quote:

so does this mean he won't have to go to court and be on a stand where he can be examined to get more information?

He will not have to testify since pleading guilty, but we don't know a lot of details yet. Prosecutors sometimes work these plea deals in a way that the defendant HAS to testify under oath at other defendants trial/proceedings. It depends on just what information he has about others.

It is a small start. I am waiting and hoping for a tsunami of indictments....

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
It is a small start. I am waiting and hoping for a tsunami of indictments....

Every brush fire starts with but one spark.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shifferbrains,

This is a start for sure but expecting more, waiting impatiently!!

I love it when the LAWYERS want to make a deal to save THEIR sorry ass!! I have a feeling that this fella has a lot to tell Durham.

In bringing first Russiagate charge, Durham hints at other crimes

https://justthenews.com/accoun...e-durham-hints-other



Spygate, once derided by media and political elites as a fringe conspiracy theory, is now fact thanks to a court filing that confirms an ex-FBI lawyer who disliked President Trump falsified evidence that was used to keep surveillance against Trump associates going.

U.S. Attorney John Durham filed the felony charge Friday against Kevin Clinesmith, and the ex-FBI assistant general counsel is expected to plead guilty soon and cooperate with the ongoing investigation of the Russia investigators.

That alone is significant, since Clinesmith was witness to other controversial moments in the failed Trump-Russia collusion probe, including an operation to spy on the future president during a counterintelligence briefing in summer 2016.

But within the four-plus page criminal information filed in U.S. District Court, Durham also laid out evidence of an additional crime that could be prosecuted in the coming weeks.

The court filing notes that Clinesmith "willfully and knowingly" altered a document in June 2017 to falsely claim that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — one of the main targets of the Russia collusion probe and identified in the court document as "Individual #1" — was not a source for the CIA, identified in the court documents as "Other Government Agency" or "OGA." In reality, Page was a CIA asset.
File
Clinesmith-Document-2020-08-14.pdf

The filing says Clinesmith's misdeed caused the FBI to mislead the Justice Department and the FISA court when filing an application for the last of four surveillance warrants that targeted Page for over a year.

But Durham also reveals in the filing that the FBI Crossfire Hurricane team — led by since-fired Agent Peter Strzok — had already been told of Page's relationship with the CIA all the way back in August 2016 and failed to tell the FISA court that essential information about Page before the three prior FISA warrants were approved.

Such a failure is known as a material omission because the FBI was claiming they believed Page was an agent of Russia when in fact he was an asset of the U.S. government helping to inform on Russian intelligence targets. In other words, had the FBI not omitted the truth, the judges would have known before they approved even the first FISA warrant that Page was a CIA-handled source, not a Russian stooge.

Here's how Durham worded the account:

"On Aug 17, 2016, prior to the approval of FISA #1, the OGA (CIA) provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum indicating that Individual #1 (Page) had been approved as an operational contact for the OGA (CIA) from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Individual #1 (Page) had provided to the OGA (CIA) concerning Individual #1's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include Individual #1's history or status with the OGA (CIA)."

Several experts said Durham's inclusion of the earlier notification signals he has concerns others may also have been involved in deceiving the court.

"It's more than an oversight. Whether the omission was purposeful or not, it is a fraud on the court," said Kevin Brock, the FBI's former assistant director for intelligence and the man who created many of the procedures the bureau employs with confidential human sources in national security investigations.

"At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, I think it is clear that Durham is positioning a deeper dive into this issue of FISA application abuse," Brock added.

Earlier inspector general reports also revealed that Clinesmith engaged in the exchange of some anti-Trump text messages, adding to the portrait of a lawyer who doctored a document.

In one instance the day after Trump won, Clinesmith texted this anti-Trump, anti-Mike Pence screed: "The crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid," he wrote in a text quoted by the inspector general.

A lawyer for Clinesmith on Friday offered an apology for his client's action ahead of his guilty plea, but suggested Clinesmith didn't intend to mislead the court when he altered the CIA document.

Brock dismissed that argument.

"The fact that the bureau was advised even before the first application that Carter Page was a source of the CIA and chose not to include it for the first three applications undercuts that argument," the retired FBI executive said. "It stretches credulity that Clinesmith would claim he believed he was providing accurate information. They already knew it was inaccurate."

