Mark, on May 20, you published her a blog article titled "We Finally Learn Something From The Sussmann Trial". At that time, I was taking a "mental-health break" from RussiaGate, and so I did not read or comment about that article. Now, however, I am catching up, and so I read that article belatedly yesterday.
There you indicated that Peter Strzok's mentions of "Crown material" referred to Steele's Dossier. In that regard, I did read your linked article, which was written by Hans Mahncke and Stephen McIntyre.
I must study this issue some more. In the meantime, though, I do not think that Strzok was referring to Steele's Dossier.
Rather, I think that Strzok was referring to information he supposedly was told by Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat stationed in London.
I read Strzok's book carefully, and I intend to write a blog article about Strzok's visit to London to interview Downer. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but my memory is that Strzok read Downer's memo about his conversation with George Papadopoulos, and then just two or three days later Strzok was in London and interviewing Downer. During that interview, Strzok was accompanied by another FBI official who was involved only peripherally in the investigation of Trump.
Then Strzok returned to FBI Headquarters and wrote a report about his interview of Downer. As far as I know, Strzok is the only FBI official who ever has interviewed Downer and reported about Downer's information. I suspected that Strzok's report about his own interview with him is quite tendentious. The public has not seen Strzok's report or seen Downer's entire memo.
In any case, when Strzok later mentioned "Crown materials", he was (I think) referring largely to information that was included in Downer's memo and in Strzok's report about his subsequent interview of Downer. In other words, Strzok was not referring to the Steele Dossier.
**** Former CIA director John Brennan tipped Harry Reid to the collusion claims, prompting the Senate minority leader to write a letter that went public with the accusations. ****
In some previous comments, I addressed the above statement in Kim Strassel's article. My previous comments might have caused some confusion, so I want to start over now.
Senator Harry Reid wrote two public letters to FBI Director James Comey -- on August 27 and October 30, 2016. The CIA (not the FBI) had briefed Reid shortly before the August letter. That letter did not indicate that the CIA had told Reid that Trump was colluding with Russia.
Rather, the August letter indicated that Reid had been told by a former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell that Trump was an "unwitting agent" of Russia. Morrell had retired from the CIA in 2013 -- three years before Reid wrote that letter.
Reid's August letter did not say that the FBI was investigating Trump. Rather, that letter suggested that the FBI **should** investigate Trump.
======
Reid's October 2016 letter was written after Reid had been briefed by both the CIA and the FBI. He had been briefed by the FBI in mid-September.
Reid's October letter said that Comey possessed "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government". However, Reid did not write explicitly that the FBI was investigating Trump along those lines.
======
In recent weeks I have written in various forums, including my own blog ....
**** Former CIA director John Brennan tipped Harry Reid to the collusion claims, prompting the Senate minority leader to write a letter that went public with the accusations. ****
I think (but am not sure) that the "tipper" is incorrect in that sentence. As I remember, Senator Reid wrote the letter after he, as the Senate Majority Leader, was briefed by the FBI (not by the CIA).
... says that the CIA briefed the Gang of Eight in August and September 2016.
In addition, however ....
"in mid-September, President Obama dispatched counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco, FBI Director James Comey, and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to brief top members of Congress."
So, it's kind of murky, exactly which briefing motivated Reid.
Reid's letter itself cites only "Michael Morrell, the former acting CIA Director". However, Morell had retired from the CIA in 2013 (thirteen).
Oh boy. The WSJ is on the case. After anti-Trumpeting for years, Lil' Kimmy Strassel gets let out of the dog house to gnaw on her only bone again on the op-ed pages. Note the discordant grinding of the WSJ gears again. For the entire election cycle, their 'news' division acted like it was being run by Katrina vanden Heuvel, while the Editorial Board wrote endless tut-tutting, more in sorrow than in anger opinion pieces. There is little doubt that they all voted for Obama-Biden. Too much Chamber of Commerce money was on the line.
I have been working--with some success--to get my friends and family to ditch the WSJ, Fox, and the National Review (are they still alive?). Like all the corporate media, at some point they have to pretend like their sh*t-stained fingerprints aren't all over the sh*t-stained Obama-Biden presidency. This is all far too late to serve any other purpose but blame bleaching, but they probably have nothing much to worry about. The way things are going, we're all going to be busy hunting and gathering.
National Review, a Pride Tradition, I mean, proud tradition of pretending to be conservative just enough to try to keep you away from writers who actually are!
