The John Ratcliffe interview with Maria Bartiromo became available as I was nearly the end of an already lengthy post this afternoon. As it happens, the interview feeds right into one of my major points: Don’t be fooled by Durham’s indictments into thinking that Durham believes that the FBI was entirely a victim of the Russia Hoax and, specifically, of the Clinton Dossier. Yes, as an institution, as a government agency, the FBI was used and abused—it was victimized. But key FBI officials willingly participated in that. Nobody knows that better than John Durham.
As much of a snake as Brennan is--and he sure did his part to feed the conspiracies in the media--he covered his butt so that everyone but him would be on the hook for this fiasco. If only figures like Brennan could be charged for such blatant, knowing lies as he put forth in his opinion piece published in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html) . Just read that hogwash, knowing that Brennan knew all his assertions of Russian collusion were flat out lies.
Maybe as others have suggested, the way to go after these creeps is civil suits over defamation and slander.
That's interesting. I decided not to go there in this post. What's interesting is that, although the ICA was definitely slanted untruthfully against Trump, Brennan's CIA opposed allowing the Clinton Dossier in, in opposition to Comey's FBI. It was ultimately included as an appendix. Not doubt Durham discussed that with Brennan,
Brennan did testify that there was other "classified" information that supported their "assessment." Hopefully this is part of the info Ratcliff provided Durham.
I'd be very surprised if Durham has not already interviewed Brandon Van Grack (although Horowitz may have had a first crack at him). That Barnett 302 has been public (and is dated) since 9/20. However, I haven't the slightest doubt that there were previous interviews of Barnett from months earlier.
Mark, as I recall, Comey was asked about this intelligence agency investigative referral in Congressional testimony. He said it 'didn't ring any bells' for him.
It's still floating around the web, but go back and read what Louis Gohmert wrote about Robert Mueller called "Robert Mueller: Unmasked". It's a chronology of Mueller's national security abuses, along with other just unreal history of corruption. Worth the read - even if 5% of it is true, Mueller belongs in prison.
One of the intriguing speculations floating around among Russia Hoax researchers on the 'net is the possibility that the "foreign policy advisor" who proposed the plan, and referred to in Brennan's briefing, is perhaps not Sullivan, but rather DOLAN.
From what I understand the Georgia Tech Alfa Bank "researchers" were working under a DARPA contract for a DNS study. That "study" was what drew the connections to the mail1.trump-email.com email.
That DNS data was supposedly given to the researchers by Joffe via Neustar's data logs who, at the time, was an executive of the security firm.
My guess is that the DNS data given to the team was probably fake or at least slightly cooked to make the Trump Alfa connection. Forensic data analysis "is" or "is not", you are either really good at drawing conclusions from empirical evidence or you are not. It's just not a wishy-washy science.
Joffe seem to be in the middle of several aspects of this which is pretty convenient for Durham avoiding institutional responsibility.
What's bugging me here is that this really isn't being investigated and charged chronologically. It's more "in the middle'ish". For example Nellie Ohr started on the dossier with fusion in 2015. That's the same time you saw the Cambridge 3 Flynn set up taking place. Steel wasn't hired by Fusion until June of 16. The so-called DNC hacks were late 2015 early 2016 when is where you see Sussmann come flying into the picture and the CrowdStrike fake narratives take off. Hence the Manafort, Stone, Flynn mess start up in relation to all of that.
Much of that became Muller's work product as SC... So how much of this are we actually avoiding?
I ask this on the basis of what I'm seeing is a very carefully crafted case that's avoiding touching the IC, Special Council (Muller), State Department and FBI involvement.
The DARPA contract wasn't signed until around election time.
I see no evidence that Durham is avoiding investigating anything -- that's pure speculation.
And if you listen to Ratcliffe's interview from yesterday, he makes it clear as far as he's concerned, Durham has the hard evidence that Ratcliffe gave him and is going after the institutional players with that evidence.
It's true he had excellent Russian connections, but he was a PR expert rather than a policy guy. OTOH, the phrasing is ambiguous. Sullivan was supposed to be the top FR guy, and the way that's phrased hints at perhaps someone not at the top. But we know that Sullivan was kept briefed by Sussman and Elias.
If it's Dolan's plan, that doesn't mean Sullivan, Elias, and others are off the hook.
The most compelling thing that Ratcliffe says is about the thousands of not yet declassified docs that go directly to the criminal activity that could be the basis for Durham indicting the people responsible, which I took to clearly be in reference to top officials in FBI/DOJ, which Ratcliffe said he has no doubt Durham will be looking to indict people.
This helps explains why Comey suddenly lost his voice on social media. Or, as SWC pointed out in a tweet, a target letter has an amazing capacity to silence previously loud voices.
This may be the best news of a very good news week.
Not exactly. He works directly for the AG, so can be dismissed. Usually hard to do politically. You're probably thinking of the old 'independent' counsel thing.
As much of a snake as Brennan is--and he sure did his part to feed the conspiracies in the media--he covered his butt so that everyone but him would be on the hook for this fiasco. If only figures like Brennan could be charged for such blatant, knowing lies as he put forth in his opinion piece published in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html) . Just read that hogwash, knowing that Brennan knew all his assertions of Russian collusion were flat out lies.
Maybe as others have suggested, the way to go after these creeps is civil suits over defamation and slander.