Brock isn't alone in the view that Durham has tipped his hand to future prosecutions.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), whose work in Congress unraveled many of the abuses in the FBI Russia probe, noted that Clinesmith was also identified in FBI documents as being involved in an August 2016 episode in which the FBI inserted an agent into one of Trump's first counterintelligence briefings to spy on the future president.

"Those who orchestrated, enabled and amplified the bogus Russia collusion saga must face a reckoning, and those who violated the law must face justice," Grassley said. "Thanks to recent declassifications, we now know that the same FBI lawyer who doctored evidence to push for spying authority on Trump's campaign was also intimately involved in plans to co-opt intel briefings to spy on Trump himself. Today, he is being held to account."

Grassley urged Durham to keep pressing ahead "for the good of our nation."

"His team must continue to provide transparency into this multi-year, multimillion-dollar debacle," the veteran senator said.

Good. Glaciers seem like speeding blurs compared to the pace of this investigation and the leadup to it, but finally, finally, we are seeing movement. I presume the pace will continue to be frustratingly slow, but we are, in fact, moving.

The one thing I worry about most is the left "running down the clock" like they did before the 2018 election.

Clinesmith may not seem like a big deal, and indeed even Barr said in his Hannity interview that "the development would not be "earth-shattering," but would be "an indication that things are moving along at the proper pace as dictated by the facts in this investigation."

Many people expected a Clinesmith indictment so this was not too shocking.

As Julie Kelly said (Sr. contributor at American Greatness):

"The good news is that Barr didn't consider the Clinesmith plea a big deal. That's an encouraging sign."

Hopefully things will start moving at a better clip here soon.

This guy just looks like the typical leftist weasel. He would not fare well in prison

This is probably the most share-worthy thing I've seen.

Liberty is Inherent – The Removal of Liberty Requires Consent…
Posted on August 15, 2020 by sundance
..”If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.”.. ~Sam Adams

The power of government comes from the people; or as we say in the U.S. “from the consent of the governed.” When people lead, the politicians are forced to follow. Without implied consent the municipal or state government has no power. None.

The power of the local, regional or state authority comes from the expressed consent of the people. As soon as the majority of people deny that consent, those officials and state authoritarians lose all of their power. Yes, it really is that simple.

Those who construct the systems of control need to weaponize fear. Fear of arrest; fear of losing a business; fear of losing liberty or financial security. Local, regional and state officials rely on fear. As soon as We The People are no longer fearful, the control ends.

The overwhelming majority of dictates around COVID-19 mitigation are not laws. There was no debate; no input from representative government; and no option for the public to weigh-in on the decisions.

All unilateral rules are arbitrary, and despite many proclamations to the contrary, they rely upon voluntary compliance. As soon as citizens no longer voluntarily comply, the term of the rules has expired. Liberty is inherent. The removal of liberty requires consent.

Link

1 of 3

another long one. but provides important details

https://thehill.com/policy/nat...g-case-ex-fbi-lawyer

Clinesmith’s lawyers on Friday said this was unintentional.

“Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility,” his lawyers told The Washington Post

Andrew Weissman (former DoJ attack dog for Robert Mueller):

Question for Barr: how are Flynn’s confessed lies to the FBI (repeated to the VP) not a crime, but Clinesmith changing an email (the full version of which he also sent to DOJ) is?

This is a good example of how Weissmann distorts the truth to push his lies.

Let’s take a look at the DoJ IG Horowitz report of Dec 2019 to see how twisted Weissmann’s “arguments” are.

From the IG report: quotes in brackets

[An early investigative step considered but not initially taken by the Crossfire Hurricane team was to seek court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizing surveillance of Page and Papadopoulos.]

[The Crossfire Hurricane team initially considered seeking FISA surveillance of Papadopoulos as a result of his statement to the FFG]

FFG = Friendly Foreign Govt = Australian Alexander Downer

[Officials determined there was an insufficient basis to proceed with a FISA application concerning Papadopoulos, and the Crossfire Hurricane team never submitted a FISA application for Papadopoulos]

So there was insufficient probable cause to get a FISA warrant against Papadopoulos, but the FBI felt there was enough about Papadopoulos to start a counterintelligence operation into the Trump presidential campaign. The FBI position has repeatedly been that the counterintel op was initiated by what Alexander Downer told them of the meeting in a bar w Papadopoulos.

