Margot Cleveland did her Sussmann trial coverage this morning and touched on an interesting issue: the use of CHSs (informants) by law enforcement. In this case, by the FBI. It’s a very big topic and I can only really touch on it: Court Testimony Shows Spygate Conspirators Deceived The FBI Using Same Strategy Twice
I was attending the retirement of a good agent friend. I was chatting with his squad and their SSA kept giving me the once over (now I had met this guy several times and figured he was trying to place me). Finally his curiosity got the better of him and came over and firmly asked, just who are you? I told him I was one of “Bob’s” CHS’ and thought it would be ok if I came. He gulped, turned red and started to say something when one of the other agents told him I was police chief they worked with frequently. He did an about face and left. My friend whispered to me, funny thing is, I have you on the books as a source, they were giving me a hard time about not having enough so “I recruited you”. We CHS’s are sneaky.
I’m afraid you are on the wrong trail here. Most conservative observers fix on what a lousy job the defense is doing. Andy McCarthy, for instance, lays out how the paper trail and agent testimony “disproves” a materiality defense.
Now, you have been in government. What are the odds that Sussman told Priestap and others exactly what he was doing — after all, the whole purpose was to get an anchor for the press? And what are the odds that the FBI asked Sussman for a CYA message to preserve plausible deniability? Was anybody fooled, or was Justice complicit in electioneering fraud?
You’ve been there. Which story, especially in view of this cast of characters, is plausible?
O/T but of interest. Bluto Barr is full of surprises...
https://conservativebrief.com/sedition-63202/
I was attending the retirement of a good agent friend. I was chatting with his squad and their SSA kept giving me the once over (now I had met this guy several times and figured he was trying to place me). Finally his curiosity got the better of him and came over and firmly asked, just who are you? I told him I was one of “Bob’s” CHS’ and thought it would be ok if I came. He gulped, turned red and started to say something when one of the other agents told him I was police chief they worked with frequently. He did an about face and left. My friend whispered to me, funny thing is, I have you on the books as a source, they were giving me a hard time about not having enough so “I recruited you”. We CHS’s are sneaky.
I’m afraid you are on the wrong trail here. Most conservative observers fix on what a lousy job the defense is doing. Andy McCarthy, for instance, lays out how the paper trail and agent testimony “disproves” a materiality defense.
Now, you have been in government. What are the odds that Sussman told Priestap and others exactly what he was doing — after all, the whole purpose was to get an anchor for the press? And what are the odds that the FBI asked Sussman for a CYA message to preserve plausible deniability? Was anybody fooled, or was Justice complicit in electioneering fraud?
You’ve been there. Which story, especially in view of this cast of characters, is plausible?