Latest research into possible ID of Organizer-1:
>> https://twitter.com/Alkurtz4/status/1457722706464489477 <<
Org-1 set up conference in Moscow in October 2016 Dolan attended.
The candidate IDed has ties to Dolan.
What about Brennan's infamous "Intelligence Community Assessment?"
That's interesting. I decided not to go there in this post. What's interesting is that, although the ICA was definitely slanted untruthfully against Trump, Brennan's CIA opposed allowing the Clinton Dossier in, in opposition to Comey's FBI. It was ultimately included as an appendix. Not doubt Durham discussed that with Brennan,
Brennan did testify that there was other "classified" information that supported their "assessment." Hopefully this is part of the info Ratcliff provided Durham.
Mark check out this General Flynn interview with Tucker Carlson for more perspective:.
https://t.co/64pI0hdrNv?amp=1
He references a 302 of Agent Barnett in which Barnett says the plan was to "get Flynn to get Trump."
Wow.
Durham is going to be very busy for a very long time.
I'd be very surprised if Durham has not already interviewed Brandon Van Grack (although Horowitz may have had a first crack at him). That Barnett 302 has been public (and is dated) since 9/20. However, I haven't the slightest doubt that there were previous interviews of Barnett from months earlier.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.249.0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ZHiD12_LR69txPLa-mgfEVjZy7lyHpJCG1tXBoOx7y1b8PyXdznmTfoY
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-barnett-302.html
Thanks
And Jimmy, high on playing his part like he believed he was going to be the hero who took down Trump, what a hangover Durham is likely to be...https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-donald-trump-relationship-timeline/
Mark, as I recall, Comey was asked about this intelligence agency investigative referral in Congressional testimony. He said it 'didn't ring any bells' for him.
Rings a bell with me. :-) Durham will hopefully ring his bell.
It's still floating around the web, but go back and read what Louis Gohmert wrote about Robert Mueller called "Robert Mueller: Unmasked". It's a chronology of Mueller's national security abuses, along with other just unreal history of corruption. Worth the read - even if 5% of it is true, Mueller belongs in prison.
And it's exactly why I maintain that Durham feels he has unfinished business with Mueller and his ilk.
100% agree
One of the intriguing speculations floating around among Russia Hoax researchers on the 'net is the possibility that the "foreign policy advisor" who proposed the plan, and referred to in Brennan's briefing, is perhaps not Sullivan, but rather DOLAN.
From what I understand the Georgia Tech Alfa Bank "researchers" were working under a DARPA contract for a DNS study. That "study" was what drew the connections to the mail1.trump-email.com email.
That DNS data was supposedly given to the researchers by Joffe via Neustar's data logs who, at the time, was an executive of the security firm.
My guess is that the DNS data given to the team was probably fake or at least slightly cooked to make the Trump Alfa connection. Forensic data analysis "is" or "is not", you are either really good at drawing conclusions from empirical evidence or you are not. It's just not a wishy-washy science.
Joffe seem to be in the middle of several aspects of this which is pretty convenient for Durham avoiding institutional responsibility.
What's bugging me here is that this really isn't being investigated and charged chronologically. It's more "in the middle'ish". For example Nellie Ohr started on the dossier with fusion in 2015. That's the same time you saw the Cambridge 3 Flynn set up taking place. Steel wasn't hired by Fusion until June of 16. The so-called DNC hacks were late 2015 early 2016 when is where you see Sussmann come flying into the picture and the CrowdStrike fake narratives take off. Hence the Manafort, Stone, Flynn mess start up in relation to all of that.
Much of that became Muller's work product as SC... So how much of this are we actually avoiding?
I ask this on the basis of what I'm seeing is a very carefully crafted case that's avoiding touching the IC, Special Council (Muller), State Department and FBI involvement.
I guess we'll see in time...
The DARPA contract wasn't signed until around election time.
I see no evidence that Durham is avoiding investigating anything -- that's pure speculation.
And if you listen to Ratcliffe's interview from yesterday, he makes it clear as far as he's concerned, Durham has the hard evidence that Ratcliffe gave him and is going after the institutional players with that evidence.
It's true he had excellent Russian connections, but he was a PR expert rather than a policy guy. OTOH, the phrasing is ambiguous. Sullivan was supposed to be the top FR guy, and the way that's phrased hints at perhaps someone not at the top. But we know that Sullivan was kept briefed by Sussman and Elias.
If it's Dolan's plan, that doesn't mean Sullivan, Elias, and others are off the hook.
The most compelling thing that Ratcliffe says is about the thousands of not yet declassified docs that go directly to the criminal activity that could be the basis for Durham indicting the people responsible, which I took to clearly be in reference to top officials in FBI/DOJ, which Ratcliffe said he has no doubt Durham will be looking to indict people.
This helps explains why Comey suddenly lost his voice on social media. Or, as SWC pointed out in a tweet, a target letter has an amazing capacity to silence previously loud voices.
This may be the best news of a very good news week.
“All this could make for a fun 2022.”
We certainly need that all things being considered. Any chance Garland tries to quash Durham & shove the entire sordid affair under the rug?
I heard or read somewhere that a special counsel stays in place until his task is completed. Mark will know...
Not exactly. He works directly for the AG, so can be dismissed. Usually hard to do politically. You're probably thinking of the old 'independent' counsel thing.
In the meantime, this is informative:
https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/12/bidens-special-counsel-problem/170587/