[With regard to Page, on August 15, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team requested assistance
from the FBI's Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to prepare a FISA application for submission to the FISC. However, after consultation between FBI OGC and attorneys in the Office of Intelligence (01) in the Department's National Security Division (NSD), which is responsible for preparing FISA applications and appearing before the FISC, the Crossfire Hurricane team was told in late August 2016 that more information was needed to establish probable cause for a FISA on Page.]

2 of 3

Mid August – not enough for a Carter Page FISA

[A few weeks later, on September 19, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a set of six reports prepared by Christopher Steele concerning Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged connections between this Russian effort and individuals associated with the Trump campaign]

[Two of the six Steele reports received by the Crossfire Hurricane team on September 19 referenced Carter Page by name. One stated that Page had held secret meetings with two high level Russian officials during Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This report also indicated that one of the alleged meetings included a discussion about the Kremlin potentially releasing compromising information about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to Trump's campaign team. Another report from Steele described "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Russian government and Trump's campaign to defeat Clinton, using Carter Page and others as intermediaries]

[On September 21, 2016, 2 days after the team received these reports, FBI OGC advised 01 that the FBI believed it was ready to submit a request for FISA authority on Carter Page, and 01 and the FBI began drafting the first FISA application]

How many times has Comey said the Steele dossier was not critical for the Page FISA warrant ?


[On October ■, 2016, NSD submitted the Carter Page FISA application to the FISC, asserting that there was probable cause to believe that Page was an

agent of the Russian government. The application relied on, among other things:

• The information provided by the FFG (Alexander Downer) about its interaction with Papadopoulos;

• Information from the FBI's previously opened counterintelligence investigation relating to Page arising from his contacts with Russian intelligence officers;

• Information from Steele's reports that pertained specifically to Carter Page; and

• Information from a meeting between Page and an FBI CHS that was consensually monitored by Crossfire Hurricane investigators.]


FBI CHS = Stefan Halper ? “Consensually monitored” Page may have known Halper was recording, but he sure didn’t know Halper was spying for the FBI

Page never told Halper anything that said there was Trump campaign collusion w the Russians

· [when asked by an NSD attorney who was involved in helping to draft the first FISA application whether Page had provided information to another U.S. government agency or was a source for that other agency, a Crossfire Hurricane agent incorrectly told the NSD attorney that Page's contact with the other U.S. government agency was "dated" and "outside scope." ]

NSD = DoJ National Security Division
Other agency = CIA

Who was that “Crossfire Hurricane agent” ?

[The Crossfire Hurricane agent made this statement despite the fact that the Crossfire Hurricane team had been told by the other agency in a written memorandum that Page had been approved as an _operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and that Page had provided information to the other agency that was relevant to the FISA application.]

CIA told CH in writing that Page was a CIA operational contact

[The Crossfire Hurricane team also failed to inform NSD attorneys about information obtained by the FBI during CHS operations and interviews that was inconsistent with the allegations contained in the Steele reporting that was being relied upon in the FISA application.]

Each of the FISA orders authorized electronic surveillance and physical search targeting Carter Page

3 of 3

[In April and May 2017, following news reports that the FBI had obtained a FISA for Carter Page, Page gave interviews to news outlets denying that he had collected intelligence for the Russian government and asserting instead that he had previously assisted U.S. government agencies. ]

[Shortly before the FBI filed the final renewal application with the FISC in mid-June 2017, and in response to concerns expressed by the investigative team and NSD about Page's claim, an FBI OGC Attorney emailed the U.S. government agency that had provided information to the FBI in August 2016, referenced above, about its prior interactions with Carter Page to inquire about Page's past status.]

FBI OGC Attorney = Kevin Clinesmith


[The other U.S. government agency's liaison to the Crossfire Hurricane team responded by email to the FBI OGC attorney by directing the attorney to a memoranda previously sent to the FBI by the other U.S. government agency informing the FBI that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013]

CIA told Clinesmith they had previously written in Aug 2016 that Page was a CIA operational contact.

