So far today is a bit slow—after some excitement over the weekend. Jonathan Turley hasn’t missed a beat however. He’s pushed out two very good Russia Hoax related articles today. There’s no “actionable intelligence” in the articles, but for Russia Hoax aficionados there’s a lot of nice background information as well as some takedowns of people who richly deserve it. I’ll simply provide the links to the articles and the tweets that summarize them as an incentive to read them.
His comments about the curiosity regarding the FBI EC on the first Danchenko interview are interesting. He points out it was Analyst Auten, not Agent Somma, who wrote it. He says this is very unusual.
I've always wondered why we've never seen the associated FD302.
I've just started reading. My view continues as before, for the last 2 years or more--the people who opened the SC investigation knew there was no predication, therefore they were abusing official office and resources for political purposes. That's also what diGenova was saying in the second interview.
I would agree that, in the circumstances, having Auten do the write-up is unusual. This was an interview designed to evaluate the trustworthiness of an asset, but there was also the possibility of criminal violations involved in the asset's activities. An agent should have done the write-up.
OK, I've got to the part about the interview. SWC is basically right in how he describes FBI procedures, and note that he fastens on the circumstances indicating that there was a concern for possible criminal violations. Only agents should write that up and testify if necessary. Analysts don't have the training and experience to serve as witnesses.
I won't pretend to know. It could mean only Sussmann, despite the plural form. I wouldn't imagine that Durham handed Danchenko a list of all his targets. Nevertheless, it does point toward conspiracy.
Sussmann can't be a "Co-defendant" with Danchenko at this point, because they aren't charged with committing the SAME 1001 acts. They are different acts at different times. So, my understanding (correct me if I'm mistaken) is they cannot be co-defendants.
OTOH, if, as the speaking indictments suggest, Durham will be bringing conspiracy charges, then there would have to be multiple conspirators, and defendants.
This form relates to Danchenko's terms of release, and I don't know of anyone suggesting that Durham has given him a list of co-conspirators, but rather that somebody checked the box, and filled in the hand written co-conspirator contact restriction on Danchenko's terms of release form.
The open question is thus: was it simply hand written" boilerplate" that the judge has his clerks fill in, regardless of whether or not there are any co-conspirators, or was it at the specific behest of prosecutors, in anticipation of there being "co-defendants" in the near future?
If the latter, then it is worth noting that there can't be a co-defendant in a 1001 case where only one person lied. It then implies a conspiracy case, or a related non-conspiracy charge in which multiple people are charged with participating in the same criminal act.
I suggested Sussmann with the idea that both he and Danchenko would, ultimately, be linked in a larger conspiracy. It's true that they aren't linked at present--not in terms of the charges. So I can't speculate further. Re who filled in the form. These items aren't boilerplate. The prosecution would propose the various restrictions and the judge would have to approve them--after input from the defense. Logically, there must be some understanding among those parties as to what "co-defendants" means. The fact that it wasn't just a matter of checking the box but of handwriting in words to make it clear--to the parties involved--means there was something specific in mind. But I don't see that this speculation adds to what we know. Or think we know.
What if Durham negotiated a cooperation agreement with Danchenko, in which he's required to eventually plead guilty to the six 1001 charges, and sentencing will be continued until Danchenko's cooperation is fulfilled, at which time Durham asks for minimum punishment if Danchenko delivered on his proffer. Once the cooperation begins, it becomes clear that there is a SEALED conspiracy indictment of multiple "co-defendants," and as part of the cooperation agreement, Danchenko cannot have contact with them. This check-off on his terms of release may be a clumsy way to document to the court the requirement of no contact relative to the currently sealed conspiracy indictment, which would give Durham the ability to have the court revoke bail if violated.
Durham would not do something 'clumsy' in this regard. He's far too experienced for that. And Durham would have had the final say on what restrictions the prosecution asked for. Nor would Durham be sending signals to the court--clumsy or otherwise. The court would demand to know exactly what is meant.
