I wonder if Durham’s strategy is to prosecute what he’s allowed to, and use the court room to release information he would not be allowed to otherwise?
one other oddity of the opening EC - opened by Curtis Heide and Allison Sands (Sands then being very new on the job.) Heide was already on Crossfire Hurricane team as of Sep 19, 2016 with responsibility for Papadopoulos investigation. See discussions of Case Agent 3 in Horowitz Report. In the previous week, the FBI had just carried out the curious Halper operation against Papadopoulos in London with both Halper and the still unidentified FBI asset "Azra Turk" - an attractive young woman FBI asset or agent who seems to have cooed into Papadop's ear. Case Agent 3 (Heide) was presumably responsible for, or involved in, the Halper-Papadopoulos operation. So it's doubly odd that Heide would be opening Alfa Bank EC in his Chicago FO capacity rather than within Crossfire Hurricane in the capacity of his secondment. As an extra taste, someone (who checked out online pictures) speculated a day or two ago that Allison Sands may have been "Azra Turk".
Re Heide, the reason would be that Papadopoulos was based out of Chicago--physical nexus giving jurisdiction. The same would go for NYO sending the "special investigation" to Chicago--because of some physical nexus. BUT, sending the whole Sussmann package to Chicago after the NYO (or anyone else) had already dismissed it makes zero sense in terms of jurisdiction. Haha--forgot about Azra Turk!
Berkowitz asked about closing EC (1/18/2017). It attributed white paper as "produced by anonymous thoird party from the US Department of Justice". Some "typo".
This I believe. But the demanding is done by a person, not a building. Also, that person's name should appear in the EC. Something about accountability.
It's also true that the proper course to take would be to open a preliminary investigation (PI) in order to evaluate the material that was sent to Chicago. So "the 7th floor" demanding a FFI tells you something about motive.
aanother possibility: is it possible that, as of Sep 2016, Hellman was seconded to a Cyber equivalent of Crossfire Hurricane run out of FBI HQ (like Crossfire Hurricane). I.e. although Hellman was from NYO, there was no reference to NYO. We KNOW that SA Stephen Somma (also from NYO) was then under assignment to Crossfire Hurricane - Horowitz Case Agent 2. Horowitz Crossfire Case Agent 1 appears to have been Ben Gessford on assignment from Cleveland.
It's possible in theory, but I don't think the timeline works. What I mean is, Sept 19 seems too early to be running a new Cyber unit devoted strictly to CH. The earlier allegations don't fit a need for that--those allegations from the "dossier" were of classic spycraft: Carter Page traveling to Moscow for face to face meetings. There were some relatively vague Alfa allegations, but the specific allegations that would require cyber experts pretty much happened with Sussmann walking into Baker's office.
All those agents from other field divisions would have been attached to WMFO. I would expect the CH at WMFO team to largely use their own cyber analysis resources or those at Quantico. I think referral to NYO was done because of physical location, just as the referral by Hellman to Chicago was also based on a physical nexus. I believe I read in earlier accounts that the investigation took place in the NYO. I also suspect that the Sussmann material would not have been rejected pretty much out of hand by Hellman and his supervisor if they were working for the CH team.
I believe you are correct, I’m not FBI but did spend 35 years doing criminal investigations. I came to your conclusion about a 1/3 of the way into this blog. Your 7th floor was trying to get two bites of the same rotten apple, hoping to keep the story going.
I’m curious, how do you mentally deal with what’s been going on at your former business. I’ve been dragged back in a couple times for “expertise” on situations. I did not like it. I’m willing to help but not destroy. I’ve a few friends from your shop, surprisingly the one most critical is a former ASAC, I thought he’d be too political to criticize as much as he does.
I retired in 2006, so I've got some distance in time. I stayed until mandatory retirement (57) but then walked away without looking back--starting doing totally different things. The big factor that kept me thinking things over was the Hanssen case. Then Trump.