All future presidents are to become mere ceremonial puppets to the entrenched permanent government that DC has become. They will be selected and never elected for their marketing and telegenic appeal. No more diaper wearing dimwits like slow Joe, but charismatic charlatans that the WEF foists upon us. It’s all an illusion. Every damn thing from here on out. Until finally reality has its way of finally asserting itself in unexpected and catastrophic fashion.
And Trump playing patty cake with them, strangely. Endorses McCarthy, observes that they put Navarro in leg irons, calls it a shame, says we'll get 'em next election. He's the one outsider with a card to play, to take the fight directly to DC, and he doesn't play it. Something is fishy
Trump’s outreach has been muffled with censorship, and seems to be treating the Jan 6 star chamber with extreme caution. My gut feeling is he’s trying to avoid some type of charges of collusion, etc. the committee would love to get him with.
I wish Trump would come out swinging on the entire un-American, Jan 6 travesty of Justice, show trial. It’s shameful what is happening.
There isn't a human being on the planet with enough resources to take on that unprecedented level of corrupt state-level actors. They have almost unlimited resources at their disposal...
Trump has something far more important that resources although those are important. He has leverage - the bully pulpit with MAGA nation. If they didn't respect that leverage they wouldn't be trying so absurdly to eliminate it. I don't think they CAN or ever wanted or ever will want to put Trump in jail. I think everything they are doing is to separate Trump from his base. To take away his leverage. They throw him in jail and he gets more leverage. By focusing on his followers they are trying to weaken his support. They are afraid of what a populist movement could do to their plans for orderly demolition. The right wing of the uniparty is already facing exposure. There's no way he doesn't get that. Maybe he's not the fighter I was giving him credit for being, but there is no way he does not grasp the enemy he is facing. No way.
I agreed with Trump not going after Hillary. My worry is it would have been perceived we are like a banana Republic, where those that lose get punished by the ruling regime.
Would the Democrats jail Trump if they could find an excuse? Any flimsy legal, novel reason a DC Jury would rubber stamp?
I’m still in disbelief on what is being done to the Jan 6 protesters. Or the White Supremacist hunt in the military. Or what was done to General Flynn.
Again, if it has been an endless charade created by deep state bureaucrats, who remain deeply entrenched in the system, then how are we to suppose that the coming “great red wave” will have any affect on the “swamp on the Potomac?”.
Nunes and McCarthy aren’t elected representatives, but private citizens. Those other folks you mentioned are tasked with oversight of the alphabet agencies. Of the three, I expect Rand will hav plenty to say, even though it won’t be reported by Corporate Media.
This goes along with how the Jan 6 prisoners have been abandoned by the Gop. At least the Left, right or wrong, supports their protesters
/ supporters legally and in the media.
Per conservatives treehouse the only one mentioning Peter Navarro’s arrest on the Sunday talk shows was John Ratcliffe, and his reply was mealy mouthed.
The only thing I found by the Gop was promises for counter programming on the planned Jan 6 anti Trump media blitzkrieg is:
Yup, Strassel pulls it all together. Of course it’s the Dems who colluded with Ukraine (see below article - Sperry - ) not Trump/Russia! It’s a sickening, deranged saga from the streets of Kyiv where Victoria plied her evil trade, to the swamp-infested courtrooms and backrooms of DC…Tx Mark for persisting and publishing! We shouldn’t think this is new: cf Henry VIII and his Privy Council henchmen. However we had a document once, known as the Constitution…
Mark, on May 20, you published her a blog article titled "We Finally Learn Something From The Sussmann Trial". At that time, I was taking a "mental-health break" from RussiaGate, and so I did not read or comment about that article. Now, however, I am catching up, and so I read that article belatedly yesterday.
There you indicated that Peter Strzok's mentions of "Crown material" referred to Steele's Dossier. In that regard, I did read your linked article, which was written by Hans Mahncke and Stephen McIntyre.
I must study this issue some more. In the meantime, though, I do not think that Strzok was referring to Steele's Dossier.
Rather, I think that Strzok was referring to information he supposedly was told by Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat stationed in London.
I read Strzok's book carefully, and I intend to write a blog article about Strzok's visit to London to interview Downer. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but my memory is that Strzok read Downer's memo about his conversation with George Papadopoulos, and then just two or three days later Strzok was in London and interviewing Downer. During that interview, Strzok was accompanied by another FBI official who was involved only peripherally in the investigation of Trump.
