John Brennan (l), James Clapper (c) and Admiral Mike Rogers testify at House hearing on worldwide cyber threats in September 2015. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Former CIA Director John Brennan’s insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele dossier was not part of the official Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election is being contradicted by two top former officials.

Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

These accounts are at odds with Brennan’s May 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Steele dossier was “not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment” that Russia interfered in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Brennan has repeated this claim numerous times, including in February on “Meet the Press.”

In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”

His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House.

Rogers has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn’t as confident as CIA and FBI officials that their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such an assessment “didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.

(…) In another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from outside reviewers. “Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views of an outside review group,” said Fred Fleitz, who worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates at Langley. “It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies,” he added. “Why were DHS and DIA excluded?”

Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes the process was “manipulated” to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” that the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians.

“I’ve never viewed the ICA as credible,” the CIA veteran added” (Real Clear Investigations, 5/15/2018)  (Archive)

Former Australian Prime Minister Alexander Downer (Credit: public domain)

“The Australian diplomat whose tip in 2016 prompted the Russia-Trump investigation previously arranged one of the largest foreign donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable efforts, documents show.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer’s role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS is chronicled in decade-old government memos archived on the Australian foreign ministry’s website.

Downer and former President Clinton jointly signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2006 that spread out the grant money over four years for a project to provide screening and drug treatment to AIDS patients in Asia.

The money was initially allocated to the Clinton Foundation but later was routed through an affiliate of the charity known as the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), officials said. Australia was one of four foreign governments to donate more than $25 million to CHAI, records show.”

(…) “Downer, now Australia’s ambassador to London, provided the account of a conversation with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a London bar in 2016 that became the official reason the FBI opened the Russia counterintelligence probe.

But lawmakers say the FBI didn’t tell Congress about Downer’s prior connection to the Clinton Foundation. Republicans say they are concerned the new information means nearly all of the early evidence the FBI used to justify its election-year probe of Trump came from sources supportive of the Clintons, including the controversial Steele dossier.” (Read more: The Hill, 3/05/2018)

Lindsey Graham (l) and Chuck Grassley (Credit: public domain)

“The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham joined the growing chorus of Republican Congressman calling for the appointment of a second Special Counsel.

The argument is fairly straightforward. From yesterday’s post:

Inspector Generals have no prosecutorial power. But they can refer individuals for prosecution.

IG’s can place federal employees under oath.

But IG’s lack subpoena power over non-federal employees. This means that federal employees who come under OIG investigation can stymie the process by simply resigning.

The DOJ Inspector General specifically lacks authority to investigate misconduct by DOJ attorney-prosecutors, who under the current arrangement answer only to Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

These limitations are meaningful – as noted by Congressman Trey Gowdy:

There are twenty-four witnesses outside the reach of the Inspector General…

Probably more. Consider the number of Obama Administration officials now out of federal employ.

However, as I noted previously, prosecutorial power may already be in place – as recently described by AG Jeff Sessions:

I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice, to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us – and we’re conducting that investigation.

And Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd in an earlier letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte:

The Attorney General has directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters.

These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.

These senior prosecutors are separate from the Inspector General and his team. More here.

The full scope of Session’s Outside Prosecutor remains to be seen. It may prove significant. If prosecutorial scope is more limited, a Special Counsel will prove a likely remedy.” (Read more: themarketswork, 3/18/2018)  (Archive)  (Senate Judiciary Letter, 3/15/2018)

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), Deborah Sines (Credit: Twitter)

(…) Deborah Sines was an assistant US attorney assigned to be the lead prosecutor in the Seth Rich murder case. Her post-retirement interview with Michael Isikoff for his podcast “Conspiracyland” added to our understanding of the cover-up, as refined in a deposition conducted by Ty Clevenger.

As Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft summarized:

Sines discussed her comments that she gave to Michael Isikoff (noted below) and confirmed that they were true but then states that she should not have said those things and she would not be able to provide more information on the statements.  She confirmed that the FBI did examine Seth Rich’s computer and that she met with an FBI Agent and a prosecutor from the Mueller gang.

The truth, battered for years, will out.

This indicates that there should be a form 302 floating around with information from the discussion with the FBI and Mueller gang and also it confirms that Mueller did not mention this in his report.

A new “declassification” of heavily censored (“redacted”) Seth Rich documents (which, as noted above, the FBI crucial years denying they even possessed) does seem to include a write-up of this meeting titled “Sensitive Matter – Meeting with AUSA [Assistant US Attorney].”

The meeting took place on March 15, 2018 at the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia between an FBI special agent, an AUSA, likely Sines, and an attorney with Mueller’s Special Counsel office, Heather Alperino. A trifecta of cover-up.

These pages distinguish between Seth Rich’s personal laptop, which an unknown person took to an unknown house, where it suffered a redacted fate, and Seth Rich’s work laptop, which the assistant US Attorney and redacted others are aware of as being in the possession of the FBI. The AUSA requested a “forensic image” of the laptop.” (Read more: Diane West, July 9, 2021)  (Archive)

James Comey (l) and Andrew McCabe (Credit: The Associated Press)

“Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may have just thrown former FBI Director James Comey under the bus – perhaps intentionally.

Recall that McCabe was fired for, among other things, an “improper media disclosure.” In other words leaking. 

In a Saturday morning appearance on CNN with host Michael Smerconish, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley suggested that McCabe’s statement following his firing “immediately” raised a flag, which may lead to serious consequences for his former boss. McCabe’s statement reads in part:

“The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

Turley notes “There was one line in the case statement last night that I immediately flagged. Because he said that he had authority to do this and he conferred with the director – the director at the time was James Comey.”

“Now, the problem there is that James Comey said under oath that he never leaked information and never approved a leak,” said Turley. “So, if the Inspector General believes this was a leak to the media, it raises serious questions about Comey’s previous testimony and could get him into serious trouble.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 3/18/2018)

Sergei Millian (Credit: Twitter)

“The veracity of the Steele dossier is once again a topic of intense debate following the Justice Department’s release of secret warrants that the FBI used to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The four applications, which were obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), show that the bureau relied heavily on the dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC, to obtain the warrants, which accused Page of being a secret Kremlin agent.

But not only do many of the allegations in the dossier remain unverified, there is reason to doubt the credibility of a major source for the 35-page document, including for claims that the Kremlin has blackmail material on President Donald Trump and about Page’s alleged involvement in a collusion conspiracy.

According to the recent book “Russian Roulette, Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, believed that Millian was a “big talker” who overstated his links to Trumpworld.

“Had Millian made something up or repeated rumors he had heard from others to impress Steele’s collector? Simpson had his doubts. He considered Millian a big talker,” write authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn, who are good friends with Simpson.

Millian is both Source D and Source E in the dossier, according to The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. In the 35-page document, Source D alleged that the Russian government is blackmailing Donald Trump with video of a sexual tryst with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel room. Source E described an alleged “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/24/2018)

“In 2018, both the Department of Justice Inspector General and FBI Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe had “made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.”

However, internal FBI documents indicate the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decided to give McCabe the benefit of the doubt and credit for his years of devoted service in deciding not to charge him with a crime.

The documents, obtained by the watchdog Judicial Watch, appear to show that the case against McCabe was closed on March 20, 2018, about the time he was fired from the FBI. But the decision not to charge him was not announced publicly.” (Read more: Sharyl Attkisson, 8/09/2019)

A snippet from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility’s report on Andrew McCabe.

Mark Warner (Credit: Fox News)

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., on Friday reportedly joked about the Russia investigation at a high-dollar retreat on Martha’s Vineyard and told Democratic donors to “buckle up.”

Warner reportedly joked to donors that he might reveal sensitive information known only to him and Special Counsel Robert Mueller who’s investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

“If you get me one more glass of wine, I’ll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you’ve seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild couple of months,” he reportedly said, which was understood as a joke.

Warner, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was at a dinner for over 100 guests as part of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s (DSCC) annual Majority Trust retreat, Politico reported.

Warner’s office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News. (Read more: Fox News, 3/25/2018)

Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG) logo

DOJ OIG Announces Initiation of Review

Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today that, in response to requests from the Attorney General and Members of Congress, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person.

As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source. Additionally, the OIG will review the DOJ’s and FBI’s relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications.

If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review. (Source: Press Release Document)

Jeff Sessions (Credit: public domain)

(…) “As you are aware, I have asked the Department’s Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz, to review certain matters that you and some members of your committees have raised in recent and previous letters. In addition to his ongoing investigation, the Inspector General has now confirmed that he has opened a review into the Department’s compliance with certain legal requirements and Department and FBI policies and procedures with respect to certain applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

(…) “To carry out these duties, Title 5 of the United States Code provides the Inspector General with broad discretion and significant investigative powers. The office currently employs approximately 470 staff, a significant number of whom are lawyers, auditors, and investigators who may exercise wide discretion on matters under their jurisdiction. If the Inspector General finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing, he may refer it to a United States Attorney who can then convene a grand jury or take other appropriate actions. To be clear, the Inspector General has the authority to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, collect evidence through subpoena, and develop cases for presentation to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General for prosecution or other action. The Inspector General also may, under appropriate circumstances, make information available to the public even if no criminal or disciplinary action is recommended. In contrast, this type of information would not normally be publicly available after the conclusion of a traditional criminal investigation.”

(…) “As noted in Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd’s November 13, 2017 letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary, I already have directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues previously raised by the Committee. In that letter, Mr. Boyd stated:

“These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

Specifically, I asked United States Attorney John W. Huber to lead this effort. Mr. Huber is an experienced federal prosecutor who was twice confirmed unanimously by the Senate as United States Attorney for the District of Utah in 2015 and 2017. Mr. Huber previously served in leadership roles within the U.S.Attorney’s Office as the National Security Section Chief and the Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney. He has personally prosecuted a number of high-profile cases and coordinated task forces focused against violent crime and terrorism. This work garnered commendations from the highest levels of the Department over the course of two administrations.” Letter, 3/29/2018)

Gregg Brower (Credit: Cathleen Allison/The Associated Press)

“Greg Brower, an FBI assistant director and head of the Office of Congressional Affairs, stepped down last Friday after a year on the job. In the role, Brower was on the receiving end of a pack of congressional probes into the law enforcement agency’s conduct.

The decision, a “tough” one he made of his own accord, Brower said, follows other high-level departures from the bureau as FBI Director Christopher Wray assembles his own team of close advisers.

“It was tough but I had an offer I couldn’t refuse from a great law firm,” Brower said in an interview Thursday. “It was very gratifying to be a part of that team. I could not be more proud of how people work and how committed they are to the mission.”

Brower was appointed to the position by then-FBI director James Comey in March of 2017 after serving as the bureau’s deputy general counsel. He will join the lobbying and law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck as a shareholder in the litigation department.

The work in the legislative affairs office has heated up during Brower’s tenure, as the fallout from Comey’s firing by President Donald Trump has fanned a growing mistrust of the FBI among some lawmakers and spurred a round of congressional investigations.

Not long before Brower’s departure, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee slapped the Justice Department with a subpoena for documents related to a trio of recent controversial decisions made by the FBI, including the move in 2016 to not charge Hillary Clinton after the probe of her email server and the internal recommendation by an FBI office to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

In response, Wray said last week that the pace of document production for congressional inquiries at the bureau was “too slow” and doubled the number of FBI staff responsible for reviewing the records.” (Read more, CNN, 4/06/2018)