As I mentioned in other thread, I don't see any evidence for Bruce Ohr being involved, other than an unsourced assertion by Paul Sperry. Which should not be relied on without some actual back-up. The affair is, as you say, a huge dig-here. And smells of strange directions by the most senior officials.
Joffe is CHS who’s handler was Grasso. White paper to DOJ came from Nellie Ohr earlier.
Chicago FO received the data from Miami FO.
Sands of Chicago FO wrote EC.
Close hold is new nomenclature to me.
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
7h
Apparent that Joffe had provided data to Grasso by Sep 21. That is apparently why Sands thought the investigation was being opened, as she wrote in the EC.
And it was false.”
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
9h
On Grasso:
Grasso reached out with IP addresses of someone at Alfa.
Defense says Joffe was the one provided info to Grasso.“
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
12h
Email from Heide sent to Gaynor and Sands:
Oct 3, 2016
Emails says they got logs from Miami field office. Want to look for source of allegations. Any way to track down source?
Also reference to IP addresses associated with Alfa
Sands did work on the TOR node. She didn't see any unusual activity from Spectrum Health. She learned that Alfa Bank had contracted Kirkland and Ellis.
Is it possible Hellman in NYFO was asked to look at the Sussmann data/white papers by FBI HQ because perhaps NYFO was where FBI had the best cyber analysts? IOW, instead of a full investigation, they were just making an evaluation of the evidence, to see if more investigation was warranted (they thought it wasn't.)
Meanwhile, "somebody" on the 7th Floor decided to float the same evidence to the Chicago FO, and lo and behold, they magically decided there was predication to investigate, whereas Hellman and others in the NYFO had concluded there was no predication to go further. Contemporaneously, FBI HQ 7th floor (and/or DOJ?) decided to closely hold the source of the Alfa bank hoax material, refusing to allow the agents in Chicago FO to know the source was working for Hillary/DNC political operatives.
And what was the effect of not telling Chicago FO that Sussmann -- a lawyer billing Hillary's campaign for meeting with Baker to pass along this garbage evidence -- was the source? Well, one consequence would be that Chicago FO would likely spend much more time investigating before reaching the same conclusion that NYFO reached. Had they known it was Sussmann feeding this to FBI, they might have concluded very rapidly there was no "there," there.
But if the object of the conspiracy was to keep Trump's campaign and associates under investigation, then the close hold on Sussmann's identity ordered by the FBI 7th floor had the effect of assuring the Chicago FO investigation would continue for the remainder of the election cycle.
All of which goes to the motives of Sussmann to hide who he was acting on behalf of when he gave the material to Baker, not to mention evidence of conspiracy by FBI leadership in partnership with Sussmann, HfA, Simpson/FGPS, Steele, Joffe, etc.
At a guess, I'd say that the NYO has the best cyber unit in the field. But the FBI does investigations = Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION. NOT Federal Bureau of MAKING AN EVALUATION. IOW, no evaluation without some reason to believe there's something there that falls within FBI investigative jurisdiction. Yes, preliminary steps can be taken, but what NYO did, as also Chicago, was a full blown cyber investigation. FBIHQ made the initial predication call: there's something here to investigate so we refer the matter to the logical office--NYO (Trump Tower is where the server is located, NYC). Note that Chicago opened an FFI to do the exact same thing NYO had done--that's the way things are done in the FBI. The FFI was opened off the "narrative that was pushed", as Hellmann said. The investigation that was then conducted based on that predication convinced NYO (and, later, Chicago) that the "narrative that was pushed" was a false narrative.
The referral to Chicago by FBIHQ--supposedly based on DoJ's "source"--was in fact a referral of the exact same stuff and the exact same predication that had been sent to NYO and which NYO said was bullshit = makes no sense at all, if this is legit, to refer same investigation to two separate offices. FBI absolutely does not work that way.
Mistakes can be made, so neither NYO nor Chicago had reason to suspect shenanigans at FBIHQ. The narrative stated a legit investigative matter. The problem was that it had no basis in any facts. Theoretically, FBIHQ couldn't know that there was a major factual problem--that was for the field offices to sort out. But the way this was handled raises a serious suspicion that FBIHQ really did suspect this was just a political dirty trick, and that HQ at the highest level was on board with it.