Then Strzok returned to FBI Headquarters and wrote a report about his interview of Downer. As far as I know, Strzok is the only FBI official who ever has interviewed Downer and reported about Downer's information. I suspected that Strzok's report about his own interview with him is quite tendentious. The public has not seen Strzok's report or seen Downer's entire memo.
In any case, when Strzok later mentioned "Crown materials", he was (I think) referring largely to information that was included in Downer's memo and in Strzok's report about his subsequent interview of Downer. In other words, Strzok was not referring to the Steele Dossier.
Of course, I am just speculating about this.
**** Former CIA director John Brennan tipped Harry Reid to the collusion claims, prompting the Senate minority leader to write a letter that went public with the accusations. ****
In some previous comments, I addressed the above statement in Kim Strassel's article. My previous comments might have caused some confusion, so I want to start over now.
Senator Harry Reid wrote two public letters to FBI Director James Comey -- on August 27 and October 30, 2016. The CIA (not the FBI) had briefed Reid shortly before the August letter. That letter did not indicate that the CIA had told Reid that Trump was colluding with Russia.
Rather, the August letter indicated that Reid had been told by a former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell that Trump was an "unwitting agent" of Russia. Morrell had retired from the CIA in 2013 -- three years before Reid wrote that letter.
Reid's August letter did not say that the FBI was investigating Trump. Rather, that letter suggested that the FBI **should** investigate Trump.
======
Reid's October 2016 letter was written after Reid had been briefed by both the CIA and the FBI. He had been briefed by the FBI in mid-September.
Reid's October letter said that Comey possessed "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government". However, Reid did not write explicitly that the FBI was investigating Trump along those lines.
======
In recent weeks I have written in various forums, including my own blog ....
https://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/
... that Reid revealed to the public that the FBI was investigating Trump. Now I recognize that those statements of mine were incorrect.
**** Former CIA director John Brennan tipped Harry Reid to the collusion claims, prompting the Senate minority leader to write a letter that went public with the accusations. ****
I think (but am not sure) that the "tipper" is incorrect in that sentence. As I remember, Senator Reid wrote the letter after he, as the Senate Majority Leader, was briefed by the FBI (not by the CIA).
This article ....
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cia-warned-lawmakers-about-russias-pro-trump-efforts-last-summer-msna979346
... says that the CIA briefed the Gang of Eight in August and September 2016.
In addition, however ....
"in mid-September, President Obama dispatched counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco, FBI Director James Comey, and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to brief top members of Congress."
So, it's kind of murky, exactly which briefing motivated Reid.
Reid's letter itself cites only "Michael Morrell, the former acting CIA Director". However, Morell had retired from the CIA in 2013 (thirteen).
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3035844-Reid-Letter-to-Comey
Correction, my last link is to a letter that Reid wrote on August 27 (not October 31), 2016.
I have confused Reid's two letters to Comey.
In my blog, I just now clarified how the two letters differed.
http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2022/06/senator-reids-letter-to-fbi-director.html
In neither letter did Reid reveal that the FBI was investigating Trump.
Oh boy. The WSJ is on the case. After anti-Trumpeting for years, Lil' Kimmy Strassel gets let out of the dog house to gnaw on her only bone again on the op-ed pages. Note the discordant grinding of the WSJ gears again. For the entire election cycle, their 'news' division acted like it was being run by Katrina vanden Heuvel, while the Editorial Board wrote endless tut-tutting, more in sorrow than in anger opinion pieces. There is little doubt that they all voted for Obama-Biden. Too much Chamber of Commerce money was on the line.
I have been working--with some success--to get my friends and family to ditch the WSJ, Fox, and the National Review (are they still alive?). Like all the corporate media, at some point they have to pretend like their sh*t-stained fingerprints aren't all over the sh*t-stained Obama-Biden presidency. This is all far too late to serve any other purpose but blame bleaching, but they probably have nothing much to worry about. The way things are going, we're all going to be busy hunting and gathering.
National Review, a Pride Tradition, I mean, proud tradition of pretending to be conservative just enough to try to keep you away from writers who actually are!
All future presidents are to become mere ceremonial puppets to the entrenched permanent government that DC has become. They will be selected and never elected for their marketing and telegenic appeal. No more diaper wearing dimwits like slow Joe, but charismatic charlatans that the WEF foists upon us. It’s all an illusion. Every damn thing from here on out. Until finally reality has its way of finally asserting itself in unexpected and catastrophic fashion.