I'm not sure why you bring up a "sealed" indictment. What's the fascination, which you've shown in the past, for sealed indictments? Sealed indictments are used when there's a flight risk. I don't see any flight risks, except Danchenko.
My only point about sealed indictments is that it would mean that Durham has much more than we know about at present, and still allow him to not reveal his hand until he's ready.
IOW, it would mean he's much further along than we think.
But sealed indictments are not used simply to "not reveal his hand". They're to prevent the destruction of evidence or the flight of the subject. Danchenko had a foreign passport (Russian, Belarus?), so he was a conceivable flight risk. I don't think anyone else is. As for preventing the destruction of evidence, I don't think that's a factor. All the evidence in these cases is either government property (documentation, whether paper or digital in format) or has already been acquired via various investigative means, including GJ subpoenas.
I remember when Ben Wittes, self-styled best friend of James Comey, admitted to having taken to a NY Times reporter Comey’s memos to self on private meetings with President Trump. Wittes, a “journalist”, went on to be a founder of Lawfare, where all the FBI refugees went to hide. James Baker was the first, as I recall. Wittes is also at Brookings
Strzok: "The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele's reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren't able to disprove it either."
This is proof positive that Strzok is either:
1) ignorant of logic and epistemology (the positive assertion always has the burden of proof; Strzok flips it upside down -- can you prove I do NOT have an invisible 2 foot tall genie sitting on my shoulder?)
or
2) he's knows and is a liar.
It's jaw dropping for anyone at his level and responsibility being that fundamentally ignorant or that mendacious, or both!
Independent of this tweet, I just arrived at a similar conclusion.
More specifically, it goes to why Durham chose to indict Danchenko for the lies in his post Jan. 2017 interview, instead of the Jan. 2017 interview itself.
He clearly lied in BOTH the Jan. interview and the ones later in the year, the later ones taking place in VA instead of DC. That's clearly ONE reason (better jury pool and faster court docket) why he charged Dancheko for the lies in the later interviews, but I think there's more to it.
The lies committed in the later interviews were not just committed in VA; they were committed in interviews conducted by FBI agents working for Mueller. That's important, I think.
These charges dovetail with possible criminal acts by Mueller's Goons to the extent they ignored Igor's obvious lies and failed to invalidate his immunity agreement and charge him. Worse still, the lies were committed BEFORE the final FISA application was approved on Carter Page, and they were obligated to put exculpatory info in the FISA application, and were also obligated to notify the court if after being granted, exculpatory info were obtained. If Durham can prove Mueller's Goon's knew Danchenko had lied in these interviews, and intentionally did nothing about it and intentionally didn't notify the FISA court, he's likely got them dead to rights on some criminal acts, possibly a conspiracy.
The earlier lies committed in Jan 2017 weren't Mueller's responsibility, and if the FBI buried the interviews and didn't share them with Mueller, he and his minions can't be blamed. But there may not be a deeper conspiracy inside FBI that the January lies lead to, whereas the later lies lead directly inside Mueller Goon Squad.
I suspect this is why Durham has chosen to focus on these lies FIRST. (He can always charge Danchenko with the January lies in another indictment in DC up until mid Jan. 2022, if he still wishes.)
This strikes me as a big clue that Durham is headed right straight for Mueller Goon's. And once inside the Goon squad, he can pick up and run with the work that Jensen did showing there was no case against Gen. Flynn, but rather massive prosecutorial misconduct, and possibly yet more crimes.
SWC's latest substack article:
>> https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/if-the-fbi-knew-danchenko-was-lying?justPublished=true <<
His comments about the curiosity regarding the FBI EC on the first Danchenko interview are interesting. He points out it was Analyst Auten, not Agent Somma, who wrote it. He says this is very unusual.
I've always wondered why we've never seen the associated FD302.
I've just started reading. My view continues as before, for the last 2 years or more--the people who opened the SC investigation knew there was no predication, therefore they were abusing official office and resources for political purposes. That's also what diGenova was saying in the second interview.
I would agree that, in the circumstances, having Auten do the write-up is unusual. This was an interview designed to evaluate the trustworthiness of an asset, but there was also the possibility of criminal violations involved in the asset's activities. An agent should have done the write-up.
