Category Bill Bar A Clear and Present Danger

Feb 28 2024

FOIA Release Highlights Durham Never Intended Accountability for Deep State Actors


Posted originally on the CTH on February 27, 2024 | Sundance

Major HatTip to FoiaFan for staying on top of this. 

In August of 2020 I sent this tweet to the general public after a lengthy discussion with John Durham’s lead investigator:

This tweet created major controversy amid those who were deep in the research weeds on the entire Spygate/Russiagate fiasco. Few would believe that in the effort to preserve the institutions at all costs, AG Bill Barr was the Bondo application and Special Prosecutor John Durham was the spray paint.   It was all a coverup operation to hide the rot in the DOJ and beyond.

Essentially, Durham and Bill Aldenberg admitted to me that nothing the Robert Mueller team did in the preceding two years was subject to their review.

Yes, that is correct, Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were specifically appointed in May 2017 by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to help coverup and hide the IC targeting of Donald Trump in the preceding two years.   Emphasize this point, the intelligence community was targeting candidate Donald Trump, because they had the power as a result of the new surveillance state.

Mueller was to hide that IC targeting operation.  Mueller had the full support of all Democrat and Republican leadership.

When Mueller was finished with his segment (2017-2019), newly installed AG Bill Barr appointed John Durham as the safety mechanism to continue the coverup operation (2019 through 2021).   This became crystal clear during my phone contacts when the special counsel admitted they would not review anything the Mueller team touched.

John Durham would not, likely because he ‘could not’, touch any of the participants in the Trump targeting operation that were inside the government.  His only accountability review was looking at those who were outside government within the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, etc.

The majority of the 2015/2016 operation against Trump was conducted by inside government actors who were assisting the Clinton campaign effort.  With John Durham admitting he would not look at those govt participants, essentially the Durham investigation was a farce, a joke, a total snow job.  Hence… my tweet.

Today, FOIAFan is noting the budget request from the office of John Durham provides receipts for exactly what I was saying HERE – {Go Deep}.   The budget memo was recently released as part of a demanded FOIA request:

[SOURCE]

Notice how John Durham is saying as soon as he gets the Danchenko issue completed, it’s all over; “the office shutdown will be completed.”

October 2022 – A jury found Igor Danchenko not guilty on four counts of lying to the FBI, on four occasions.  (1) Danchenko told FBI agents he received a phone call in late July 2016 Sergei Millian. However, Danchenko knew he had never received a call from Millian. (2) Danchenko gave a false statement to FBI agents that he “was under the impression” that the late July 2016 call was from Millian. (3) Danchenko falsely stated to FBI agents that he believed he spoke to Millian on the phone on more than one occasion. And (4) Danchenko lied that he “believed he has spoken to [Millian] on the telephone,” when Danchenko well knew he had never spoken to Millian.

The FBI didn’t care about the details of the lies that were told to them; the lies served a purpose.  The FBI purpose was to use the Steele Dossier as the foundation for a fraudulent all-encompassing search warrant against the Trump campaign and presidency, using Carter Page.  That construct was always the motive of the DOJ/FBI use of Danchenko, Chris Steele and the infamous dossier that gave the DOJ the patina they needed for the FISA application.

The trial itself showed how corrupt the FBI and DOJ were in this scheme by: A) offering Chris Steele $1 million for proof of the dossier content.  B) By making Danchenko a confidential human source for two years to shield him, “sources and methods”, from investigative inquiry. C) By paying Danchenko $200,000 for his time as a useful tool and confidential human source.

This is where we must stop pretending.  The Durham premise of a “duped FBI” is laughable on its face. No one in the FBI or DOJ-NSD was “duped” by false information from Igor Danchenko.

The lies, as they were with Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman, were well known to be false, yet materially beneficial to the unspoken intention of the DOJ/FBI, which was to target Donald Trump.   The corrupt intent of the DOJ and FBI is the basic rot John Durham was appointed to cover over.

Follow the timeline:

Danchenko interviewed by FBI in January 2017. Tells FBI dossier is junk.

FBI hires Danchenko in March 2017 paying him $200,000, just before renewing the FISA they now know is based on junk.

May 2017 Robert Mueller appointed to cover up all of the DOJ/FBI corruption that existed in the Trump targeting.

June 2017 Mueller interviews Danchenko, then renews the FISA.

February 2019, Bill Barr enters as Attorney General.

April 2019 Robert Mueller completes investigation.

May 2019, Bill Barr appoints Durham just to look into things.  Immediately, he then begs Trump not to declassify any documents.  Trump writes executive order giving Bill Barr ability to review and declassify documents.

October 2020, Bill Barr officially (and quietly), makes John Durham a special counsel.  We don’t find out until December (after the Nov election).  Which is why in…. October 2020, FBI drops Igor Danchenko as paid informant.

Put it all together and you see the continuum.

(1) Donald Trump was being targeted by a corrupt DOJ and FBI.  (2) Robert Mueller was installed in May 2017 to cover up the targeting.  (3) When Mueller is nearing his completion, Bill Barr steps in to mitigate institutional damage from 1 and 2. (4) Barr maintains damage control and installs Durham. (5) Durham takes over the coverup operation from October 2020 (Danchenko safe to exit with Durham appointment official).

Main Justice kept a bag over Danchenko until they needed a scapegoat, created by Durham, to sell a narrative that Main Justice was duped. John Durham charged Danchenko (working outside govt) with lying to the FBI while simultaneously avoiding drawing attention to the FBI/DOJ officials (inside govt) who knew Danchenko was lying and were willfully blind to it in order to continue attacking and investigating President Donald Trump.

James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Barr, John Durham, the Mar-a-Lago raid, the appointment of Jack Smith…  it’s all one long continuum of the same targeting and coverup operation.

Bill Barr was the Bondo application and John Durham was the spray paint.

The entire system is corrupt.

  Trump is correct….

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Says “Of Course” He Would Testify Against President Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

This guy really is the worst of the worst.  I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election.  We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.

The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump.  The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined.  Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.

You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC.  None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting.   Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.

Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would.  WATCH: 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AcyfCQm-OYs%3Fstart%3D170%26feature%3Doembed

MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.

MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.

MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.

MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.

MAJOR GARRETT:  From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.

MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.

MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  I’m not going to get into any discussions–

MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.

Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–

[CROSSTALK]

MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.

MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–

MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?

[CROSSTALK]

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT:  Is that time passed?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.

MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.

Jun 21 2023

Questions for John Durham – House Judiciary Committee Testimony, Wednesday June 21, 9:00am


Posted originally on the CTH on June 20, 2023 | Sundance 

Today he testified in classified setting before the House intelligence committee.  Tomorrow is the public version.

Special Counsel John Durham is scheduled to be questioned tomorrow by members of the House Judiciary Committee in a public setting.  The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am ET, Rayburn Office Building [ DETAILS HERE ] – “The hearing will focus on the report of Special Counsel John Durham that examined the origins and justifications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane investigation against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

Questions have been passed along, and hopefully this summary is timed to avoid giving Mary McCord and her Lawfare team prep-time to construct their defensive talking points.

[Durham Report Here] Questions like:

(1) Mr. Durham, having spent four years investigating, researching, reviewing, interviewing and pouring through files related to the overall Trump-Russia collusion story, your report -like the report of Robert Mueller that preceded it- found no substantive predicate existed to ever open an investigation of candidate Donald Trump for any efforts with Russians or foreign actors to interfere in the 2016 election.  As a result of your time and diligence, you are likely the #1 subject matter expert in the entire series of events.

♦ Question: In your opinion, was President Obama aware there was no reason in 2016 to investigate Donald Trump, who then became President-elect Trump?

(2) You note in your report that you never re-reviewed any of the material evidence that formed the baseline for the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

♦ Question: Why not?

♦ Question: Who made the decision not to review the 2-year Mueller probe activity as part of your investigative review?  Why was that decision made?

(3) Do you agree that both your 4-year review of the U.S government action in the Trump-Russia collusion story crossed several paths with the 2-year Mueller review of the Russian interference in the election story?

Question: In your opinion, how is it possible that Robert Mueller and his team of 19 investigators, 50 FBI agents and 100 administrative staff, could investigate Russian election interference for two years and not discover the Trump-Russia collusion story was a hoax created by the Hillary Clinton campaign?

(4) You questioned several current and former CIA officials about the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.

♦ Question: How do you reconcile the sanctions placed by Barack Obama against 20 Russian officials in December of 2016, against the reality that there was little substantive confidence Russia interfered in the election?

♦ Question:  How do you reconcile your investigative findings with the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity about Russian hacking, and with the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment that specifically stated -falsely- that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election?

♦ Question:  Did Russians hack the 2016 DNC email servers and leak the information to Julian Assange at Wikileaks?

(5) You note in your report [CITATION] how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.  You write about Comey continually asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.”  However, you never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe, because the former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to you.

♦ Question:  How did you discover details about the demands of Comey?

♦ Question: How did you write specific quotes from Andrew McCabe describing Comey’s demands?

♦ Question: Did you review transcripts of Andrew McCabe’s testimony to Inspector General Michael Horowitz?

♦ Question: Why did Inspector General Michael Horowitz never release those transcripts?  And do you have a copy?

(6) The two-year Mueller investigation was headed by a gentleman named Andrew Weissmann.  Mr. Weissmann then gave former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein indictments of 17 Russian nationals who were alleged to have interfered in the 2016 election.  Those indictments were never made public, and the allegations within them were sealed and placed in the security of the DOJ-National Security Division never to be reviewed or acted upon.

♦ Question: Did you review those indictments?

♦ Question: Are those indictments valid evidence of Russian election interference?

♦ Question: In your opinion, why were those indictments never made public?

♦ Question: Mr. Weissmann created the Russian indictments that were never used, and Mr. Weissmann recently published a lengthy roadmap to guide special counsel Jack Smith in his novel use of the Espionage Act to target President Trump. In your opinion, is there a possible similarity of motive?

(7) In July of 2018, the Dept of Justice informed the FISA Court, that despite the numerous material issues found by Inspector General Horowitz in the Carter Page FISA application, there was still sufficient predicate for the DOJ submission to the court.  Excerpts of the letter below:

Mr. Durham, your recent report seemingly contradicts this July, 2018, letter as it was written to the FISA court almost two years after the original Carter Page FISA application was submitted.

♦ Question: Is this letter truthful?

♦ Question: As outlined on Page 8 discussing the April 02, and June 29, 2017 FISA renewals, is it true the FBI factually had no control over the Chris Steele “sub source” now identified as Igor Danchenko – a man you prosecuted?

♦ Question: How do you reconcile the DOJ misleading the FISA court, in July 2018, about the substance of Carter Page FISA application?

(8) Ten days after the Dept of Justice sent this July 12th letter to the FISA Court, the Carter Page FISA application was made public (July 22, 2018).

♦ Question:  Who released the Carter Page FISA application?

♦ Question:  Given the Top Secret Compartmented and Classified nature of the application, FISA and the processes and systems therein, can you explain why the DOJ publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?

♦ Question:  During the course of your investigation, did anyone provide to you or your investigators evidence of corruption, false statements, illegal activity, or involvement by any members of the legislative branch of Congress, in the construct of the Trump-Russia collusion case that you did not pursue?

[Support CTH HERE]