Which is with it doesn’t matter a whit if Kamala succeeds him. Just another joke representing us
And Trump playing patty cake with them, strangely. Endorses McCarthy, observes that they put Navarro in leg irons, calls it a shame, says we'll get 'em next election. He's the one outsider with a card to play, to take the fight directly to DC, and he doesn't play it. Something is fishy
Trump’s outreach has been muffled with censorship, and seems to be treating the Jan 6 star chamber with extreme caution. My gut feeling is he’s trying to avoid some type of charges of collusion, etc. the committee would love to get him with.
I wish Trump would come out swinging on the entire un-American, Jan 6 travesty of Justice, show trial. It’s shameful what is happening.
There isn't a human being on the planet with enough resources to take on that unprecedented level of corrupt state-level actors. They have almost unlimited resources at their disposal...
Trump has something far more important that resources although those are important. He has leverage - the bully pulpit with MAGA nation. If they didn't respect that leverage they wouldn't be trying so absurdly to eliminate it. I don't think they CAN or ever wanted or ever will want to put Trump in jail. I think everything they are doing is to separate Trump from his base. To take away his leverage. They throw him in jail and he gets more leverage. By focusing on his followers they are trying to weaken his support. They are afraid of what a populist movement could do to their plans for orderly demolition. The right wing of the uniparty is already facing exposure. There's no way he doesn't get that. Maybe he's not the fighter I was giving him credit for being, but there is no way he does not grasp the enemy he is facing. No way.
Maybe he’s trying to stay out of jail
I think you are right, unfortunately.
I agreed with Trump not going after Hillary. My worry is it would have been perceived we are like a banana Republic, where those that lose get punished by the ruling regime.
Would the Democrats jail Trump if they could find an excuse? Any flimsy legal, novel reason a DC Jury would rubber stamp?
I’m still in disbelief on what is being done to the Jan 6 protesters. Or the White Supremacist hunt in the military. Or what was done to General Flynn.
Gato Malo posted a meme yesterday,
When they say "Our Democracy" what they really mean is "Their Bureaucracy".
Like Amber Heard confused the word “pledged” with “donated”.
Nicely put.
Again, if it has been an endless charade created by deep state bureaucrats, who remain deeply entrenched in the system, then how are we to suppose that the coming “great red wave” will have any affect on the “swamp on the Potomac?”.
The lack of outcry, with a few exceptions, on the arrest of Peter Narravo is telling.
What of McConnell. McCarthy, Graham, Rand Paul, etc? And the media?
Exception I noticed was for Rep. Nunes, And Andrew McCarthy has something behind a paywall. And powerline blog covered it.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/05/sunday-talks-john-ratcliffe-discusses-sussmann-verdict-questions-mueller-inc-and-says-justice-is-going-to-have-to-come-from-the-ballot-box/
Nunes and McCarthy aren’t elected representatives, but private citizens. Those other folks you mentioned are tasked with oversight of the alphabet agencies. Of the three, I expect Rand will hav plenty to say, even though it won’t be reported by Corporate Media.
This goes along with how the Jan 6 prisoners have been abandoned by the Gop. At least the Left, right or wrong, supports their protesters
/ supporters legally and in the media.
Per conservatives treehouse the only one mentioning Peter Navarro’s arrest on the Sunday talk shows was John Ratcliffe, and his reply was mealy mouthed.
The only thing I found by the Gop was promises for counter programming on the planned Jan 6 anti Trump media blitzkrieg is:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/04/exclusive-rep-elise-stefanik-gop-ready-to-provide-counter-programming-to-illegitimate-january-6-hearing/
They’re all too busy choosing the proper pronouns and figuring out how to cave on the 2A at Mitch McConnel’s
request. What a truly despicable lot we have representing us in Washington.
Yup, Strassel pulls it all together. Of course it’s the Dems who colluded with Ukraine (see below article - Sperry - ) not Trump/Russia! It’s a sickening, deranged saga from the streets of Kyiv where Victoria plied her evil trade, to the swamp-infested courtrooms and backrooms of DC…Tx Mark for persisting and publishing! We shouldn’t think this is new: cf Henry VIII and his Privy Council henchmen. However we had a document once, known as the Constitution…
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/03/10/how_ukraine_conspired_with_dems_against_trump_to_prevent_the_kind_of_war_happening_now_under_biden_820873.html