OK, I've got to the part about the interview. SWC is basically right in how he describes FBI procedures, and note that he fastens on the circumstances indicating that there was a concern for possible criminal violations. Only agents should write that up and testify if necessary. Analysts don't have the training and experience to serve as witnesses.
While we wait for more shoes to drop; here's Joe DiGenova's interview Friday with Seb Gorka re the Danchenko and Sussmann indictments:
>> https://www.sebgorka.com/video/how-durham-is-building-his-case-joe-digenova-with-sebastian-gorka-on-america-first/ <<
About 10 minutes long.
DiGenova's take:
1. much more to come from Durham
2. Hillary campaign officials are linked to Hoax via multiple avenues.
3. Mueller's Goon Squad is in Durham's target sights -- note the silence of Weissmann
4. Steele in deep trouble.
5. Note the silence of Comey.
Tx! This is what we were all saying a year ago, then we lost hope. Speaking for myself.
More DiGenova on Monday radio interview WMAL:
>> https://omny.fm/shows/oconnor-and-company/oconnor-company-interview-joe-digenova-11-08-21 <<
Host: "You mean this isn't the end of Durham's indictments?"
Joe: "Oh, Hell NO!"
Clerical oversight, or Freudian slip:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDwix6LXoA8FnX4?format=jpg&name=large <<
"Co-defendants" ... now whatever could that be in reference to, I wonder?
A conspiracy prosecution soon to arrive at a courtroom in EDVA?
I won't pretend to know. It could mean only Sussmann, despite the plural form. I wouldn't imagine that Durham handed Danchenko a list of all his targets. Nevertheless, it does point toward conspiracy.
Sussmann can't be a "Co-defendant" with Danchenko at this point, because they aren't charged with committing the SAME 1001 acts. They are different acts at different times. So, my understanding (correct me if I'm mistaken) is they cannot be co-defendants.
OTOH, if, as the speaking indictments suggest, Durham will be bringing conspiracy charges, then there would have to be multiple conspirators, and defendants.
This form relates to Danchenko's terms of release, and I don't know of anyone suggesting that Durham has given him a list of co-conspirators, but rather that somebody checked the box, and filled in the hand written co-conspirator contact restriction on Danchenko's terms of release form.
The open question is thus: was it simply hand written" boilerplate" that the judge has his clerks fill in, regardless of whether or not there are any co-conspirators, or was it at the specific behest of prosecutors, in anticipation of there being "co-defendants" in the near future?
If the latter, then it is worth noting that there can't be a co-defendant in a 1001 case where only one person lied. It then implies a conspiracy case, or a related non-conspiracy charge in which multiple people are charged with participating in the same criminal act.
I suggested Sussmann with the idea that both he and Danchenko would, ultimately, be linked in a larger conspiracy. It's true that they aren't linked at present--not in terms of the charges. So I can't speculate further. Re who filled in the form. These items aren't boilerplate. The prosecution would propose the various restrictions and the judge would have to approve them--after input from the defense. Logically, there must be some understanding among those parties as to what "co-defendants" means. The fact that it wasn't just a matter of checking the box but of handwriting in words to make it clear--to the parties involved--means there was something specific in mind. But I don't see that this speculation adds to what we know. Or think we know.
What if Durham negotiated a cooperation agreement with Danchenko, in which he's required to eventually plead guilty to the six 1001 charges, and sentencing will be continued until Danchenko's cooperation is fulfilled, at which time Durham asks for minimum punishment if Danchenko delivered on his proffer. Once the cooperation begins, it becomes clear that there is a SEALED conspiracy indictment of multiple "co-defendants," and as part of the cooperation agreement, Danchenko cannot have contact with them. This check-off on his terms of release may be a clumsy way to document to the court the requirement of no contact relative to the currently sealed conspiracy indictment, which would give Durham the ability to have the court revoke bail if violated.
