Many column inches and media discussions surround the recently released “NEW” text messages and emails attributed to FBI Agent Peter Strzok. “NEW” revelations that show how the FBI was coordinating a “media leak strategy”; which essentially further evidences the level of corruption within the DOJ and FBI & weaponization for political motives.
However, there is a particular pattern and familiarity to these releases for those who follow the Administrative State, aka “Deep State”, within Washington DC closely. According to Sean Hannity (Friday broadcast) next week there will be several thousand more of these “NEW” messages released. [Up to 50,000]
Amid these latest developments is where we find the all-too-familiar pattern. Where exactly were these “NEW” emails for the past sixteen months? Who is releasing these “NEW” messages? Why? And why now?
According to Joe diGenova, there’s a seated grand jury ready to pounce on Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok and all the corrupt elements associated within “spygate” and “fisa-gate”. As the diGenova story is told, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker has “turned states evidence”, and is now testifying to the grand scheme, etc. Exposing all those who participated. (Prompted – Just Hit Play)
Perhaps diGenova is right; perhaps all of those wonderful things are about to happen. However, I’m of a generally more cynical disposition after years of following these creeps. I hope diGenova is correct, but I fear he is fraught with misplaced optimism and/or bad information. Here’s why:
It is challenging to work out any process were James Baker is simultaneously working with Lawfare, and delivering devastating testimony to the corrupt ideological group that Lawfare supports.
Secondly, lets focus on these “NEW” communications for a moment.
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were first questioned by FBI INSD (inspection division) in June and July 2017. That would be at least fifteen months ago. Granting a period of investigative discovery, remove three months and say the general outline of the scheme has been known to the internal DOJ/FBI administrative state for around a year.
With around six weeks left to the election, now we are slowly getting to see previously unreleased communication?
Surely text messages and emails that would have held much more investigative value prior to the testimony of Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr. Surely, these “NEW” communications would have been valuable to Inspector General Michael Horowitz during his own 16 month investigation (Jan ’17 – May ’18); yet for some unknown reason apparently withheld.
Remember the first batch of released Peter Strzok and Lisa Page messages? They were delivered to congress in July 2017; and released to the public in December 2017 and January 2018.
Those initial messages were also redacted upon release – why?
Remember the $70,000 McCabe desk being redacted? Does that sound like a redaction done by an altruistic investigative endeavor; or does that speak to the underlying ideology of the internal officials doing the message redactions?… Who are also likely controlling these recent releases…. Think about it.
It is important to note it appears only congress is leading the investigative sunlight upon these releases. That makes it 100% political. So, who is giving them to congress?
We can only surmise the same DOJ/FBI entities that did the initial redactions in July 2017. Some element within the DOJ and FBI apparatus, that is apparently in control of the most significant investigative material and making decisions on who gets what, when, and how much. It think it is a fair statement to say these controlling officials are some unknown element within the apparatus of the DOJ/FBI branch of the Administrative State.
Remember, for all matters related to the Russia investigation, Russia election interference, and anything related to the 2016 presidential campaign, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is recused. That carves his office out from anything surrounding this activity; and positions Rod Rosenstein at the hub along with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
That would be the same FBI Director Christopher Wray who did exactly nothing as an outcome of the May 2018 release of the IG report; and the same Christopher Wray who hired BACK former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente as the FBI Chief Legal Counsel to manage the FBI through the investigative minefield. Together with the same Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who testified to congress that he has absolutely no knowledge of who the lawyers are inside the DOJ and FBI that are giving instructions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok not to answer congressional questions. WATCH:
That testimony is not exactly a confidence builder for the diGenova proposition that some magnanimous investigative authority is holding a grand-jury wherein corrupt Lawfare associate James Baker is delivering devastating testimony to deconstruct and prosecute those former officials within the DOJ and FBI deep state. Someone is sending the FBI lawyers into congressional testimony and telling Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok not to answer any congressional questions; including about their contacts with the media.
And don’t forget the DOJ decision to allow former Senate Intelligence Committee Security Chief, James Wolfe, to avoid any of the more consequential charges for leaking classified intelligence to the media. That’s yet another example that doesn’t elicit great confidence in prosecution for less obvious law-breaking. I digress.
Again, hopefully I’m wrong – but there’s a pattern here: Fast-n-Furious, IRS Targeting, Benghazi, Clinton emails, Spy-gate and FISA-gate all have a ring of familiarity to them specifically about how the Administrative State holds, and then strategically releases, information. The key to understanding the pattern is to accept the Administrative State does everything to protect the Administrative State; even when it seems like those inside the apparatus are not protecting the interests of the Administrative State, they are.
♦So what does this latest development actually look like; and what does it mean?
Well, we have a good example for reference as provided by James Comey.
In October 2016 James Comey publicly announced the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation due to the New York FBI Field Office notifying DC of hundreds of thousands of emails and messages. FBI across the street from Main Justice was forced into action by FBI from New York and the EDNY.
Generally, the media framed this episode as Comey hurting Clinton; when actually the opposite was true. Comey didn’t make that decision in a vacuum, he was advised of the approach. The administrative state was more fearful of congress de-legitimizing Clinton’s presidency over post-election discoveries of hidden information. Comey was protecting her, and the state interests, not vice-versa. Remember, she was expected to win.
These latest “NEW” Peter Strzok messages, as timed for release, are following the same DOJ/FBI pattern and motivation.
By redacting the information within the prior Strzok and Page messages, and by withholding the “NEW” Strzok and Page messages (until now), the same internal officials within the DOJ/FBI (Administrative State), are controlling the potential for damage from them. Controlling the timing mitigates the risk. Nothing more.
From the DC perspective the hope is that Trump loses the House of Representatives; and with that loss the congressional alliance with the executive is removed. All of the corrupt elements enmeshed within the career DOJ and FBI appear to be controlling the outcomes here. Releasing the previously withheld “NEW” communication diffuses and mitigates their risk.
They DOJ/FBI kicked-the-can to September so they could release the messages prior to the election (in the closed 60-day prosecutorial window); they’ve already got Sessions muted/neutered, likely to be fired regardless of election outcome; and they’ve mitigated any value in discovery from a more aggressive AG replacement.
Again, for the umpteenth time, I want to be wrong. Bigly.
However, after watching a complete lack of action from the prior IG report on gross FBI misconduct (May ’18 until today); and factoring in the history of how DC operates their familiar Potomac two-step with all of the aforementioned examples; I just don’t see any magnanimous or investigative reason for withholding the prior information that would have exposed the scheme.
If the Strzok/Page messages were released in January through August, that would have severely impacted the Mueller investigation credibility. In addition, the IG report(s) and questioning of all previous witnesses by congress would have been enhanced. In my opinion that’s part of the reason these messages were withheld; not some super-stealthy plan to deliver the hammer upon Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok and all of the corrupt conspiring officials within the apparatus. I hope I’m wrong on this.
On the upside, there’s the potential these upcoming releases will help politically in November and put the democrats on their heels in advance of the November election. If the MAGA community can succeed on November 6th perhaps the DOJ will eventually get around to prosecuting someone, anyone, for the transparently illegal constructs.
If, big if, by some wonderful fate of luck, the third IG report on FISA abuse by the FBI is released in the next few weeks, that too would provide some measure of optimism toward intentional pre-election accountability. However, knowing the complex process in releasing a finished IG report, it does not appear that is likely to happen.
Here’s Joe diGenova again: