The Fabricated "Predicate" to Spy on the Trump Campaign by Larry C Johnson

While Inspector General Michael Horowitz did a pretty fair job of documenting the crimes of the FBI in getting the green light from a Federal Judge to spy on Carter Page as an ostensible agent of the Russians, he utterly failed to investigate the cornerstone (aka the "predicate") for launching this whole sordid affair. That predicate?  George Papadopoulos, an obscure foreign policy advisor to the Trump Campaign, reportedly told  Australia's High Commissioner to the UK (and Clinton crony), Alexander Downer, that the Russian Government had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But Papadopoulos was simply passing on gossip he heard from Joseph Mifsud, an intelligence agent tied to British secret services, not the Russians.

In a competent world of law enforcement and intelligence officials, this kind of hearsay (I heard it through the grapevine) would not pass the laugh test. But not in the partisan world of the FBI. The FBI leadership, according to Inspector General Horowitz, unanimously agreed that the unsubstantiated hearsay justified launching a full scale counterintelligence investigation and spying on the Trump campaign. Michael Horowitz reports that:

. . . the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)."

McCabe said the FBI viewed the FFG (aka Downer) information in the context of Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections in the years and months prior, as well as the FBI's ongoing investigation into the DNC hack by a Russian Intelligence Service (RIS). He also said that when the FBI received the FFG information it was a "tipping point" in terms of opening a counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia's attempts to influence and interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections because not only was there information that Russia was targeting U.S. political institutions, but now the FBI had received an allegation from a trusted partner that there had been some sort of contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Here is Mueller's account of how the investigation started:

In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud 's return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.

It is critical to take note that George Papadopoulos did not solicit Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. That offer came from Joseph Mifsud. Inspector General Horowitz makes little mention of Mifsud beyond noting that he lied to the FBI about his conversation with Papadopoulos. That incuriosity is troubling and inexcusable if one is serious about understanding the predicate for spying on the Trump campaign. Michael Horowitz took a pass.

Robert Mueller identifies Mifsud in the report as someone with close ties to Russia. Good old guilt by association without one shred of proof. Mueller's report describes Mifsud as:

. . . a Maltese national who worked as a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy in London, England.  Although Mifsud worked out of London and was also affiliated with LCILP, the encounter in Rome was the first time that Papadopoulos met him. Mifsud maintained various Russian contacts while living in London, as described further below.

Joseph Mifsud was not and is not an agent of Russia. He was working for western intelligence. If you want to get the full picture of Mifsud's ties to British intelligence, the CIA and the FBI, I encourage you to read, The Death of Russiagate?, Mueller team tied to Mifsud network, a tangled web. This article provides actual evidence about the intelligence pedigree of Joseph Mifsud. Robert Mueller, by contrast, provides not one single piece of actual evidence. Mueller and his team of clown lawyers relied on innuendo and guilt by association. And Horowitz just ignores Mifsud, pretending he is irrelevant to the "predication."

The next critical event in the predication chain, according to both Mueller and Horowitz, was Papadopoulos speaking with Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer. Mueller reports:

One week later, on May 6, 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate Clinton.

The name of Alexander Downer does not appear in Mueller or Horowitz report. 

Why did "FFG" aka Alexander Downer, who reportedly heard about the Russian dirt on Hillary from the lips of a tipsy George Papadopoulos in early May, wait more than two months to tell the United States about it? Downer claims it was Wikileaks publication of the emails that was the last straw. However, it was not a secret of state on June 14, 2016 when Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post reported Crowdstrike, a private cyber security firm hired by the DNC, "discovered" that the Russians had hacked the DNC. Why did Downer not react to that news? And why did the FBI treat the supposed attack by Russia with such an incurious approach? They did not set up a task force. They did not subpoena the server nor press the NSA for corroborating evidence that would have exposed a Russian plot.

Instead, Comey's FBI was content to passively receive information provided by Crowdstrike rather than get access themselves. No answer to these questions is provided by either Michael Horowitz or Robert Mueller.

A careful reading of the Horowitz report reveals that Downer told his hearsay to Gina Haspel, the current Director of the CIA who was the CIA's Chief of Station in London at the time.

On July 26, 2016, 4 days after Wikileaks publicly released hacked emails from the DNC, the FFG official spoke with a U.S. government (USG) official in the European city about an "urgent matter" that required an in-person meeting. At the meeting, the FFG official informed the USG official of the meeting with Papadopoulos. . . .

On Jul 27 2016 the USG official called the FBI's Legal Attache (Legat) and in the European city to her office and provided them [BLACKED OUT MATERIAL] The Legat told us he was not provided any other
information about the meetings between the FFG and Papadopoulos.

