Posted by Curt on 30 May, 2019 at 8:48 am. 1 comment.


CTH shared a prediction in September 2018 which bears repeating.  However, prior to revisiting the past let us overlay today’s events. Keep in mind, much of what is happening is downstream from predicate events that took place long before AG Bill Barr was confirmed to run the DOJ.  Actually, while not intending to defend Bill Barr, some of the recent events are beyond his control.  Here’s how:

First, if you remember when the 568 page IG report on FBI/DOJ conduct was delivered in June 2018, you might remember how the ‘executive summary and conclusions’ were disconnected from the main body of evidence within the report.  In 2018 CTH warned this “disconnect” was by design; essentially the corrupt officials were laying down a defense for any conduct, later outlined, that is connected to the body of the IG review.

When IG Horowitz announced last year he could find no evidence of actions taken as a result of political bias by FBI and DOJ officials; he also stated he could not rule out bias within their investigation.  Horowitz pointed to the lack of action by FBI Agent Peter Strzok -following the September 28th, 2016, notification of Clinton emails on Abedin laptop- as lacking reasonable explanation.  Essentially, despite suspicions, the summary conclusion was the IG could find “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing“.

The 568-pages contained a multitude of examples of FBI misconduct (media leaks etc.), but the same IG report summary said “no illegal activity was discovered.”  In the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ there was a disconnect between the summary/conclusions and the body of evidence.

With that in mind, how could the Bill Barr DOJ prosecute on evidence of behavior from within a report where the Rod Rosenstein DOJ conclusion was no evidence of “intentional wrongdoing”?

In short, he can’t.

Think about how easy it would be for a defense attorney representing one of the accused officials detailed in the IG report…. Take the IG report, which outlines the events for which the client is being prosecuted, and simply say: “the conclusion of the FBI investigation said “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing” so why is my client being charged?”

It’s a circular defense created by a prior conclusion. If there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing, the downstream events cannot be prosecuted. This is by design. The design  explains this:

Now, having said that, let’s expand on prior words of caution.

QUESTION: If the DOJ Office of Inspector General found no intentional DOJ and FBI malfeasance in the June ’18 report covering the totality of the 2016 election; and no direct evidence of political bias within the decision-making of the officials being reviewed; what’s the likelihood of the same OIG finding malfeasance as it relates to DOJ/FBI *FISA activity* and the exact same people?

The extensive OIG election-period report found no DOJ/FBI misconduct (only some bad judgement). There were no criminal referrals. There were recommendations for internal improvement, which FBI Director Wray said the FBI would implement (link).

It’s important to note the Office of Inspector General FISA review/investigation of potential FISA abuses (opened March 28th, 2018) was launched three months prior to the “Election Activity” final report in June 14th 2018.  There was obvious investigative overlap; however, the June report said “no evidence of intentional misconduct.”

The time frame covered by the “Election Activity” review (OIG report 2) and the “FISA Activity” review (OIG report 3) are the same. The topics are different (FISA being more specific), but the people under review and time-frame therein are identical.

If the OIG found no intentional corrupt activity in the June ’18 report (only bad judgement); no referrals were made; and time period and people are exactly the same; how can the OIG produce a post-facto FISA review report with substantively different conclusions?  It seems unlikely.

However, that said, there is a narrow window of potential optimism for those seeking some measure of accountability inside IG report #3.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x