Summary:

There are good reasons for Durham delaying indictments: Mueller SCO criminality and direct Clinton ties to Spygate.
Durham is almost certainly pursuing conspiracy and RICO charges against the Spygate conspirators and their funders.
The political implications of deferring indictments until after 3 November could actually favor the President.
As a chaser, a lack of indictments does not preclude a guilty plea or two before 3 November. That’s entirely possible, too.

The end.

There was never an investigation of General Flynn. There was a file opened. But nothing was ever done according to Agent Barnett. And nothing would have ever been done if Donald Trump had not won the election — according to Page and Strzok.

The opening of an investigation of General Flynn — “Crossfire Razor” — was the “insurance policy” in the event Donald Trump was elected. Page, Papadolopous, and Manafort were not going to be in the Trump Administration — all had left the campaign by the fall of 2016, so they would not have access to classified information or otherwise be helpful to the Russians. But Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page knew Flynn would be in the Administration. Having Crossfire Razor open BEFORE the election meant the FBI could continue investigating the Trump Administration after candidate Trump became President-Elect Trump, and then after the inauguration as well, without having to say they only opened the investigation after Trump’s victory.

Agent Barnett said there wasn’t much “predicate” to support the investigation of General Flynn, yet on August 15, 2016, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok have already concluded that General Flynn has connections to Russia and Putin that meant he should not have access to classified information.

It is a violation of FBI policy to open a counterintelligence case file on a US Person with no present intention to conduct a counterintelligence investigation of the US Person. It might even be a crime.

And yet that is exactly what Special Agent Barnett says FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok did with regard to General Michael Flynn, decorated U.S. war hero.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) informed the secret surveillance court that the Bureau did not disclose the fact that it has investigated a primary source for the Steele dossier as a Russian agent.

Graham published the memo he sent to the court, indicating that Igor Danchenko was being investigated by the FBI beginning in 2009. The document also pointed out that the Bureau’s Crossfire Hurricane team, which was tasked with looking into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, already knew about the prior investigation of Danchenko but neglected to disclose it in the application to spy on former Trump campaign staffer Carter Page.

Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a dossier full of damaging information about then-candidate Donald Trump, used Danchenko as his primary source for the document, which has by now been almost entirely discredited. The Daily Caller reported that the Senator “formally notified James Boasberg, the judge presiding over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) about the information in a letter on Thursday.”

In the memo, Graham wrote, “This letter, and the attached summary, details what appear to be further failures on the part of the FBI to fully inform the court of all of the facts related to the probable cause determination for the Carter Page FISA applications.”

U.S. Attorney John Durham discovered that the primary sub-source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier was investigated by the FBI as a possible “threat to national security,” but the bureau never told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and used the dossier anyway. //

In the release, we see that as far back as 2005, the primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was suspected of being a Russian agent. This revelation heavily implies that the FBI knew this could be an attempt at Russian disinformation and that the information could not possibly be reliable. How do we know they knew that? They never brought that investigation up to the FISA court when obtaining warrants. If they had, there would have been a big pause from the court in granting those warrants.

But these email exchanges released today show that the agents working on the Crossfire Razor investigation had been intending to shut down the investigation as long as 60 days prior to the drafting of the order to close it down, but the matter was being kept open by FBI management using the excuse of getting NSLs which were not thought by the agents to be useful — and there was no intent to use them because of the fact that the results would not have meaningful information.

These emails further support the argument that the Flynn investigation was corrupted by motives of individuals in FBI management to simply keep digging on General Flynn until they could find something — anything — as leverage to use against him in an effort to force him out of the Trump Administration.

Newly disclosed internal FBI notes and text messages detail the extent of the FBI's desire to take down Trump and his associates at any cost.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.

“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”

“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”

“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “[A]s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”

“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said. //

The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn’s finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person’s property and information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory information.

Andrew Weissmann is a legend in his own mind. He’s been hailed as a crusading avenger against the Mafia in New York before moving on to Washington DC and leading the campaign to tackle boardroom corruption on corporate America when he was picked to lead a DOJ task force prosecuting cases connected to the collapse of ENRON. But the “legend” of Weissmann has always been tarnished by the “ethics” — or lack thereof — of Weissmann. This was nowhere better displayed than in the reversal of one of his most famous ENRON scandal victories, when the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in United States v. Arthur Anderson that Weissmann’s jury instructions that he convinced the District Court Judge to give failed to state a crime. Yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens agreed with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia that Andrew Weissmann didn’t know what he was doing. //

But in 2011, Weissman left DOJ and became General Counsel of the FBI. Note the symmetry to that date — that is the same time that Aaron Zebley left DOJ to be Mueller’s Chief of Staff. In the two roles, Zebly had the much better of the “action” while Weissmann was left tending to internal legal matters for the FBI. And, more significantly, Weissmann would have reported to Zebly in the chain of command.

So the former FBI agent and line AUSA was now in a position of authority over vaunted DOJ “ENRON Champion” Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann returned to DOJ when Mueller departed, but Zebley got the invitation to the lucrative partnership at WilmerHale.

So, when Weissmann was given the offer to join the Special Counsel’s team, it’s likely that he was not all that happy to look up and find Aaron Zebley once again looking down at him in the Chain-of-Command and holding his reins.

And it was Aaron Zebley who Mueller asked to sit beside him at his appearance before Congress and assist in answering questions about the Mueller Report — not Andrew Weissmann. //

kirkeidman
a day ago
Mmmmmmmmm?

Perhaps the root problem was basically no EVIDENCE that anything was wrong?

junkbondtrader41
a day ago
So there were tactical errors in your fundamentally illegitimate "investigation" based on a "crime" that never happened??

Good to know!

BoDeen3417 junkbondtrader41
a day ago
When has lack of a crime ever stopped Weismann from prosecuting?

the fact that Weissmann would have pushed for that language to be in a jury instruction says all I need to know about him:

“even if [Arthur Anderson] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [Arthur Anderson] guilty.”

That pretty much accurately describes third-world “show trial” requirements. That’s how people end up in Chinese prisons. //

The Supreme Court Justices who joined in rejecting “Weissman’s Law” were:

Chief Justice Rehnquist — wrote the opinion.

Justice Scalia

Justice Thomas

Justice O’Connor

Justice Kennedy

Justice Souter

Justice Stevens

Justice Ginsburg

Justice Breyer

Not a single Justice wrote a concurring opinion. Not one wrote separately to say “I agree with the outcome, but I disagree with the opinion of the Chief Justice for the following reasons….”

Every Justice REJECTED Weissmann’s view of “criminality” without hesitation.

Earlier today, Democrat Leaders of House Committees released a letter sent by them to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, asking him to initiate an “emergency” investigation of the Durham investigation because …. well, I’m not sure what their justification is.

If, as is reported, it’s over the suggestion that Attorney General Barr has asked Durham to produce an interim report prior to the election, that claim is going nowhere.

The IG is not a “super-supervisor” of all things DOJ, including the Attorney General. If he was he’d be … the Attorney General.

But the IG does review compliance with explicit DOJ policies, and the review the Democrats seem to be calling for is likely to end with the actual text of the policy they think the AG is preparing to “violate” by calling for an interim report. //

1-7.400 – Disclosure of Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Investigations

A. Any communication by DOJ personnel with a member of the media relating to a pending investigation or case must be approved in advance by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General…

B. DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations….

C. When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety, comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary, subject to the approval requirement in subparagraph A.

"Hey Andrew, pass me the Windex" //

AG Barr has now publicly commented on the fact that three different US Attorneys are undertaking separate inquiries at his request, although the subject-matter boundaries of each investigation are not clear.

What might have been.

What besides actual messages might have been on the iPhones that they didn't want to be discovered?

Stevens’ attorney, famed Iran-Contra defense attorney Brendan Sullivan, understood that Stevens could not stand for re-election Alaska with the indictment still hanging over his head. Sullivan also likely understood that the government had rushed to secure the indictment ahead of the DOJ that precludes indicting a person running for office less than 90 days prior to the election.

In recognition of those two facts, Brendan Sullivan informed the prosecutors and the Court that Stevens would be asserting his rights to a fair and speedy trial under the Constitution and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(c)(1), which states:

In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.

Sullivan and Stevens demanded that his trial begins at the earliest possible date and that he would not waive his statutory “Speedy Trial Act” rights to have the trial begin not more than 70 calendar days after his initial appearance.

That tactical decision meant the defense had less than two full months to review and analyze all the evidence in the government’s case, and to prepare to present evidence of their own in Stevens’ defense. But Brenden Sullivan had read the situation correctly, the prosecutors had hastily assembled their indictment to file it prior to the 90-day limit, and their case was not organized. All the witnesses had not been interviewed, all the evidence hadn’t been gathered, and all the reports had not yet been written. But by filing the indictment they started the clocking running on a very short window of time within which all that would need to be accomplished AND have the case prepared for trial where the government has the burden of proof and has to go first. //

This is why the basic rule for federal prosecutors is ALWAYS have your case ready for trial on the day you seek an indictment. Never count on the possibility that you will have additional time to build your case after the case is indicted by doing things after the indictment that should have been done prior to the indictment.

I have always wondered why more defense attorneys didn’t take his calculated risk to force the government to go to trial quickly. It probably has more to do with the “fear” of their clients , and the “sound” advice of a defense attorney to give the government more time to get ready by waiving your right to a trial within 70 days.

Pushing for an indictment from Durham before he’s fully prepared to take a case to trial is a path to a potentially unhappy outcome. Durham understands that.

Would be senseless to prosecute a case with evidence that will result in the conviction being thrown out.

Another subject of the online “Greek Chorus” of former federal prosecutors gives voice to “outrage” over the suggestion that Attorney General Barr is asking US Attorney Durham to produce an “interim report” of his investigation to date into the origins of the Russia Hoax investigation. The enterprise was initiated by the Obama Administration and carried over into the Trump Administration by members of the Anti-Trump “Resistance” embedded into the federal government, later spearheaded by the Robert Mueller-headed Special Counsel’s Office.

Before we get to their lamentations, let’s first lay a foundation for considering their hypocrisy.

Speculation over Nora Dannehy's resignation ignores the possibility her role was limited -- but crucial.

Dishonest liberal mouthpieces with partisan agendas peddling disinformation on Twitter about Federal Prosecutors "Resigning".

What a coincidence.

New DOJ records reveal that multiple top members of Mueller's team claim to have 'accidentally wiped' data off phones they used during the anti-Trump probe. //

Newly released records from the Department of Justice reveal that multiple top members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team claim to have “accidentally wiped” data off phones they used during the anti-Trump probe.

Many devices were wiped or otherwise disabled before DOJ authorities were able to access and examine them or the records they contained, including that of disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. //

It seems unlikely that more than a dozen top Mueller officials all put their phones into airplane mode, locked them, and forgot the passwords or “accidentally” wiped their devices. Considering that the Russian collusion probe has revealed nothing but the depths of bureaucratic corruption and dishonesty and a shamelessly anti-Trump agenda from the start, the odds seem even lower.

According to Strzok, the IG was prepared to exonerate him in Clinton investigation until White House intervened.