Since the link to Kim Strassel’s original WSJ article—which I provided last night—is now behind their pay wall, here’s a link to a repub of the article at the NYPost:
Technofog points out the info in Danchenko indictment indicates Mueller's Goons appear to have known Dolan was a source when they questioned Danchenko in mid June 2017, specifically asking him about Dolan.
Thus, Mueller knew BEFORE submitting the final renewal of the Carter Page FISA that one of the Dossier sources was a partisan Democrat advisor to Hillary's campaign, and that Danchenko had been lying about his sources.
Mueller Goon's did not include this in the final renewal application, nor notified the court that Danchenko was a liar, and had used info from a partisan Hillary supporter in the Dossier material, which they were obligated to do under the local FISA court rules.
If Durham wants to go after Mueller's Goon's, he's got plenty of grounds to thoroughly sniff their collective underwear drawers.
Even if, for the sake of the argument, they only learned this AFTER they got the final FISA, it was their duty to tell the FISC immediately that what they had learned changed the terms on which the application was granted.
Points out the failure of Mueller to discover/pursue the obvious things that Durham did discover and pursue about the Alfa bank hoax betokens the fact that Mueller's crew had a partisan purpose: hijack the investigatory process away from the Trump DOJ and GOP controlled House and Senate committees, and then steer it AWAY from anything that could implicate Dems and Hillary's Campaign in instigating the Collusion Hoax, while providing yet more fake meat for the partisan MSM to continue to attack Trump, hobbling his nascent administration.
All true, but it's worse than that--as I maintained throughout. I always said that all roads lead to Mueller and that Durham had a score to settle. The fundamental problem is: Rosenstein had no basis--no predication--to authorize an SC, the FBI knew that, Mueller knew that, too--at the latest by August when they didn't attempt to renew the FISA. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt. But Weissmann, so prominent on Team Mueller, had been involved with the Russia Hoax from before the election, against all internal rules of DoJ--as Horowitz pointed out. That's continuity. And the Clinton Dossier was utterly debunked, as all insiders knew.
In effect, Weissmann, due to his prior familiarity and participation in meetings with Bruce Ohr discussing Russia Collusion stuff, had a clear bias. He should never have been allowed in the SCO.
The other thing that clearly became the reason detre of Mueller's SCO was to try to frame Trump for Obstruction, when it became clear early on that there was no Russia Collusion. SWC doesn't get into that facet of the SCO focus., as for predication for the SCO, I have always believed that Comey intentionally baited Trump into firing him (his own memoes for record memorialize Comey telling Trump "You can always fire me if you are unhappy ... " in THREE occasions.) The purpose was to create an irresistible emotional support for an SCO appointment, which, by befuddling Sessions into believing he had a conflict of interest, was induced to recuse himself, thus the SCO decision fell to RR, who as SWC points out, was a long time Mueller acolyte.
It's not that he was biased. It's that he was head of the Fraud section at DoJ and had no legit reason to discuss Russian matters with anyone--much less meet with Steele and Strzok. DoJ has a NatSec Branch for that. Add that to Weissmann's ties to the Clinton campaign ...
Good ol' New York Times, shameless hacks to the bitter end. Here's their final paragraph:
"Mr. Sussmann, who then also worked for Perkins Coie, was relaying concerns from data scientists about odd internet logs that they said suggested the possibility of a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked financial institution. He has denied lying to the F.B.I. about who he was working for."
Where are those WaPo and Times reporters at now with their breathless reporting on what we all now know was a Clinton Campaign political hit job? Their names should be published as co-conspirators in the biggest political scam in the nation's history. And the real embarrassment for them should be that it was the democrats colluding with Russians. Imagine that. But hey, they did their part in the scheme...
>> https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1457418261830815745 <<
Technofog points out the info in Danchenko indictment indicates Mueller's Goons appear to have known Dolan was a source when they questioned Danchenko in mid June 2017, specifically asking him about Dolan.
Thus, Mueller knew BEFORE submitting the final renewal of the Carter Page FISA that one of the Dossier sources was a partisan Democrat advisor to Hillary's campaign, and that Danchenko had been lying about his sources.
Mueller Goon's did not include this in the final renewal application, nor notified the court that Danchenko was a liar, and had used info from a partisan Hillary supporter in the Dossier material, which they were obligated to do under the local FISA court rules.
If Durham wants to go after Mueller's Goon's, he's got plenty of grounds to thoroughly sniff their collective underwear drawers.
As I said ...
Even if, for the sake of the argument, they only learned this AFTER they got the final FISA, it was their duty to tell the FISC immediately that what they had learned changed the terms on which the application was granted.
SWC's latest:
>> https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/the-sussmann-and-danchenko-indictments <<
He goes after Mueller hard.
Points out the failure of Mueller to discover/pursue the obvious things that Durham did discover and pursue about the Alfa bank hoax betokens the fact that Mueller's crew had a partisan purpose: hijack the investigatory process away from the Trump DOJ and GOP controlled House and Senate committees, and then steer it AWAY from anything that could implicate Dems and Hillary's Campaign in instigating the Collusion Hoax, while providing yet more fake meat for the partisan MSM to continue to attack Trump, hobbling his nascent administration.
All true, but it's worse than that--as I maintained throughout. I always said that all roads lead to Mueller and that Durham had a score to settle. The fundamental problem is: Rosenstein had no basis--no predication--to authorize an SC, the FBI knew that, Mueller knew that, too--at the latest by August when they didn't attempt to renew the FISA. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt. But Weissmann, so prominent on Team Mueller, had been involved with the Russia Hoax from before the election, against all internal rules of DoJ--as Horowitz pointed out. That's continuity. And the Clinton Dossier was utterly debunked, as all insiders knew.
In effect, Weissmann, due to his prior familiarity and participation in meetings with Bruce Ohr discussing Russia Collusion stuff, had a clear bias. He should never have been allowed in the SCO.
The other thing that clearly became the reason detre of Mueller's SCO was to try to frame Trump for Obstruction, when it became clear early on that there was no Russia Collusion. SWC doesn't get into that facet of the SCO focus., as for predication for the SCO, I have always believed that Comey intentionally baited Trump into firing him (his own memoes for record memorialize Comey telling Trump "You can always fire me if you are unhappy ... " in THREE occasions.) The purpose was to create an irresistible emotional support for an SCO appointment, which, by befuddling Sessions into believing he had a conflict of interest, was induced to recuse himself, thus the SCO decision fell to RR, who as SWC points out, was a long time Mueller acolyte.
It's not that he was biased. It's that he was head of the Fraud section at DoJ and had no legit reason to discuss Russian matters with anyone--much less meet with Steele and Strzok. DoJ has a NatSec Branch for that. Add that to Weissmann's ties to the Clinton campaign ...
Good ol' New York Times, shameless hacks to the bitter end. Here's their final paragraph:
"Mr. Sussmann, who then also worked for Perkins Coie, was relaying concerns from data scientists about odd internet logs that they said suggested the possibility of a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked financial institution. He has denied lying to the F.B.I. about who he was working for."
Ha! "Relaying concerns from data scientists..."
Yeah right, that's just how it happened ;^>
A lot of the article was pretty amusing. That won't work in a court before a jury.
Where are those WaPo and Times reporters at now with their breathless reporting on what we all now know was a Clinton Campaign political hit job? Their names should be published as co-conspirators in the biggest political scam in the nation's history. And the real embarrassment for them should be that it was the democrats colluding with Russians. Imagine that. But hey, they did their part in the scheme...