You have to understand that the NYO is almost a Bureau unto itself. They WILL tell FBIHQ that something is BS. Chicago, while a major office, is nothing like NYO and likely to be more beholden to HQ. All the same, the Chicago agents weren't stupid. They knew that to do a real and thorough investigation they had to interview the "source".
Mark, I was wondering if it is possible that since NYFO quickly called BS on the Sussmann-provided information and both Comey and McCabe would know better than most that no one (including and maybe especially including anyone from the DO) tells NYFO what to do, that perhaps HQ shopped the same information to CG for investigation. Would be curious to know who was in the chain of command (SSA, ASAC, SAC) in the CGFO at that time. Perhaps someone who could be counted on to be sympathetic to direction from FBIHQ in stringing the “special investigation” along as perhaps someone owing a favor due to previous connections with the main FBIHQ players.....I’m primarily thinking McCabe here.
Also, regarding the term “special investigation” I have a vague recollection of the term “special” (as in “I am being assigned to a special,”) which referred to FBIHQ closely held or monitored investigations conducted in the field but primarily at the direction of FBIHQ.
It's infuriating, ain't it, how such evil people laugh in our faces and brazenly break the law with zero consequences. I don't have high hopes of Durham resulting in prison sentences for these maniacs, but at the very least, I hope it scuppers any remaining chance Clinton has of becoming Potus.
I wonder if Durham’s strategy is to prosecute what he’s allowed to, and use the court room to release information he would not be allowed to otherwise?
one other oddity of the opening EC - opened by Curtis Heide and Allison Sands (Sands then being very new on the job.) Heide was already on Crossfire Hurricane team as of Sep 19, 2016 with responsibility for Papadopoulos investigation. See discussions of Case Agent 3 in Horowitz Report. In the previous week, the FBI had just carried out the curious Halper operation against Papadopoulos in London with both Halper and the still unidentified FBI asset "Azra Turk" - an attractive young woman FBI asset or agent who seems to have cooed into Papadop's ear. Case Agent 3 (Heide) was presumably responsible for, or involved in, the Halper-Papadopoulos operation. So it's doubly odd that Heide would be opening Alfa Bank EC in his Chicago FO capacity rather than within Crossfire Hurricane in the capacity of his secondment. As an extra taste, someone (who checked out online pictures) speculated a day or two ago that Allison Sands may have been "Azra Turk".
Re Heide, the reason would be that Papadopoulos was based out of Chicago--physical nexus giving jurisdiction. The same would go for NYO sending the "special investigation" to Chicago--because of some physical nexus. BUT, sending the whole Sussmann package to Chicago after the NYO (or anyone else) had already dismissed it makes zero sense in terms of jurisdiction. Haha--forgot about Azra Turk!
adamgoldmanNYT is providing useful live tweets. He reports that "Heide says the DOJ reference in opening EC is a "typo.""
Sounds like BS to me.
Berkowitz asked about closing EC (1/18/2017). It attributed white paper as "produced by anonymous thoird party from the US Department of Justice". Some "typo".
apparently the "typo" was brought to Heide's attention during OIG report on Page FISA.
Goldman "Heide says he had no choice to open a full case because the FBI 7th floor demanded."
This I believe. But the demanding is done by a person, not a building. Also, that person's name should appear in the EC. Something about accountability.
It's also true that the proper course to take would be to open a preliminary investigation (PI) in order to evaluate the material that was sent to Chicago. So "the 7th floor" demanding a FFI tells you something about motive.
Which explains why she, like the other cyber agents, stuck to their guns.
aanother possibility: is it possible that, as of Sep 2016, Hellman was seconded to a Cyber equivalent of Crossfire Hurricane run out of FBI HQ (like Crossfire Hurricane). I.e. although Hellman was from NYO, there was no reference to NYO. We KNOW that SA Stephen Somma (also from NYO) was then under assignment to Crossfire Hurricane - Horowitz Case Agent 2. Horowitz Crossfire Case Agent 1 appears to have been Ben Gessford on assignment from Cleveland.
It's possible in theory, but I don't think the timeline works. What I mean is, Sept 19 seems too early to be running a new Cyber unit devoted strictly to CH. The earlier allegations don't fit a need for that--those allegations from the "dossier" were of classic spycraft: Carter Page traveling to Moscow for face to face meetings. There were some relatively vague Alfa allegations, but the specific allegations that would require cyber experts pretty much happened with Sussmann walking into Baker's office.
All those agents from other field divisions would have been attached to WMFO. I would expect the CH at WMFO team to largely use their own cyber analysis resources or those at Quantico. I think referral to NYO was done because of physical location, just as the referral by Hellman to Chicago was also based on a physical nexus. I believe I read in earlier accounts that the investigation took place in the NYO. I also suspect that the Sussmann material would not have been rejected pretty much out of hand by Hellman and his supervisor if they were working for the CH team.
I believe you are correct, I’m not FBI but did spend 35 years doing criminal investigations. I came to your conclusion about a 1/3 of the way into this blog. Your 7th floor was trying to get two bites of the same rotten apple, hoping to keep the story going.
Which is fraud.
I’m curious, how do you mentally deal with what’s been going on at your former business. I’ve been dragged back in a couple times for “expertise” on situations. I did not like it. I’m willing to help but not destroy. I’ve a few friends from your shop, surprisingly the one most critical is a former ASAC, I thought he’d be too political to criticize as much as he does.
I retired in 2006, so I've got some distance in time. I stayed until mandatory retirement (57) but then walked away without looking back--starting doing totally different things. The big factor that kept me thinking things over was the Hanssen case. Then Trump.
As I mentioned in other thread, I don't see any evidence for Bruce Ohr being involved, other than an unsourced assertion by Paul Sperry. Which should not be relied on without some actual back-up. The affair is, as you say, a huge dig-here. And smells of strange directions by the most senior officials.
Maybe, but it's funny how his lovely wife is a radio ham...
Also reminder Bruce Ohr confided everything with Andrew “slick” Weismann during this time. Wink wink.
Joffe is CHS who’s handler was Grasso. White paper to DOJ came from Nellie Ohr earlier.
Chicago FO received the data from Miami FO.
Sands of Chicago FO wrote EC.
Close hold is new nomenclature to me.
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
7h
Apparent that Joffe had provided data to Grasso by Sep 21. That is apparently why Sands thought the investigation was being opened, as she wrote in the EC.
And it was false.”
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
9h
On Grasso:
Grasso reached out with IP addresses of someone at Alfa.
Defense says Joffe was the one provided info to Grasso.“
“Undead FOIA
@UndeadFoia
·
12h
Email from Heide sent to Gaynor and Sands:
Oct 3, 2016
Emails says they got logs from Miami field office. Want to look for source of allegations. Any way to track down source?
Also reference to IP addresses associated with Alfa
Miami references Central Dynamics logs.“
Could it be that CFO was involved because of the Spectrum Health angle? I believe they are located in Michigan.
That rings a bell.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
·
9h
Sands did work on the TOR node. She didn't see any unusual activity from Spectrum Health. She learned that Alfa Bank had contracted Kirkland and Ellis.
Thanks Mark for explaining the fbi process and the potential issues.
We know that much of the fbi, senate Intel committee, foreign Intel agencies, press, and doj were involved in the conspiracy to Get Trump.
The question is, what’s Durham’s scope / authority?
Is it possible Hellman in NYFO was asked to look at the Sussmann data/white papers by FBI HQ because perhaps NYFO was where FBI had the best cyber analysts? IOW, instead of a full investigation, they were just making an evaluation of the evidence, to see if more investigation was warranted (they thought it wasn't.)
