The background context has already been outlined –SEE HERE– so we won’t repeat. Instead, we look at today’s defensive narrative engineering from the New York Times with a similar perspective, but a different set of reminders.
Content and distribution tells us this information is from the DOJ and FBI faction of the “Small Group“. Not accidentally, and VERY importantly, this is the same faction under the microscope of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his pending IG report. Additionally, and again very importantly, the principles within the IG report have already had an opportunity to review the part of the upcoming report that highlights their conduct.
So this New York Times reporting, from conversations with the DOJ and FBI small group participants, is coming out in advance of the IG report and with their review in mind.
Here’s the article, emphasis mine:[Note “prosecutors” is plural; more than one. “prosecutors” also implies a shift from investigative review, to a likelihood of criminal conduct. The media presentation of John Durham has gone from a single U.S. Attorney with a mandate from his boss, to a group of people, ‘prosecutors’, working with the U.S. Attorney.]
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.[Two dozen former and current FBI officials questioned, but none of the individual within the small group have been questioned yet. In addition to the prosecutors, Durham also has two FBI agents assisting. Later in the article we discover a strong likelihood that one of those FBI agents is the leak source for the New York Times.]
The prosecutors, led by John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, have interviewed about two dozen former and current F.B.I. officials, the people said. Two former senior F.B.I. agents are assisting with the review, the people said.[So Mr. Durham has not questioned the “small group” participants. Ultimately this appears to be the reason for the nervousness now originating a defensive posture.]
The number of interviews shows that Mr. Durham’s review is further along than previously known. It has served as a political flash point since Attorney General William P. Barr revealed in the spring that he planned to scrutinize the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which Mr. Trump and his allies have attacked without evidence as a plot by law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent him from winning the 2016 election.[…] Mr. Durham has yet to interview all the F.B.I. officials who played key roles in opening the Russian investigation in the summer of 2016, the people familiar with the review said. He has not spoken with Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence official who opened the inquiry; the former director James B. Comey or his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe; or James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel.[Or it could be that those “main decision makers” are targets of the investigation.]
Those omissions suggest Mr. Durham may be waiting until he has gathered all the facts before he asks to question the main decision makers in the Russia inquiry.[Why would Mr. Barr need to “subpoena” pre-existing documents he has been granted full presidential authority to review? Methinks the New York Times engineer is conflating the power of a special counsel (prior investigation) with the power of a U.S. Attorney General who was granted full access to any/all classified information by an executive order from the President of the United States.]
The president granted Mr. Barr sweeping powers for the review, though he did not open it as a criminal investigation. That means he gave Mr. Durham the power only to read materials the government had already gathered and to request voluntary interviews from witnesses, not to subpoena witnesses or documents. It is not clear whether the status of the review has changed.[“why” did FBI leadership allow Strzok to create, draft and open the investigation? LOL, that’s actually a big tell. Apparently Comey and McCabe were smart enough to keep their signatures off a political investigation. It’s called plausible deniability. Same purpose for James Comey keeping copious notes (diary) in his home safe.
Mr. Durham’s investigators appeared focused at one point on Mr. Strzok, said one former official who was interviewed. Mr. Strzok opened the Russia inquiry in late July 2016 after receiving information from the Australian government that the Russians had offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton to a Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Durham’s team has asked about the events surrounding the Australian tip, some of the people familiar with the review said.
Mr. Durham’s team, including Nora R. Dannehy, a veteran prosecutor, has questioned witnesses about why Mr. Strzok both drafted and signed the paperwork opening the investigation, suggesting that was unusual for one person to take both steps. Mr. Strzok began the inquiry after consulting with F.B.I. leadership, former officials familiar with the episode said.
Cute, but no amount of them saying, “That’s all of the bad guys, folks!” is going to work.
The investigation is already pointing to the fact that FBI embedded a few (others) into the Special Counsel’s Office as a way to run info back to the FBI cabal.
THOSE people’s heads’ must roll, too!
That was part of the Crossfire Hurricane plot.
(See page 13 of the searchable Mueller Report for a paragraph starting: “From its inception, the Office recognized….” )
If we dig we find many more heads that must roll.
We must not get lazy or ever assume that Deep State is doing OUR work for US.
It will be very entertaining watching the corrupt alphabet agencies throw each other under the bus. That in and of itself is an admission of guilt and wrongdoing.
@Nan G: Not one head has rolled, not a single head, CYA and save the reputation is all they strive for.
We also need to charge “journalists” and outlets that bribed federal officers, and those officers that accepted bribes.
@Nan G: Who is in the crossfire now?
Why is the NYT defending the FBI?
The EVIDENCE is that there was no justification to initiate an investigation. There was no credible or reliable evidence to SUSPECT an investigation was necessary. It was commenced, first, to destroy Trump as a candidate, then destroy President Trump to stop the investigations of the coup and save their slimy skins.
Let us remember here that the DNC and Hillary LIED THEIR ASSES OFF denying they had anything to do with Steele or the dossier.
Yeah, that’s what happens when the investigator has political bias and hatred. The same was true of the Mueller investigation and IS true of the impeachment “inquiries”.
Larry C. Johnson, if you don’t know, is a former spook and a member of the VIPs. He shut down his website, No Quarter, in 2017 after Judge Napolitano blabbed a report that the British intel were involved in the Trump “Russia collusion” created by the deep staters. Johnson was the first to report the British involvement, which the Brits immediately denied vehemently. Now it seems that MI6 was involved and perhaps, without British leadership knowledge.
Johnson was also a big Valerie Plame supporter until it was discovered that her husband was heavily involved in yellow cake deals. Of course, Plame, being caught in lies, refused to be sworn in when she gave Congressional testimony. Johnson was also a Hillary supporter but as the information began leaking out (Hillary campaign, DNC, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS) he wised up.
His synopsis is pretty well on target, except……………….the players are going to start blaming the other players and claiming “We were just doing what we were ordered to do so don’t blame us.”
The NYSlimes article is interesting. Seems it is setting the stage for building excuses for those who all need to be cuffed and stuffed.
@retire05: Basically, Barr has to choose very carefully and very well who he prosecutes first. The correct person could blast open the whole cabal. Some person has a lot more exposure and potential penalty than most others and that person should be forced to spill their guts. Go full Mueller on them; ruin them, crush them, threaten their entire family all the way to third cousins. I know Democrats would appreciate the beauty and righteousness of that.
Early November 2016 (post Trump’s Election win) – Steele provided a full review of his findings for a senior British official. Steele had told the FBI in Rome he would take this step in the event of a Trump victory.
Mid-November 2016 – Steel and Wood meet for a second time. Sir Andrew Wood approaches Steele after the election “to discuss whether they needed to take further steps to ensure the U.S. government was aware of his information.”
Highly unlikely Pro Brexit Trump wasnt reported to their elite.
Notice how not only has the intensity picked up but so has the precision of what they are looking for? When Barr and Durham went overseas they seemed to know who, what, and where to look almost as if someone with first hand knowledge of the coup is guiding them. Has anyone heard from Rod Rosenstein lately? Just curious.
@another vet: And the moment Democrats learned Trump mentioned Crowdstrike to Ukraine, Democrats went nuts.
@Deplorable Me: And now this. Notice the warning to the critics.
Gee, why? Can’t they just have a conversation and answer some questions, like Gen. Flynn did? Why get attorneys involved?
I always love the left, instead of reading the article, criticizing the source. It never dawns on them why THEIR preferred purveyors of news are not providing them the information. It never dawns on them how they are mainly responsible for their own ignorance.