Archive for the ‘John Durham’ Category

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into then-President-Elect Trump was illegitimate. In fact, a previous counterintelligence investigation provided the proof:

The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge reports:

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Here’s Page 1:

Here’s Page 2:

Ms. Herridge later wrote “The two-page memo states the case was not reopened, and there is no indication the FISA court was ever told that the dossier source was the subject of an earlier FBI probe.” That’s proof that a) the Mueller Investigation wasn’t properly predicated and b) the FBI didn’t notify the FISA Court that the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy. Had the FBI disclosed that information, the FBI wouldn’t have gotten a wiretap warrant on Carter Page.

Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials will, at minimum, receive intense new scrutiny from John Durham. It’s apparent that the Obama FBI senior staff was filled with corrupt people. The MSM will, of course, ignore that and continue touting the Obama administration as virtually corruption free.

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, “will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.”

Clinesmith is being charged in federal court in Washington and is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement, his attorney Justin Shur told 360aproko news. “Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility,” Shur later said in a statement.

That’s lawyerspeak for saying ‘My client is guilty as sin’ without admitting he’s guilty as sin. Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote this article on the expected Clinesmith guilty plea. In that article, Davis wrote this:

Horowitz and his team wrote in a 434-page report that Clinesmith, identified in the report as “OGC Attorney”, altered an email from a separate U.S. federal agency, believed to be the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to falsely state that Page had never worked with the CIA to investigate suspected Russia agents operating within the U.S. In fact, as Clinesmith was told by the operative, Page had worked with the CIA previously, as well as with the FBI.

It’s difficult to picture a more corrupt action. This is a severe violation of Carter Page’s civil rights, starting with the Fourth Amendment. The text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It’s difficult to picture how a search could be determined to be reasonable if it’s based on a lie. Further, how could misrepresenting the facts satisfy the legal standard of probable cause? Clinesmith allegedly changed the email used in the FISA warrant application from saying that that Carter Page was a CIA asset to saying Page had never been a CIA asset. Further, the Fourth Amendment requires that someone affirm the accuracy of the application.

This is the first investigation into the Russia Collusion hoax that’s actually presented evidence of a crime. Adam Schiff’s faux impeachment investigation presented hearsay testimony but it didn’t present evidence that a crime had been committed. Schiff played fast and loose with the rules of evidence. Durham is a legitimate investigator who found the original email, then found the doctored email.

This is just the first shoe to drop. Clinesmith didn’t have the authority to sign off on the warrant application. He was just one piece of this puzzle.

During his interview on ABC’s This Week, moderator Martha Raddatz challenged Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, when Schiff said that John Durham’s investigation is tainted. Schiff said “This is tainted because of the motivation, which is a political one, to serve the president’s political interests.” Moderator Martha Raddatz replied, saying “You have no evidence of that yet whatsoever, however.”

After that, Schiff tried regaining the upper hand, saying “The president has been calling for the Justice Department to investigate Comey, to investigate Clapper, to investigate anyone who stood in his way and now what is Bill Barr doing? He’s doing an investigation of — a criminal investigation of some of the people responsible for this probe so you can, I think, connect one dot to another.”

Actually, it isn’t difficult to connect the dots. Jim Comey signed the FISA warrant application that relied heavily on the Steele Dossier. When the application for the warrant was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Dossier was stamped as verified, meaning the contents could be trusted. In testimony in Britain, Steele testified under oath that the Dossier hadn’t been verified.

That immediately suggests that the predicate for launching the Obama administration’s probe into the Trump campaign wasn’t legitimate. That’s the opposite of tainted. If anything, the Durham and Horowitz investigations are required because of that information. That doesn’t prove Clapper’s or Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but it’s definitely justification for the investigation.

What’s interesting is that Schiff, the rabid dog Democrat who’s leading the Democrats’ impeachment investigation, said that “you can assign good people to do an illegitimate investigation.” I don’t see how that’s possible. If the investigation is illegitimate, a prosecutor with integrity will shut it down fast. Durham was assigned this investigation back in May “to investigate the origins of and potential wrongdoings in the Russia probe.” If the probe has transitioned from an administrative review into a criminal investigation means that Durham has found something noteworthy. That isn’t a guarantee of criminal convictions but it can’t be ruled out either.