Notwithstanding Horowitz's narrow, legalistic finding that the actual "predicate" to start spying on the Trump campaign was because of what Alexander Downer said about George Papadopoulos, the testimony of Andrew McCabe makes it clear that the an alleged Russian role in the DNC hack also weighed heavily in favor of spying on Trump. It is essential to note that the FBI had no independent proof or evidence that Russia was in anyway responsible for the missing DNC emails. The FBI based their conclusion entirely on the unsubstantiated claim by Crowdstrike that "the Russians" had hacked the DNC. It is worth recalling that FBI Director Jim Comey testified in the Spring of 2017, under oath, that the FBI never gained access to the DNC server and that the FBI relied on information provided by Crowdstrike.

With the Horowitz report in the public sphere we can now compare his account of the Papadopoulos affair with that present by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. You will see that the story is nonsense. It also is a contrived set up. Alexander Downer's decision to report his "concern" to the CIA's Gina Haspel was the fruit of a covert action carried out by U.S. and foreign intelligence services working in tandem to go after Trump. The so-called "predicate" for the FBI was a deliberate, carefully crafted fabrication.

It started with the deliberate targeting of George Papadopolous by Joseph Mifsud, an intelligence operative working for the Brits and the CIA, not the Russians. Mifsud was planting evidence by telling Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The intent of this lure was to entice Papadopoulos to carry this offer back to the Trump campaign (which he did). But the Trump campaign did not bite. 

Despite the Trump campaign's refusal to take the Russian bait, having Alexander Downer report the rumor started by Mifsud as a "fact" of the intent of the Trump campaign to collude with the Russians became the raison d'être for getting The FBI. It is no mere coincidence that Gina Haspel, who was serving as the CIA Chief of Station in London at the Time, turned to The FBI to do its thing. 

What is shocking about the Horowitz conclusion justifying the predicate for spying on Donald Trump and his team is that neither Horowitz nor any other senior official at The FBI when these events unfolded was troubled by accepting as fact a third hand report that Russia had dirt on Hillary. What kind of dirt? No one among The FBI leadership asked that question according to Horowitz. The claim of "dirt" was accepted at face value. 

Having a foreign stooge like Alexander Downer carry the intel community's dirty water to the FBI provided a legalistic cover that the Bureau leadership could and did cite as a proper "legal" foundation for spying on the Trump campaign. The could safely claim that they did not know nothing about no spying while claiming to be just following the law. Welcome to the Washington Swamp's version of Kabuki theater. Sadly, Inspector General Horowitz played along with this charade.

Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. Prosecutor John Durham have put the Washington Swamp on notice that the Horowitz fiction about The FBI predicate will not survive. Durham has collected evidence and testimony from the intelligence community side of the house, as well as overseas, that will expose the FBI, at a minimum, as unwitting dupes out-smarted by duplicitous intelligence operatives. The more likely scenario is that key FBI officials will be indicted for participating in an elaborate scheme that is nothing short of sedition. It is worth noting that it was the FBI's Comey and McCabe who were insisting that the discredited Steele Dossier be included in the equally suspect January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. That does not sound like a couple of rubes being dragged around by their nose to do something they otherwise would not. A more appropriate term is "conspirator."

 

 

 

 

Jul 13, 2018 - “Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump

Comments

[Jack]

“I didn't find those FBI errors that significant.”

EO,

There was falsification of evidence (CIA email), misrepresentation of evidence (email from State Dept about credibility of Steele), exclusion of exculpatory evidence ( wired human sources & Steele sub-source).

Try these if you’re an ordinary citizen. What do you think prosecutors and a court would do to you? Roger Stone is looking at many many years for lying under oath. Flynn has been destroyed financially, notwithstanding the mental anguish. But ... Clapper, Brennan, Comey their lying under oath is A-Ok?

As TTG points out the FBI & DOJ got away with their “dickishness” aka illegality with Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewell and I’m sure countless other cases. This time they escalated it to an opposition presidential campaign, a president-elect and POTUS. Where will they go next if the hammer is not brought down on the individuals and the institutions?

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

[The Twisted Genius]

EO, the Steele dossier would have been a basis for a good old fashioned political smear campaign if the DNC and Clinton campaign used it. They paid for it and then kept it quiet. The same with the FBI, DOJ and Obama White House. They knew about Russian activities and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and refused to publicize them for political gain before the election. Those are not actions of coup plotters, even inept coup plotters. OTOH, Giuliani and the Trump supporting FBI NY Field Office insured the investigation of Clinton's email server was publicized for maximum political benefit. That's the state of our politics today.

I agree that our Senate committees run pretty well. Even the "rougher" House committees manage to run well. There's a lot of spleen venting and theatrics, but the job gets done. I do admire the sharp wit devastatingly employed in your Parliament on a regular basis. From here, it's immensely entertaining. At least neither of our governments are wrestling or throwing chairs at each other.

Our law enforcement and intelligence activities run a difficult balancing act between safety and security on one hand and individual freedom and Constitutional rights on the other hand. On the whole, we do a descent job at it, but I'm still bothered by our adversarial legal system. Both cops and prosecutors seek convictions rather than truth. I suppose it's the best we can do given the imperfect nature of man.

Renovations are going well. I've reached a point where I can halt until after the holidays with the house fully functional and esthetically pleasing. The wood flooring is a huge improvement over the old vinyl and carpeting. Also had to get all the Christmas decorations up before it got too late. I share your trepidation with ladders and heights in general. Setting a ladder securely often takes me almost as long as the actual job. Having two strapping sons to assist me when necessary also helps.

[The Twisted Genius]

Glad to hear your eye work is going well. My father found another old former Marine to drive him to his appointments and to a few other places until he gets his DL back. It's good he has another friend up there.

Your right. I'd probably get along well with your driver. I see little good coming out of the Trump administration. However, he's not the devil incarnate and has not cocked up the economy. In fact, he has accomplished a much needed update to NAFTA and his China negotiations will probably turn out fine. Our economy will continue to change with or without him. We will eventually realize we are not the indispensable nation destined to rule the world. I think Trump is leading us to that realization in his own crude, ugly manner.

[Larry Johnson]

Are you kidding? They absolutely did use it. The reports that comprised the dossier as of September was being briefed to Isikoff and Corn, among others. The Clinton campaign, using surrogates, made sure of this. You need to pay more attention to what is actually going on rather than try to excuse inexcusable, unlawful conduct by the FBI, the CIA, the DNI and the NSA.

[The Twisted Genius]

akaPatience, you should read Horowitz's full account of the email saying Page was never a CIA source. The CIA never gave the FBI Agent a straight answer. In fact the CIA characterized Page as someone who one of their actual sources merely obtained information from during a meeting where Page happened to attend. Maybe the CIA was trying to hide their relationship with Page. Reading that account, I'm still not sure what Page's status was with the CIA. Does Page claim he was a CIA source?

Steele's status with the FBI was also open to debate. The FBI rightfully considered him to be a confidential source. Steele insisted his relationship was just another business contract. I've had experience with this. One of my best clandestine assets never admitted that he was working for USI. He insisted he was working with me and not any government.

[Keith Harbaugh]

TTG wrote: "I agree that our Senate committees run pretty well."

Well, sundance over at CTH thinks he has come up with a major problem involving Senators Burr and Warner of the SSCI. See
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/11/ig-modifies-fisa-report-adds-declassification-aspect-per-doj-barr/
sundance's post starts with a lot of seemingly nit-picking detail,
but then shows why those details matter.
He then gives his summary of the situation (emphasis added):

CTH made the case in mid 2018 that
someone at the DOJ had influenced a decision not to charge Wolfe with the leaking of the FISA application;
despite
the FBI and DOJ having direct evidence of Wolfe leaking classified information.

The logical reason for the Rosenstein DOJ not to charge Wolfe with the FISA leak was because
that charge would ensnare powerful Senators on the powerful committee.
Worse still, in hindsight we now see how that committee was working to aide the purposes and intents of the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials as they built their impeachment agenda.

Remember,
the SSCI has intelligence oversight of the DOJ, DOJ-NSD, FBI and all associated counterintelligence operations.
Additionally, when the FBI was investigating Wolfe for leaking classified documents, according to their court filings they had to inform the committee of the risk Wolfe represented. Who did they have to inform?.. Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.

Think about it.
Both gang-of-eight members (Warner/Burr), who happened -as a consequence of the jaw dropping implications- to be two SSCI members who were warned by the FBI that Wolfe was compromised…. and they, along with Feinstein in 2016, were the co-conspirators who used James Wolfe.
[KH comment: That needs substantiation; sundance makes his argument in the post. His argument is not on-the-face-of-it absurd.]
The ramifications cannot be overstated.

Any criminal charges for leaking classified intelligence information against James Wolfe would likely result in a major scandal where
the SSCI itself was outlined as participants in the weaponization of government for political intents.
Thus, the perfect alignment of interests for a dropped charge and DC cover-up.

By the way, I hope Larry Johnson (especially) and Col. Lang take a good look at that sundance post.
It seems to be an area that LJ has some experience with.

[English Outsider]

Sorry - When I said the errors were "not significant" I didn't get my meaning across correctly.  There are two questions here, the general question that you raise and the specific question arising from this case.

1.  There's the general debate over how much we should sacrifice our privacy - and run the risk of false prosecution - in order to keep ourselves safe from terrorist activity or to preserve our security.  That leads to the quis custodiet debate.  It's a difficult question and you could see the Senators mulling over that question, sometimes changing their position on it, as the hearing proceeded.  The Horowitz report gave us a close look at what actually happens in a law enforcement agency and it's not pretty.

