Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...F9U?li=BBnbcA1


WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.
His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.
Additionally on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he, too, intends to review aspects of law enforcement’s work in the coming months. And Republicans conducted their own inquiries when they controlled the House, including publicizing details of the F.B.I.’s wiretap use.
Thomas Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Durham’s office, declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. “I do have people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 2016,” Mr. Barr said in congressional testimony on May 1, without elaborating.
Mr. Durham, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017 and has been a Justice Department lawyer since 1982, has conducted special investigations under administrations of both parties. Attorney General Janet Reno asked Mr. Durham in 1999 to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of a notorious informant: the organized crime leader James (Whitey) Bulger.
In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned Mr. Durham to investigate the C.I.A.’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 showing the torture of terrorism suspects. A year later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to also examine whether the agency broke any laws in its abuses of detainees in its custody.
Mr. Barr has signaled his concerns about the Russia investigation during congressional testimony, particularly the surveillance of Trump associates. “I think spying did occur,” he said. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. But I need to explore that.”
His use of the term “spying” to describe court-authorized surveillance aimed at understanding a foreign government’s interference in the election touched off criticism that he was echoing politically charged accusations by Mr. Trump and his Republican allies that the F.B.I. unfairly targeted the Trump campaign.
Last week, the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, defended the bureau, saying he was unaware of any illegal surveillance and refused to call agents’ work “spying.” Former F.B.I. and Justice Department officials have defended the genesis of the investigation, saying it was properly predicated.
Yet Mr. Durham’s role — essentially giving him a special assignment but no special powers — also appeared aimed at sidestepping the rare appointment of another special counsel like Robert S. Mueller III, a role that allows greater day-to-day independence.
Mr. Trump and House Republicans have long pushed senior Justice Department officials to appoint one to investigate the president’s perceived political enemies and why Mr. Trump’s associates were under surveillance.
Mr. Trump’s calls to investigate the investigators have grown after the findings from Mr. Mueller were revealed last month. Mr. Mueller’s investigators cited “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his advisers engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.
The Mueller report reaffirmed that the F.B.I. opened its investigation based on legitimate factors, including revelations that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a diplomat from Australia, a close American ally, that he was informed that the Russians had stolen Democratic emails.
“It would have been highly, highly inappropriate for us not to pursue it — and pursue it aggressively,” James Baker, who was the F.B.I.’s general counsel in 2016, said in an interview on Friday with the Lawfare podcast.
As part of the Russia inquiry, the F.B.I. investigated four Trump associates: Mr. Papadopoulos; Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman; Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; and Carter Page, another campaign foreign policy adviser.
Mr. Flynn and Mr. Papadopoulos later pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. as part of the inquiry; Mr. Manafort was also convicted of tax fraud and other charges brought by the special counsel, who took over the investigation in May 2017, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy.
F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors also obtained approval from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page after he left the campaign. Mr. Trump’s allies have pointed to the warrant as major evidence that law enforcement officials were abusing their authority, but the investigation was opened based on separate information and the warrant was one small aspect in a sprawling inquiry that grew to include more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants and about 500 witness interviews.
Law enforcement officials have also drawn intense criticism for using an informant — a typical investigative step — to secretly report on Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos after they left the campaign and for relying on Democrat-funded opposition research compiled into a dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was also an F.B.I. informant.
Investigators cited the dossier in a lengthy footnote in its application for permission to wiretap Mr. Page, alerting the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” the Trump campaign.
The inspector general is said to be examining whether law enforcement officials intentionally misled the intelligence court, which also approved three renewals of the warrant. The last application in June 2017 was signed by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who defended the decision last month in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Horowitz is also said to be scrutinizing how the F.B.I. handled Mr. Steele and another informant, Stefan A. Halper, an American academic who taught in Britain. Agents asked Mr. Halper to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were in contact with Russians. Mr. Barr has said the inspector general could finish his inquiry in May or June.
Mr. Durham is also investigating whether Mr. Baker made unauthorized disclosures to the news media, according to two House Republicans closely allied with Mr. Trump, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who disclosed in a letter to Mr. Durham in January that they had learned of that inquiry.
While they implied that it was related to the Russia investigation, another witness in Mr. Durham’s inquiry into Mr. Baker, Robert Litt, the former general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, came forward to say that he had been interviewed and that the investigation has nothing to do with Russia. Mr. Baker said last week that he was confident he had done nothing wrong and would be exonerated.


The DPST's are in hysterics over what is coming. Pelosi yelling thatBbarr "Lied to Congress", Schiff and Nadler exploring fining and arresting Barr. Despite the fact that he followed the law and regulations, and the Mueller report has been available to the Gang of 8 -plus Schiff and Nadler - the DPST's have all hypocritically refused to go read it.

Schiff is yelling about Constitutional Crisis - it is the DPST's incessant harassment and Trump attacks because he is not hillary that is the Constitutional Crisis.
Fine - refer barr to the DOJ for criminal charges and prosecution - see how far that goes.

Why not just go Arrest Trump in his office for "obstruction" - which is what they want to do!!!!
Hypocritical Lying Cowards are the DPST's

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Barr just opened the icebox.

Fire FBI Director Wray.

Bombshell Report of Secret Dossier Meeting Has Sen. Grassley On The Warpath

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-v...seek-documents

Posted at 12:30 pm on May 13, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn



Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer in London Tuesday March 7, 2017 where he has spoken to the media for the first time . Steele who compiled an explosive and unproven dossier on President Donald Trump’s purported activities in Russia has returned to work. Christopher Steele said Tuesday he is “really pleased” to be back at work in London after a prolonged period out of public view. He went into hiding in January. (Victoria Jones/PA via AP)

The Hill’s John Solomon broke the bombshell story of an October 2016 meeting between a high ranking State Department official and Christopher Steele. During this exchange, the author of the dossier told Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec that his client was “keen” to break the story before election day. (I wrote about it here. Solomon’s articles can be viewed here and here.)

Ten days before the FBI applied to the FISA Court for their first warrant to spy on Trump advisor Carter Page, Kavalec made two important discoveries. First, she realized that some of the material in the dossier Steele had prepared for the FBI and the Clinton campaign was inaccurate. After a brief meeting with Steele, Kavalec was instantly aware of Steele’s agenda and she was alarmed. She prepared a memo from her meeting notes and sent it to the appropriate officials at the FBI. The memo said that Steele had told her, “Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami.” She then wrote, “It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami.” Kavalec also said that Steele admitted his work was political.

Citizens United recently obtained copies of Kavalec’s memo, through a FOIA request. The documents were immediately forwarded to the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz who had not been aware that they even existed.

Citizens United learned that the memo and related documents had been retroactively labeled as classified by the FBI. They were heavily redacted. Kavalec sent the email to the FBI on October 13, 2016.

It’s impossible to know who Kavalec sent the memo to because the FBI redacted the names of the recipients, the subject line and the attachments. Solomon said that only three sentences were unredacted.

As if they FBI was not aware that Steele’s motivation was political, lawmakers want to know how they handled Kavalec’s memo. Dates it was received. By whom. And why they went forward with their application to the FISA Court for a warrant to spy on Page when they knew the document was just a political smear. Hmmm.

It’s been reported that Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in which they request all documents, memos, texts, emails “related to an October 2016 meeting between Christopher Steele and State Department – information that was reportedly referred to the FBI, possibly before the FISA applications.” The letter can be viewed here.

Johnson and Grassley wrote:

Based on the publicly-released version of the typed notes of the meeting, it appears Steele’s intent of the meeting with the State Department was to maximize the impact of the unverified information that he had acquired in an effort to undermine the Trump campaign. Further, if that information was included in the material submitted to the FBI, then the FBI may have been aware of Steele’s political motivations before submitting any FISA application.

They also included a list of questions they would like written answers to by May 24th.

1. On what date did the State Department notify the FBI that it obtained the Steele dossier?
2. How did the State Department describe to the FBI the process by which it obtained the Steele dossier?
3. On what date did the State Department notify the FBI about the October 2016 meeting between Kathleen Kavalec and Christopher Steele?
4. On what date did the State Department provide the memorandum, notes, and any other material connected to Kathleen Kavalec’s October 2016 meeting with Christopher Steele to the FBI?
5. Did any FBI employees request that Christopher Steele furnish the dossier to the State Department or seek a meeting with the State Department? If so, who, when, and why?
6. Did the State Department mark any material from the October 2016 meeting as classified? If so, what was initially marked classified and at what level?
7. Has the FBI provided all material relating to the State Department’s meeting with Steele to the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General? If so, on what date? If not, why not?
8. All records, including all memoranda, notes, and other material regarding the State Department’s receipt of the Steele dossier and its referral of that information to the FBI.
9. An explanation about the legal and factual basis for classifying any of these materials.

This information came right in the nick of time, because IG Horowitz is expected to complete his report into possible FISA abuse by the FBI within the next month.
As I wrote last week:

Former U.S. District Court Judge Joe diGenova appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” Thursday evening and made an extraordinary claim. He said the DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has “concluded that the final three FISA extensions were illegally obtained.”
He added, “The only question now is whether or not the first FISA warrant was illegally obtained…As a result of those disclosures from John Solomon today, which he was unaware of, the Bureau hid those memos from Horowitz. As a result of that, they are doing some additional work on the first FISA. It may be that all four FISAs will have been obtained illegally.”

DiGenova did not reveal his source, but he is certainly a well connected man who has spent years in Washington.

Fire FBI Director Wray. Originally Posted by gnadfly

why?

why? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

.

Citizens United recently obtained copies of the Kavalec memo, through a FOIA request. The documents were immediately forwarded to the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz who had not been aware that they even existed.

Citizens United learned that the memo and related documents had been retroactively labeled as classified by the FBI. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

why? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Because he’s perceived as covering up for the FBI. He’s a part of the problem, not the solution.

I don't understand why Wray didn't resign yesterday. My guess is because he'll use the power of the FBI to protect himself. It won't last long.

When did Mueller interview Kathleen Kavalec and if not, why not?

OH NO MR BILL ,,, Origins this is not gonna be good for Odumboos history

Durham is known as the Bulldog. He’s prosecuted Republicans and Whitey Bulger. He won’t fuck around.

Fire FBI Director Wray. Originally Posted by gnadfly

why? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Citizens United learned that the memo and related documents had been retroactively labeled as classified by the FBI. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because he’s perceived as covering up for the FBI. He’s a part of the problem, not the solution. Originally Posted by bambino

are you saying Director Wray hid those documents from discovery and he retroactively classified it?

when was it retroactively classified?


I think you guys maybe jumping on the gun. you forgot about McCabe. he was temporary director for a brief period before giving way to another temporary director. so both could have retroactively classified it.

are you saying Director Wray hid those documents from discovery and he retroactively classified it?

when was it retroactively classified?


I think you guys maybe jumping on the gun. you forgot about McCabe. he was temporary director for a brief period before giving way to another temporary director. so both could have retroactively classified it. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Wray is the one who retroactively classified those documents. IDK who hid them from Horowitz.

are you saying Director Wray hid those documents from discovery and he retroactively classified it?

when was it retroactively classified?


I think you guys maybe jumping on the gun. you forgot about McCabe. he was temporary director for a brief period before giving way to another temporary director. so both could have retroactively classified it. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I’m not jumping the gun on anything. I said there’s a “perception” that Wray is stalling things.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...stigation.html

I’m not jumping the gun on anything. I said there’s a “perception” that Wray is stalling things.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...stigation.html Originally Posted by bambino

Durham is the right guy to figure it out:


https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/john-h-durham/amp/

attorney Huber looks to be accused of cover up.

https://conservativebase.com/rep-jim...ment-cover-up/

probably why he was sidelined in favor of durham.