[The email also stated, using the other agency's terminology, that it was the other agency liaison's recollection that Page had prior interactions with that other agency]

. [However, when asked by one of the supervisory special agents (SSA) on the Crossfire Hurricane team (who was going to be the affiant on the final FISA renewal application) about Page's prior interactions with that other agency, the OGC Attorney advised the SSA that Page was "never a source" for the other U.S. government agency]

Clinesmith told the FBI agent who signed and verified the last FISA extension that Page was never a CIA source.


Think back to Weissmann’s bullshit claims

[In addition, the OGC Attorney altered the email that the other
U.S. government agency had sent to the OGC Attorney so that the email inaccurately stated· that Page was "not a source" for the other agency; the OGC Attorney then forwarded the altered email to the SSA. Shortly thereafter, on June x 2017, the SSA served as the affiant on the final renewal application, which was again silent about Page's prior relationship with the other U.S. government agency.]

blogger shipwreckedcrew raises questions about the situation w Kevin Clinesmith

https://www.redstate.com/shipw...cated-a-guilty-plea/

one issue is that the filing was a "criminal information"

that is

- An accusation exhibited against a person for some criminal offense, without an indictment.
- An accusation in the nature of an indictment, from which it differs only in being presented by a competent public officer on his oath of office, instead of a grand jury on their oath.
- A written accusation made by a public prosecutor, without the intervention of a grand jury.

"I said it was unusual to have an Information filed which initiates a case in federal court, but not have the Plea Agreement filed at the same time"

"when I saw the full text of comments made by Clinesmith’s attorney after the Information was filed, I have suspicions now that the Parties are still talking about a guilty plea, and are not yet firm on that outcome."

The statement by Clinesmith’s attorney that he never “intended to mislead” the court or FBI colleagues, and he “believed the information he relayed was accurate” are both inconsistent with the elements of “knowingly” and “wilfully” having made and used a “false” or “fraudulent” writing. To enter a guilty plea, Clinesmith must admit to facts which established each of those elements to be true.

The “false writing” is the email he forwarded after he added words to change its meaning.

If he “believed the information he relayed was accurate,” then he cannot admit that he “knew the writing contained a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement” — his lawyer just said he thought he communicated accurate information, not “false, fictitious, or fraudulent” information.

If he didn’t intend to deceive the Court or his colleagues, why insert four-word that change the meaning of the email recieved from the CIA? He could have just as easily attached his view as his own thoughts. Had he said that he – Kevin Clinesmith — didn’t believe Page was a source based on the information supplied by the CIA, that would not have been a “False Statement” — it would have been an incorrect conclusion.

But that is not what he did. He created a statement FROM the CIA which said something different from what the CIA actually said. To claim he didn’t “intend to deceive” the people he sent the email to is to deny reality.

The federal judge accepting a guilty plea must go through each of the necessary factual findings with a defendant orally and on the record. The defendant must explain his actions, and must affirm that he did them “knowingly” and “willfully”.

Clinesmith’s attorney made a public statement that he said reflects Clinesmith’s view today — that he lacked intent to deceive, and that he believed his writing — the email he transmitted — was accurate when it was sent.

That statement is not consistent with a guilty plea to a Section 1001 charge. This may be why there was no hearing yesterday, and why no Plea Agreement outlining the facts admitted to by Clinesmith has not been filed. If this is not resolved in a manner that satisfies a federal judge, Durham may have no choice but to seek an indictment of Clinesmith from a federal jury — and there are more serious charges he could bring.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/k...ussia-investigation/

The source said that Clinesmith's lawyer approached Durham's office about a deal after FBI records declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence last month showed that Clinesmith was part of a team using a 2016 defensive briefing to track Russia questions from Flynn and then-candidate Trump. The source said the expectation is that Clinesmith will cooperate with Durham's investigation which is typical in plea deals. He is expected to be asked, regarding both the 2016 defensive briefing and the altered CIA email, whether he acted independently or at the direction of, or with the approval of his FBI leadership.

one more piece of info from the IG report of Dec 2019


This is key to Clinesmith's argument

Clinesmith told the IG that the CIA liaison person told him that Page had talked to a CIA source but that Page was not a CIA direct source. The CIA source was in a meeting and Page happened to be there. Clinesmith claims that is why he said Page was not a CIA source.

