A leak from McCabe’s legal team to their Lawfare ally at Politico, Natasha Bertrand, ends with a spectacular fail; highlighting a series of events entirely apropos of the McCabe character.   This is just too darned funny.

Andrew McCabe’s legal team tell Politico journalist Natasha Bertrand that Obama officials were lined up to speak as character witnesses in his defense.  To support their claim team McCabe leak’s an email written to the DOJ.  Ms. Bertrand then writes an article:

(Politico) A cavalcade of Obama-era national security leaders have committed to testify on behalf of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should he face trial over allegations that he misled officials about leaks to the media.

[…] If McCabe ultimately does face charges, he’ll have some big names lined up as character witnesses. The high-ranking ex-officials who have committed to defending him include former Attorney General Eric Holder, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former national security adviser Susan Rice.

Mary McCord, a career DOJ attorney who oversaw the government’s Russia probe as acting head of the DOJ’s National Security Division, and David Cohen, the No. 2 at the CIA from 2015 to 2017, are also lined up to speak on McCabe’s behalf.

McCabe’s legal team previously asked DOJ to overrule the prosecutors’ indictment recommendation, but were rebuffed, according to a person familiar with the matter. The lawyers wrote an 11-page legal analysis, entitled “Reasons Not To Prosecute Andrew McCabe,” as part of their effort to convince DOJ not to bring charges.  (read more)

Immediately after publishing the article, Ms. Bertrand began receiving some rather snarky responses. John Brennan, James Clapper, Eric Holder and Susan Rice will appear as character witnesses?  Seriously?

The team outlined by McCabe’s lawyers are notoriously well known public fibbers themselves including:  CIA Director John Brennan (who lied to congress about spying on the Senate intelligence committee); DNI James Clapper (who lied about the NSA gathering metadata on Americans); former AG Eric Holder (who was held in contempt of congress for lying); and Susan Rice (infamous for lying about the Benghazi YouTube video).

The public responses to Ms. Bertrand’s propaganda article on behalf of her Lawfare allies was immediate, pointed and quite accurate.  However, a few hours later, Ms. Bertrand had to walk-back the entire premise of her article:

(link)

It would appear the claims made by Andrew McCabe; which were based on communications also shared with potential DOJ prosecutors; were made without ever contacting Brennan, Clapper, Holder and Rice for their consent.

Yes, that’s correct.  Andrew McCabe, who is being accused of lying under oath, lied about the production of character witnesses who the defense claimed were going to speak about McCabe’s integrity.  In essence, he lied about the character witnesses.

You just can’t make this stuff up folks.

An epic fail, based on lies, entirely apropos of the character of Andrew McCabe.

.

Representative Jim Jordan appeared for an interview this morning to discuss his expectation for the upcoming IG report on the FBI and DOJ manipulating a FISA application to create the predicate for an investigation against President Trump.

.

To get impeachment, they needed obstruction. To get obstruction, they needed an investigation. To get the investigation, they needed evidence (the dossier). To change the dossier from oppo-research to evidence they needed a target. The target was Carter Page.

This interview with former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was Friday evening. Mr. Whitaker gave a specific reference point for his expectation of the IG report on the circumstances surrounding the Carter Page FISA:

…”From where I sit, and from what I know, I think it is going to be fairly dramatic, what this investigation is going to show”…

.

CTH Research Opinion – Carter Page was irrelevant to the FBI objective.  The FBI/DOJ goal was to get the Steele Dossier into official investigative position so they could investigate.  The dossier claims were the cornerstone to launch the Mueller probe; but the dossier was only a tool for Mueller; not the goal.  The goal for Mueller and team was to generate evidence of obstruction…. which would be used for impeachment.

Or put another way…

To get impeachment, they needed obstruction.  To get obstruction they needed an investigation.  To get the investigation they needed evidence (the dossier). To change the dossier from oppo-research to evidence they needed a target.  The target was Carter Page.

National security attorney Bradley Moss and former assistant attorney general John Yoo appear on Fox News to discuss the issues around a constructed Russian conspiracy; a politically corrupt special counsel; the pending IG report on possible FISA abuse; and the ongoing predicate review by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Former congressman Trey Gowdy warns everyone to tamp down expectations from the IG report on FISA abuse. One point of focus from Horowitz’s letter today is that he *only* looked at the singular FISA issues surrounding Carter Page, nothing more.

…”Relating to a certain U.S. person.”

Therefore if Carter Page was not a victim; meaning if Carter Page was an active participant (mole) in the FBI operation – willing to be the vehicle by which the Steele Dossier could be injected into the investigation; then there will likely be no criminal conduct outlined by Horowitz.  The head of the tick-tock club was not happy with this possibility.

…”to a certain U.S. person”…

The DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz has notified congress that his investigation is complete.  In a letter to congressional committee members with oversight authority, IG Horowitz states the draft report on his FISA abuse investigation is currently undergoing an internal classification review:

PROCESS:  The completion of the draft report indicates: (1) the investigation has concluded; (2) the IG referencer checks are now complete; and (3) the draft is submitted to the DOJ (AG Bill Barr) and FBI (Christopher Wray) for a review.

Depending on the size, scale and content of the report a classification review could take several weeks.  This is where President Trump previously granting AG Bill Barr authority to make declassification decisions will come into play. Ultimately the decision on what can be released is now in the hands of U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

• Memorandum Here
• White House Statement Here

AG Bill Barr’s May 23rd, 2019, declassification authority covers investigative material from the DOJ, FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, State Department, Treasury Department, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

How much AG Bill Barr will declassify is an unknown; and this part will most likely be the source of a great deal of debate and political positioning.

After the classification review, and possible declassification determinations by AG Bill Barr, the draft report will be returned to the Office of Inspector General for a Final Draft assembly.  Any information remaining classified will be placed into a separate “Classified Appendix” that will not be public.

The Final Draft could, likely will, be shared with key stakeholders who are outlined within the report during the Principal Review Phase (generally two/three weeks). Here the IG may accept feedback on the investigative findings.  If the IG accepts feedback for placement in the report; the referencer will generally provide additional material specific to the allowed response from the principal(s), with further comment from the IG.

Interesting note from the IG letter:

An intellectually honest inference would be that several witnesses came forward only after the Special Counsel investigation was complete.

From this point, a good guess based on processes and procedures would be to anticipate a final public report in approximately six to eight weeks.   Though it could be delivered faster depending on the scale/scope/complexity of the classification review.

As you listen to Jeffrey Toobin defend former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, play a little mental juxtaposition game and replace McCabe with General Mike Flynn.  Then contemplate just how hypocritical, sanctimonious, biased and politically obtuse this CNN crew of narrative engineers really are.  WATCH:

.

Here’s a juxtaposed transcript using Toobins exact words:

…”This is an extremely unusual prosecution.  Michael Flynn had the right to speak to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, that is beyond dispute. As incoming National Security Advisor he had the fight to speak to ambassadors. He also had an impeccable record as one of the most honored and successful DNI heads of his generation.”

…”It’s complicated.  It is really difficult to understand even what the lie is here; the alleged lie.  The alleged lie is while Flynn had the right to speak to Ambassador Kislyak, and he spoke to Ambassador Kislyak… well, months later, describe what was in the conversation that you had every right to have; at a time when Flynn’s being interviewed about a different subject.  Being prosecuted for lying in these very esoteric circumstances, where it’s about this conversation – then that conversation, well, it’s very rare. You know”…

Several news outlets are now reporting that U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, will likely indict former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to FBI investigators.

The reporting is based on leaked email communications from the lawyers representing Andrew McCabe, where McCabe’s legal appeals to Main Justice and current DOJ Deputy Attorney General James Rosen were rejected.

WASHINGTON DC – […] A source close to McCabe’s legal team said they received an email from the Department of Justice which said, “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.” (more)

While an indictment of McCabe is a positive step toward accountability for the corrupt ‘small group’ within the DOJ/FBI, the fact that McCabe is afforded a back-and-forth debate on the issues only highlights the ridiculous prism of tiered justice and politics.

The OIG investigation of McCabe, and the subsequent criminal referral, was finalized over 18 months ago. No ordinary citizen, other than well-connected ‘beach friends‘, would be granted such considerations.

If McCabe is indicted it will be interesting to read the Lawfare (Benjamin Wittes) perspective on having one of their team finally encountering legal accountability.

.

Previously Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, had to file specific requests within their ‘motion to show cause for Brady discovery material‘ under seal.  After a DOJ review, and redaction of some names, the discovery motion is now unsealed by the court and available for review.

Cloud link to filing Here – SCRIBD link to filing here with embed below:

.

There are 40 bullet points outlining material sought by Michael Flynn. The request is extensive and connects to multiple aspects of the overall DOJ, FBI and intelligence community operations throughout 2016 and into 2017.  The government response to the Flynn motion is due to Judge Sullivan by September 24th at noon.

This prosecution and the circumstances surrounding it are unprecedented. The only way to achieve justice in this case is to provide transparency and the full disclosure of all information relevant to the defense of Mr. Flynn. Now, more than ever, the government must be held to the highest standards, as classically set out in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 86 (1935) (“The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win the case, but that justice shall be done.”); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir. 1986) (noting “both constitutional and supervisory concerns require holding the Government to a greater degree of responsibility”).