My post yesterday regarding the DoJ/FBI investigation of two of Devin Nunes’ top lawyers sparked a response from a former FBI agent—as sometimes happens here. You’ll recall that the investigation in question was a full criminal investigation that featured the use of grand jury subpoenas to obtain personal information regarding the two staffers (including Kash Patel) who were involved in Nunes’ investigation of Russia Hoax abuses—especially the fraudulent FISA applications that were submitted against Carter Page. Because of various procedural irregularities it’s apparent—failure to notify Nunes—there seems little doubt that the purpose of the investigations was to obtain personal information that could be used to pressure Nunes into backing off from his investigation. In fact, DAG Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray had threatened to launch exactly such investigations in a meeting with Nunes and Kash Patel—unless Nunes backed off.
"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." ~ Robertson Davies. The more I study and follow great sources like you, the better my "reality goggles" function. Excellent work.
Even noting (and daunted by) an insider's view of the FBI brass' shift toward a "devil may care" attitude on predication in light of an ever-expanding "national security" tack, I am curious why the Bureau would pursue a grand jury subpoena when National Security Letters would get them the info they sought. I recall a panel 15+ years ago when FBI's General Counsel advised that our clients should treat NSLs the same as they would a GJ subpoena in terms of breadth/scope. The subpoena step would just seem to raise additional, "unnecessary" predication questions of how developed facts applied to the essential elements for a specified federal crime. Don't do litigation or criminal, so I readily admit my limited understanding here.
Former FBI Agent Offers Further Perspective DoJ/FBI Efforts To Derail Nunes
"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." ~ Robertson Davies. The more I study and follow great sources like you, the better my "reality goggles" function. Excellent work.
Even noting (and daunted by) an insider's view of the FBI brass' shift toward a "devil may care" attitude on predication in light of an ever-expanding "national security" tack, I am curious why the Bureau would pursue a grand jury subpoena when National Security Letters would get them the info they sought. I recall a panel 15+ years ago when FBI's General Counsel advised that our clients should treat NSLs the same as they would a GJ subpoena in terms of breadth/scope. The subpoena step would just seem to raise additional, "unnecessary" predication questions of how developed facts applied to the essential elements for a specified federal crime. Don't do litigation or criminal, so I readily admit my limited understanding here.