material was used to twice renew that FISA after Danchenko had debunked it. As Andy McCarthy puts it this morning:

In each warrant, the court was told: “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Trump’s] campaign.” Moreover, the warrant applications painted a picture of a “conspiracy of cooperation” between Donald Trump and the Putin regime, with Manafort at the hub, using such underlings as Page and Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as intermediaries.
It was complete nonsense, largely based on the so-called dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Moreover, the FBI knew this was material developed and paid for by the Clinton campaign, but concealed that known fact from the FISA court.

With that in mind, let's pivot to the ICA and its FBI "Annex". That Annex simply amounted to a two page summary of the Steele "dossier". Remember--the FBI knew that the "dossier" was done for and paid for by the Clinton campaign, yet they pushed hard to get the "dossier" material included in the ICA. And that was about three weeks before they even had interviewed Danchenko, the "PSS". Here's how McIntyre paints that (edited to correct spelling and punctuation and to provide a continous read):

Monday, April 22, 2019

Deconstruct The Mueller FBI

Regular readers will be familiar with my explanation of how the FBI got to be the way it manifestly has become. Of course there are larger social dynamics at work in what took place, but I have always focused on the more visible mechanisms by which the transformation was effected. The mechanism I have identified, and regularly pointed to, was the the rotation of DoJ lawyers through top positions in the FBI, a process which subordinated the FBI's investigative function to the often politicized agenda of DoJ's prosecutive role. That agenda, of course, was normally far more liberal than the traditional approach of the FBI, and during the Obama administration became overtly leftist, with a goal of implementing through lawfare Obama's stated goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

This process by which the FBI was brought under the thumb of DoJ's political agenda was greatly advanced by Robert Mueller, and was continued by his protege James Comey, during their years at the head of the FBI. No better example can be given than the career of another Mueller protege, Andrew Weissmann, who moved back and forth between DoJ, the FBI, and private practice--serving for years as the top lawyer in the Mueller/Comey FBI. This is utterly antithetical to the traditional career ethos and organizational loyalty that prevailed at the FBI pre-Mueller. As I wrote in Why Andrew Weissmann:

---------------------------

What Weissmann's contribution to the Russia hoax might have been is suggested by his previous career.

Weissmann is best known as a hard charging prosecutor, but one with a reputation for being willing to take ethical shortcuts to make the big case. This led, in 2005, to the US Supreme Court unanimously overturning the conviction in his biggest case: the Enron Case. The criticism of Weissmann's "intimidating" "scorched earth" tactics that arose from the Enron Case made Weissmann a hot potato in the legal world, but fortunately for him he landed on his feet--as Special Counsel to a friend and former colleague, FBI Director Robert Mueller.
This was Weissmann's first gig at the FBI, and lasted probably less than a full year while he looked for a more lucrative position--by the end of 2005 Weissmann went into private practice at Jenner and Block in New York. But in 2011 Weissmann returned to the FBI and his mentor Mueller, serving as General Counsel under Mueller until the end of Mueller's term in September, 2013. He continued at the FBI under James Comey until January, 2015, when he returned to DoJ as head of the Criminal Fraud Section. His final career move, to date, was his reunion with Mueller, joining Mueller's Special Counsel team in June, 2017.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

UPDATED: Has McCarthy Set The Bar(r)?

Andy McCarthy did a fine interview yesterday on WMAL. The whole interview is worth a listen, but in the course of it McCarthy did something notable. Over three quarters of the way through he spoke the truth. That alone might not seem notable, but what caught my attention was that he spoke the truth in an utterly unnuanced, the emperor-has-no-clothes, way. And there was just enough legalese in his remarks that they should have sent shivers up certain people's spines--if that hasn't happened already. In doing this I believe McCarthy has set the bar for success in defending our constitutional order.

Here's what McCarthy said (you can find the audio here or here at about the 6:25 mark):

Look, two years, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Special Counsel, put the country through an investigation of the President of the United States, on no factual predicate, that he was in a conspiracy with Russia, under circumstances where if you read the Special Counsel's indictments it has to have been pretty clear to him, since at least the end of 2017, that there was no Trump - Russia conspiracy, right?

I and others have been saying essentially the same thing for a long time, but McCarthy's rendition has the virtue of cutting to the very heart of the matter with admirable economy of words. McCarthy understands that, technically, James Comey was speaking truthfully when he told President Trump three times that he wasn't the subject of the Russia Hoax investigation (I explain the technicalities here: Mueller's "Enterprise" Witchhunt), but McCarthy also understands the reality of what was going on: it was Trump who was the real target.

So, let's rephrase McCarthy's statement of the facts: For two years the Special Counsel, conducted an investigation of the President which had no factual predicate--and for most of that time he was fully aware of what he was doing but kept doing it.

What are we talking about here, when we speak of "an investigation"? We're not talking about just any ordinary investigation. The enormity of Mueller's Inquisition is simply staggering. Here's what Barr said in his report of the main conclusions of Mueller's inquisition: