Against a rather enlightening week of activity from within the DOJ and FBI, last night I posited the question:
“If the FBI and DOJ were not institutionally corrupt wouldn’t we have seen multiple whistle-blowers this year?”
The purpose of the question is to draw attention to an empirical reality. By now we understand many of the big picture details behind DOJ and FBI efforts to weaponize the institutions of government to target their political opposition, namely Donald Trump.
With the removal of so many officials within the institutions, the question becomes less rhetorical. If the corruption is removed, where are the ‘rank and file’ whistle-blowers surfacing from underneath the now replaced leadership? Why haven’t we seen anyone from within the system come forth to tell their story?
Where are the voices of the officials within the FBI data forensic units who were given restrictive analytical instructions on Clinton laptops and hard-drives? Where are the voices of the investigative field agents charged with finding leakers? Where are the voices of the non-corrupt employees inside the DOJ-NSD or FBI who watched for two years as the small group within upper level offices controlled/scripted the activity? etc. etc.
The larger question is not asked to state emphatically no such honorable “rank and file” exist; but rather to highlight: if they do exist, then why are they invisible?
The primary reason why honorable people do not step forward within corrupt systems to blow-the-whistle is fear. Fear of losing a job; fear of retaliation; fear of being targeted by elements within the institution who maintain a corrupt disposition.
If the DOJ and FBI have been cleared of that corruption – wouldn’t we see at least a few people step forward and breathe a sigh-of-relief?
There is a conspicuous absence of indignation, which likely means the aforementioned concerns have not been addressed. So it is against that backdrop where we review highlights from the last week and accept a disconcerting landscape.
♦Beginning on Monday, October 15, the DOJ announced a plea deal with James Wolfe; the former security head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I won’t repeat all of the warning flares sent up by the details within the plea agreement {GO DEEP HERE} except to say the plea agreement doesn’t indicate any actual accountability or intent to drain the proverbial swamp. Exactly the opposite appears true.
However, I will draw attention to what I call the suppressed voice of someone within the system who was clearly signaling, to the best extent possible, that something was afoul.
Wolfe’s June 2018 indictment was never technically about actually leaking to the media. He was charged with three counts of lying to investigators about his contacts with media. He plead guilty to one count therein. So with that in mind, why was the details of the FISA application so clearly described and outlined within the original indictment?
If Wolfe was never going to be charged with leaking the FISA application (he wasn’t); and if the DOJ/FBI was never going to admit the FISA application was even given to the SSCI (they didn’t); then why did someone go to great lengths to describe that very specific document in the original indictment?
Think carefully about this.
Take a look at the specificity:
If you look at the full indictment, and the actual conclusions to include the charges, you realize these very specific granular paragraphs are entirely unnecessary. There’s no need to put the date; there’s no reason to put such detailed descriptions; and the referenced time of the activity around the document (March 2017) has nothing to do with the final June 2018 indictment.
So why were the details included?
My strong suspicion is the evidence against Wolfe was so important, the author believed it was going to be buried. In the outcome of the case; the plea agreement; we can see the author’s concern was very well founded. Indeed the DOJ did cover-up the most explosive nature of the 2017 events with Wolfe, the FISA application, the SSCI and leaks to media.
That takes us to Tuesday, October 16, 2018….
♦ A U.S. Treasury employee named Natalie Mayflower Sours-Edwards was arrested and charged with leaking to numerous reporters multiple financial reports about suspicious financial transactions related to: Paul Manafort, Richard Gates, Maria Butina, and others.
However, looking at the granular issues,… what was conspicuously absent from the DOJ press release, was that Ms. Sours-Edwards was also the source for leaks against Michael Cohen.
{Go DEEP HERE}
Why was the DOJ intentionally omitting Ms. Edwards connection to Mr. Cohen’s released financial information? The transparent answer is Cohen’s indictment is specifically connected to Robert Mueller. By leaving out Edwards leaking Cohen, the DOJ is essentially avoiding any connection between Ms. Edwards and Mueller’s probe. Arguably this intentional omission was by design. [Big Picture = Mueller’s validity is protected.]
Secondarily, another curious omission within the DOJ press release. Ms. Edwards boss; “an Associate Director of FinCen”, was a participating member of her conspiratorial conduct; yet that fact doesn’t appear anywhere except the indictment.
Additionally, even within the indictment the co-conspirator is unnamed. Why?
The Washington Post did discover the name:
[…] The court documents also indicate the FBI has investigated one of Edwards’s bosses, an associate director of FinCEN, noting that person exchanged 325 text messages with the reporter in question during the month when the first story appeared citing SARs reports.
The boss, referred to in court papers as Edwards “co-conspirator,” was not identified in court papers. People familiar with the case identified the person as Kip Brailey. Brailey did not respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday.