Durham would not do something 'clumsy' in this regard. He's far too experienced for that. And Durham would have had the final say on what restrictions the prosecution asked for. Nor would Durham be sending signals to the court--clumsy or otherwise. The court would demand to know exactly what is meant.
I'm not sure why you bring up a "sealed" indictment. What's the fascination, which you've shown in the past, for sealed indictments? Sealed indictments are used when there's a flight risk. I don't see any flight risks, except Danchenko.
My only point about sealed indictments is that it would mean that Durham has much more than we know about at present, and still allow him to not reveal his hand until he's ready.
IOW, it would mean he's much further along than we think.
But sealed indictments are not used simply to "not reveal his hand". They're to prevent the destruction of evidence or the flight of the subject. Danchenko had a foreign passport (Russian, Belarus?), so he was a conceivable flight risk. I don't think anyone else is. As for preventing the destruction of evidence, I don't think that's a factor. All the evidence in these cases is either government property (documentation, whether paper or digital in format) or has already been acquired via various investigative means, including GJ subpoenas.
Source: https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1458079220639412234
I remember when Ben Wittes, self-styled best friend of James Comey, admitted to having taken to a NY Times reporter Comey’s memos to self on private meetings with President Trump. Wittes, a “journalist”, went on to be a founder of Lawfare, where all the FBI refugees went to hide. James Baker was the first, as I recall. Wittes is also at Brookings
And he gets honorable--or, rather, dishonorable--mention by Turley.
Just went back and found it. Turley went pretty easy on Wittes. Wittes has been a major propagandist against Trump via the Lawfare blog.
Strzok: "The indictment makes a point to note that the FBI was unable to corroborate Steele's reporting, but at the same time, it neglects to mention that we weren't able to disprove it either."
This is proof positive that Strzok is either:
1) ignorant of logic and epistemology (the positive assertion always has the burden of proof; Strzok flips it upside down -- can you prove I do NOT have an invisible 2 foot tall genie sitting on my shoulder?)
or
2) he's knows and is a liar.
It's jaw dropping for anyone at his level and responsibility being that fundamentally ignorant or that mendacious, or both!
At the risk of reading too much into things, try this hypothesis on for size:
>> https://twitter.com/KingMakerFT/status/1457798635349962760 <<
Independent of this tweet, I just arrived at a similar conclusion.
More specifically, it goes to why Durham chose to indict Danchenko for the lies in his post Jan. 2017 interview, instead of the Jan. 2017 interview itself.
He clearly lied in BOTH the Jan. interview and the ones later in the year, the later ones taking place in VA instead of DC. That's clearly ONE reason (better jury pool and faster court docket) why he charged Dancheko for the lies in the later interviews, but I think there's more to it.
The lies committed in the later interviews were not just committed in VA; they were committed in interviews conducted by FBI agents working for Mueller. That's important, I think.
These charges dovetail with possible criminal acts by Mueller's Goons to the extent they ignored Igor's obvious lies and failed to invalidate his immunity agreement and charge him. Worse still, the lies were committed BEFORE the final FISA application was approved on Carter Page, and they were obligated to put exculpatory info in the FISA application, and were also obligated to notify the court if after being granted, exculpatory info were obtained. If Durham can prove Mueller's Goon's knew Danchenko had lied in these interviews, and intentionally did nothing about it and intentionally didn't notify the FISA court, he's likely got them dead to rights on some criminal acts, possibly a conspiracy.
The earlier lies committed in Jan 2017 weren't Mueller's responsibility, and if the FBI buried the interviews and didn't share them with Mueller, he and his minions can't be blamed. But there may not be a deeper conspiracy inside FBI that the January lies lead to, whereas the later lies lead directly inside Mueller Goon Squad.
I suspect this is why Durham has chosen to focus on these lies FIRST. (He can always charge Danchenko with the January lies in another indictment in DC up until mid Jan. 2022, if he still wishes.)
This strikes me as a big clue that Durham is headed right straight for Mueller Goon's. And once inside the Goon squad, he can pick up and run with the work that Jensen did showing there was no case against Gen. Flynn, but rather massive prosecutorial misconduct, and possibly yet more crimes.