Meanwhile, "somebody" on the 7th Floor decided to float the same evidence to the Chicago FO, and lo and behold, they magically decided there was predication to investigate, whereas Hellman and others in the NYFO had concluded there was no predication to go further. Contemporaneously, FBI HQ 7th floor (and/or DOJ?) decided to closely hold the source of the Alfa bank hoax material, refusing to allow the agents in Chicago FO to know the source was working for Hillary/DNC political operatives.
And what was the effect of not telling Chicago FO that Sussmann -- a lawyer billing Hillary's campaign for meeting with Baker to pass along this garbage evidence -- was the source? Well, one consequence would be that Chicago FO would likely spend much more time investigating before reaching the same conclusion that NYFO reached. Had they known it was Sussmann feeding this to FBI, they might have concluded very rapidly there was no "there," there.
But if the object of the conspiracy was to keep Trump's campaign and associates under investigation, then the close hold on Sussmann's identity ordered by the FBI 7th floor had the effect of assuring the Chicago FO investigation would continue for the remainder of the election cycle.
All of which goes to the motives of Sussmann to hide who he was acting on behalf of when he gave the material to Baker, not to mention evidence of conspiracy by FBI leadership in partnership with Sussmann, HfA, Simpson/FGPS, Steele, Joffe, etc.
At a guess, I'd say that the NYO has the best cyber unit in the field. But the FBI does investigations = Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION. NOT Federal Bureau of MAKING AN EVALUATION. IOW, no evaluation without some reason to believe there's something there that falls within FBI investigative jurisdiction. Yes, preliminary steps can be taken, but what NYO did, as also Chicago, was a full blown cyber investigation. FBIHQ made the initial predication call: there's something here to investigate so we refer the matter to the logical office--NYO (Trump Tower is where the server is located, NYC). Note that Chicago opened an FFI to do the exact same thing NYO had done--that's the way things are done in the FBI. The FFI was opened off the "narrative that was pushed", as Hellmann said. The investigation that was then conducted based on that predication convinced NYO (and, later, Chicago) that the "narrative that was pushed" was a false narrative.
The referral to Chicago by FBIHQ--supposedly based on DoJ's "source"--was in fact a referral of the exact same stuff and the exact same predication that had been sent to NYO and which NYO said was bullshit = makes no sense at all, if this is legit, to refer same investigation to two separate offices. FBI absolutely does not work that way.
Mistakes can be made, so neither NYO nor Chicago had reason to suspect shenanigans at FBIHQ. The narrative stated a legit investigative matter. The problem was that it had no basis in any facts. Theoretically, FBIHQ couldn't know that there was a major factual problem--that was for the field offices to sort out. But the way this was handled raises a serious suspicion that FBIHQ really did suspect this was just a political dirty trick, and that HQ at the highest level was on board with it.
You have to understand that the NYO is almost a Bureau unto itself. They WILL tell FBIHQ that something is BS. Chicago, while a major office, is nothing like NYO and likely to be more beholden to HQ. All the same, the Chicago agents weren't stupid. They knew that to do a real and thorough investigation they had to interview the "source".
Mark, I was wondering if it is possible that since NYFO quickly called BS on the Sussmann-provided information and both Comey and McCabe would know better than most that no one (including and maybe especially including anyone from the DO) tells NYFO what to do, that perhaps HQ shopped the same information to CG for investigation. Would be curious to know who was in the chain of command (SSA, ASAC, SAC) in the CGFO at that time. Perhaps someone who could be counted on to be sympathetic to direction from FBIHQ in stringing the “special investigation” along as perhaps someone owing a favor due to previous connections with the main FBIHQ players.....I’m primarily thinking McCabe here.
Also, regarding the term “special investigation” I have a vague recollection of the term “special” (as in “I am being assigned to a special,”) which referred to FBIHQ closely held or monitored investigations conducted in the field but primarily at the direction of FBIHQ.
It's infuriating, ain't it, how such evil people laugh in our faces and brazenly break the law with zero consequences. I don't have high hopes of Durham resulting in prison sentences for these maniacs, but at the very least, I hope it scuppers any remaining chance Clinton has of becoming Potus.