A FinCEN spokesman said Edwards has been placed on administrative leave and declined to comment about Brailey. (link)
Thirdly, if you read the indictment; read the press release; and then overlay the reporting…. what you realize is the DOJ and/or FBI did not have anything to do with catching this leaker. She was caught by an investigation initiated by the Inspector General within the Treasury Department.
Ms. Edwards arrest was NOT the outcome of a leak hunt by Rod Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions or Christopher Wray. Rather this leaker was caught by the Treasury IG who then forced the hand of the DOJ to act upon it. [Also HERE] Add all this up and what becomes clear is an overarching intent to protect career officials, the larger DOJ and the validity of Mueller.
That takes us to Wednesday, October 17th, 2018….
Despite his unwillingness to testify before congress, on Wednesday Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein took the time to sit down for an interview with the Wall Street Journal defending the integrity, and validity, of the Mueller investigation:
WSJ – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference as “appropriate and independent,” a message that contrasts with President Trump’s description of the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and “rigged.”
In an expansive interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Mr. Rosenstein offered a forceful defense of the inquiry, saying the public would have faith in its findings.
“People are entitled to be frustrated, I can accept that,” he said, in a nod to attacks on the probe from some conservatives and Republicans. “But at the end of the day, the public will have confidence that the cases we brought were warranted by the evidence, and that it was an appropriate use of resources.”
Mr. Rosenstein said the investigation has already revealed a widespread effort by Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, an assertion that has been played down by Mr. Trump and repeatedly called into question by other members of the administration. (read more)
Against the backdrop of this interview, where DAG Rosenstein was defending the integrity and validity of the Mueller investigation, a problem appears the very next day.
Thursday October 18, 2018….
A federal judge is considering whether to dismiss charges against one of Muellers Russia Conspiracy defendants, Concord LLC. The court asks Mueller what *exactly* is the crime the U.S. government is accusing defendant of?
The judges questioning bolsters a prior filing from Concord that Mueller has never pointed to an actual violation of law within the actions alleged upon the organization:
The court seems to agree with the challenge to Mueller’s prosecution and gives the DOJ until 10/23/18 to respond. [Read Full Filing HERE]
Considering the prior days advocacy by DAG Rod Rosenstein for Robert Mueller, these foundational questions by the judge could not come at a worse time. Factually it looks like this case against Concord is about to get thrown out.
So that takes us to yesterday: Friday, October 19, 2018…
All of a sudden on FRIDAY, in a conspicuous (I would say transparent) timing, DAG Rosenstein’s DOJ files another charge against a principal connected to the Concord company; a Russian national named Ms. Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova
[Remember, on all things Russia AG Sessions is recused; so this, along with all matters of Robert Mueller is all Rod Rosenstein’s matters to handle.]
If the original, perhaps soon to be vacated, charges by Mueller were weak – the new charges by DAG Rosenstein are even more ridiculous. The DOJ is charging a Russian woman named Ms. Khusyaynova with “conspiracy to defraud the U.S.” through social media facebook memes and shit-posting on twitter.
DOJ Press Release – “A criminal complaint was unsealed in Alexandria, Virginia, today charging a Russian national for her alleged role in a Russian conspiracy to interfere in the U.S. political system, including the 2018 midterm election.” (read more)
Unlike the Mueller Concord charges, Ms. Khusyaynova is not charged with a FARA violation, or an FEC violation, or any other election type violation…. no, Mrs. Khusyaynova is charged with a single count of “conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government”.
The single charge revolves around this code:
Not only does the “conspiracy to defraud” charge look silly on its face (and most lawyers sense this is going no-where); the evidentiary content is even more silly. A ‘conspiracy to defraud’ based on memes and tweets on social media?
It is beyond goofy.
However, the component that speaks to the Rosenstein motive around the timing this goofy accusation is the actual date of the indictment filing (initially under seal), September 28th. Why was Rosenstein sitting on it if it was so important to the midterm election? What was Rosenstein waiting for?
(Source pdf)
What the timing looks like = DAG Rosenstein looks like he sat on a silly ‘prop-up Mueller’ conspiracy filing; hopeful he wouldn’t need to use it; then came the Thursday Concord challenge and Judge’s decision and… rut roh, Rod just finished validating Mueller in an op-ed… so he quickly deployed chaff and countermeasures. [shiny things]
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein owns the Mueller probe. It now appears the foundation of the Mueller probe was based on an entirely false premise; that means Rosenstein manufactured an inquisition against the president for no reason. All of the activity within the week shows the Deputy Attorney General trying to give the appearance of authenticity where there is nothing except abject inauthentic and invalid reasoning to be found.
The summary of all this DOJ activity, adds to the recent statements by FBI Christopher Wray, and goes back to the original question:
“If the FBI and DOJ were not institutionally corrupt wouldn’t we have seen multiple whistle-blowers this year?”
Yes, we would….. if it wasn’t corrupt… but it is….
It still is…
…And so we don’t.
Centinel2012 