U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley implied this morning that USAO John Durham may not provide evidence of the already well-documented effort to remove President Trump from office until after the November election:
Senator Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020
Senator Grassley is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Grassley was elected in 1981 and has held office for almost 40 years.
As Max Ehmann said in 1927 “whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.” From an important reference point, this quote holds additional meaning when cast against the backdrop of this Bill Barr segment. [More on that later.]
This morning Maria Bartiromo released a previous segment of her interview with AG Bill Barr that was not originally broadcast. It is a very insightful segment. AG Barr begins by acknowledging a very key and foundational point: President Donald Trump was indeed targeted by various entities in a concerted effort to remove him from office. Do not let the importance of just that statement alone sit without its appropriate weight.
Second, another key aspect from the attorney general perspective is highlighted at 03:30 to 03:53 where he notes the role and responsibility of media. The importance of a distinction Barr makes is subtle for most, but for CTH it’s important because of THIS.
I would urge everyone to take the time to watch this segment.
You see, a funny thing happens when you intercept fraud…. It disappears.
That’s just one tiny example. There are thousands more pixels.
Which sets up a question. It’s a very big ugly digest. All of it. The sum is much more than its collective parts. So, do you really want the book? It’s a trilogy: (Vol 1) The Politics. (Vol 2) The Fraud. (Vol 3) The confrontation.
The number one statement I receive is a version of: “I wish I had never started following your research, because it was so much easier when I did not to know.” Simultaneously, I receive an equal amount of requests to write a book about them. [“Them” doesn’t just include the background surveillance against Donald J Trump (aka Spygate), although that’s a recently common reference.]
Here is why I have never, until now, contemplated doing it.
The plan to impeach Bill Barr was clearly visible several months ago. A preemptive strike to diffuse the pending findings of the investigation by USAO John Durham.
The Attorney General has accepted an invitation to testify before the committee on July 28th. If there is going to be a summer show-down between the AG and political operatives -including Lawfare- within the Judiciary committee, that hearing is likely to be the spark.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sat down for an important discussion with Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the Verdict podcast. AG Barr discusses the recent riots and the ongoing effort to prosecute those engaging in violence and destruction of property.
Additionally, AG Barr also discusses the Big Tech censorship issue in combination with ongoing anti-trust investigations that will reach his desk for decision this summer.
Another important note surrounds AG Barr putting the date for Peter Strzok’s notes as January 5, 2017, following FBI Director James Comey’s pull-aside meeting at the White House with President Obama, VP Biden, Susan Rice and Sally Yates.
Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell appears with Maria Bartiromo to provide insight into the DC Circuit Appellate court ordering the dismissal of the Flynn case. One of the key points Ms. Powell draws attention to is that her client was targeted. Within that targeting there’s a criminal conspiracy.
In hindsight it is very clear the White House, DOJ and FBI knew they were treading on thin ice. Susan Rice’s memo to file is clearly a CYA memo for the White House. James Comey’s memos are clearly a CYA effort for his participation. Bill Priestap kept his own notes reflecting his CYA; and Peter Strzok’s notes appear to have the same motivation.
Additionally, when the special counsel was put into place, Andrew McCabe’s memos to self are clearly written from a CYA perspective. They knew what they were doing was wrong.
…”because I’m good enough; I’m strong enough; and doggone it, people like me.”
That’s the kitchen table sensibility as projected by FBI Director Christopher Wray in this interview. It’s a communication style blending the modern term “corporate responsibility” with the patronizing mannerisms of a dad discussing sixth grade peer pressure with his tender gender-neutral offspring.
This is actually a very revealing interview to understand why 50 FBI agents chased the Russian conspiracy for two years with Robert Mueller; and why 15 FBI agents excitedly responded to a garage door pull-down rope. The emphasis is on the wrong syllable, but golly we only have a 0.4 percent turnover ratio, so we must be doing something right.
I’ve actually met a Chris Wray clone in the past. While culling a tier of toxic executive management, the CEO voice in the organization said to me: “what if you fire all of them and later find out you’re wrong?” To which I replied: “what’s more dangerous to you, my firing them and being wrong, or you keeping them around and my being right?”…
Director Wray is the guy who doesn’t deal with the toxic infection, instead he uses words like: “we have an opportunity”, “they need to be supported more”; and “I challenge you to provide continuous coaching.” Note at 09:45 Wray says “I put in place an entire new leadership team”, without even realizing that Bill Barr just removed -by force- Wray’s hand-selected chief legal counsel, Dana Boente. It doesn’t even register with him.
.
Chris Wray’s performance as FBI Director is akin to what would happen if you took a hotel manager and made him the captain of a cruise ship.
Michael Flynn’s defense counsel, Sidney Powell, appears on Lou Dobbs tonight to discuss the defense victory in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; and the next steps in the case.
Ms. Powell still has legal business in front of Judge Emmet Sullivan, so she obviously needs to be a little tempered at this inflection point. That said, what an incredible job Ms. Powell has done on behalf of her client. Remarkable legal counsel. WATCH:
In a court filing yesterday [pdf here] the DOJ provided -initially under seal- the Flynn defense team with more exculpatory evidence. The filing includes hand-written notes taken by FBI agent Peter Strzok in/around key dates in early January 2017.
The filing was unsealed today, and the Peter Strzok notes are released.
One of the reasons CTH has been slow on discussing this release is specifically because I am trying to accurately determine the provenance of the notes (as below). USAO Jeff Jensen is unsure of the exact date of the notes. Either January 3rd, 4th, or 5th… and there’s a good reason for that confusing ambiguity; which I am attempting to filter.
The notes are written by Peter Strzok during a conversation with former FBI Director James Comey; that context is important. What the notes contain are Peter Strzok writing down what Comey relays to him from conversations with White House officials.
Repeat: The notes are Strzok writing down what Comey relays to him from conversations with the White House. Comey is communicating to Strzok the status of opinion from various officials; those officials may include President Obama and Vice-President Biden.
The three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals have approved a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. [pdf here]
The panel ruled 2-1, that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan overstepped his authority in not accepting the unopposed motion and questioning prosecutors’ decision. This is a big victory for the Flynn defense team. Not sure what Sullivan will do now.
Judges Karen Henderson and Neomi Rao supported the writ, judge Robert Wilkins did not. Henderson was the surprise vote.
Writing the majority opinion Judge Neomi Rao noted, “in this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power.” “If evidence comes to light calling into question the integrity or purpose of an underlying criminal investigation, the Executive Branch must have the authority to decide that further prosecution is not in the interest of justice,” Rao added.