Clinesmith told the IG that this "subsource" role was explained to him in phone conversations w the CIA liaison. (note: as in "not in writing")

BUT, the CIA liaison told the IG that is not what she wrote to Clinesmith. She emailed that Page was a U.S. person who had provided direct reporting to the CIA. The liaison said she saw no basis for Clinesmith to have concluded that Page never had a direct relationship w CIA.

AND the liaison did not recall having any telephone discussions w Clinesmith on the issue.

So Clinesmith's "defense" is based on a verbal communication that the liaison does not recall at all.

p250-251 of the IG report.

You'd think his lawyer would have found the phone records.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...chief-to-john-durham

Sen. Lindsey Graham revealed on Friday that Bill Priestap, the FBI's former head of counterintelligence, is the official he claims gave misleading information to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 about the reliability of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee told former Rep. Trey Gowdy, sitting in for Sean Hannity on his Fox News show, that he learned the name from FBI Director Christopher Wray, and will hand over whatever information he gets to U.S. Attorney John Durham

the Senate Intel Committee ... had real concerns about the Russian subsource," Graham said.

"So they asked the FBI to come in and brief them. So I asked Director Wray, 'Who did the briefing?' Well, it's Bill Priestap, who's this guy? He's one of the leaders of Crossfire Hurricane. A year after the subsource told the FBI in 2017 there is zero corroboration for the dossier, I wouldn't trust it with a solid grain of salt, hearsay, bar talk. They knew for over a year, and now, you've got Bill Priestap on Feb. 15, 2018, with four other people from the FBI briefing this Senate Intel Committee, completely whitewashing the truth about the reliability of the dossier,"

"Now, Director Wray has been really good, he's given me the information, more is going to follow, but what I'm going to do with this is turn it over to Durham because I think the briefing in 2018, a year after the subsource told the FBI the dossier was a bunch of garbage, whitewashing that report to the Senate Intel Committee is potentially another crime. So, I'm going to send all of this to Durham when I get it."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For a long time, most people thought Bill Priestap was a good guy in the coup attempt. Looking like he was involved significantly.

from the Dec 2019 IG report:



CH for July to December 2016
CH was investigation of Manafort, Flynn, Page, and Papadopoulos

OGC Unit Chief = Sally Moyer

OGC Attorney = Kevin Clinesmith

Strzok promoted Sept 2016 for his "excellent" work.
Strzok's wife is Melissa Hodgman. In Oct 2016, Hodgman was promoted to Associate Director in Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division

Strzok was SES. His salary (my guess) would have been about 160 to 170 k per year
Strzok was a Capt in Army Reserves so he was pulling down another 10k to 12k
Hodgman earned $246 k in 2017 (from govt salary data)
so together they were pulling down over $ 400k per year

xxxxxxxxxxxx



CH from Jan to Apr 2017
Note: Strzok covering Michael Flynn and Geo Papadopoulos

Jennifer Boone covering Carter Page

Wash Field office for White Collar crime covering Manafort (Steele dossier had Manafort leading the coordination w Russians, but in Jan 2017 he is being investigated by white collar crime unit)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Looking at the scope of this bullshit, and all of the players and people willingly involved, from the top of the organization, down to the lowest of the low, it's a reminder of the enormous task that Barr is being asked to accomplish.

How do you bring to justice, an ENORMOUS swath of the institutions that are in place to protect and promote justice, in the most powerful country on the planet, run by potential criminals that used the most powerful apparatus ever conceived, to try and push a duly elected leader from office.

Fuck.

As Sundance says all the time: (My paraphrase) "It's not that Barr has to grapple with what he should release, but rather trying to deal with what the American people already know."

How? Patiently, detail by detail, one asshole at a time. If there are any tsunamis in the cards, then you'll see them at the end of a long process.

Catherine Herridge:

Plea Agreement Hearing set for Clinesmith August 19 in DC Court before Judge Boasberg. 1 count - making “materially false, fictitious + fraudulent statement + entry (altering CIA email) in a matter before..the executive branch + judicial branch(FISA Court)”

"It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility.”

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herrid.../1295407678429310978