None of this is pretty.  Look at what they did to Flynn!  And to those others that TTG mentions above.  Clearly in that general context the errors Horowitz found were disturbing.

2.  But the fact that these errors occurred means nothing in this context.  In fact in themselves they might even show innocent intent.  If they do such things all the time then there's nothing "significant" about the fact that they did such things this time.

Above Larry Johnson states the two most likely scenarios -

1. Durham has collected evidence and testimony from the intelligence community side of the house, as well as overseas, that will expose the FBI, at a minimum, as unwitting dupes out-smarted by duplicitous intelligence operatives.

2. The more likely scenario is that key FBI officials will be indicted for participating in an elaborate scheme that is nothing short of sedition.

As you say " This time they escalated it to an opposition presidential campaign, a president-elect and POTUS." and you'd think that innocent of malice or not, and no matter how they work normally, they'd be a bit more careful when going after a President.  Even so, is it not the case that both of Mr Johnson's scenarios must be entertained until further hard and indisputable evidence comes along? 

[turcopolier]

KH

A senate trial on a charge of impeachment is not affected by any other preceding process. It is based altogether on the description of the event in the constitution.

[English Outsider]

TTG - only problem I have is that there's no innocent scenario that fits the UK end. David Habakkuk has written about the choice they had in London whether to back Steele or hang him out to dry. Once they chose the former option there's no innocent scenario possible at that UK end. Not after the dossier went public.

You and the other Intelligence experts are of course focusing on the Intelligence stuff. All very murky that still, to borrow Mr Horowitz' term, but the "salacious" stuff is clear as day. Once that was put out HMG had no choice but to hastily disavow Steele and make their peace with Washington. But they didn't. And from what's come out since there's no possibility that Steele was a lone ex-operative going rogue. They knew all about his activities, if only because he told Dearlove in advance.

The quis custodiet question is one I think your people take more seriously than ours. Our press is more docile than yours and perhaps that's the reason.

Glad you enjoy our Parliament. I'm still stunned with disbelief that we sent much the same losers back to Parliament as occupied it before. It's not just our press that's docile, I reckon, it's us. Other places they'd have hanged the lot by now.

[turcopolier]

KH

""I hope Larry Johnson (especially) and Col. Lang take a good look at that sundance post. It seems to be an area that LJ has some experience with." I would think you were a trouble making troll but your incapacity with such concepts as courtesy and tact is well known to me.

[Jack]

EO,

Unwitting dupes can never be an excuse for exoneration of officials impinging the liberty of any American citizen. Period.

If your job is to insure that all precautions are taken before presenting evidence to a court and in particular a FISA court and you fail because you were dumb or incompetent, IMO, you and your chain of command should still be punished in order that even if you are an incompetent you will take even more care to be certain. There was an old tradition that the captain went down with the ship.

I’m a Depression era kid, so my value system may not be representative of the current milieu. My grandpa always impressed on me that liberty from a tyrannical government was the essence of our founding. Franklin’s apparent statement that if you trade a little liberty for more security, you will neither have security nor liberty is where I stand. That is why I have always opposed mass surveillance, the Patriot Act and FISA as well as expansive security state powers. I’m willing to trade security for more liberty, especially from a tyrannical government.

[The Twisted Genius]

EO, that "salacious" stuff was the talk of the internet when the BuzzFeed article came out. It was the only thing talked about for the first 24 hours, usually as the butt of a joke. Some time after that, a BBC correspondent reported the CIA told him there were multiple tapes and recordings of Trump's sexual escapades in Moscow and Saint Petersburg hotels in the possession of RIS. Some say this can't be. Trump's a germaphobe, yet unprotected sex with a porn star doesn't trigger his phobia. What appears to be the most far fetched claim by Steele may not be that far fetched at all.

What's the chances of Scotland going independent next year? I see the SNP picked up support.

[The Twisted Genius]

Fred, do you think the evidence presented in the indictment of the GRU 12 came from CrowdStrike? That info came from the NSA. Also, the server images handed to the FBI are far more valuable than the servers themselves. Images capture data in memory in addition to the data on the drives. Ripping the servers out looses that memory dump. The FBI only grabs servers out of racks when they want to shut down the network... or be dicks. If it was just evidence and intelligence they wanted, they would leave the servers in place and running. The bulk of those DNC servers are still part of the DNC network. They've been running for three years and no longer have evidential or intelligence value.

[turcopolier]

TTG

How do you know it was unprotected?

[The Twisted Genius]

Both Stormy Daniels, the porn star, and Karen McDougal described their sex with Trump. He refused to wear protection. Daniels passed a polygraph exam on the question.

[Fred]

TTG,

I think Larry debunked that thoroughly more than once.

The FBI was handed images of the server, which unlike the email edited by the DOJ lawyer, in violation of law, as referenced by the DOJ IG report being commented on here, would NEVER be edited by Crowdstrike, a company hired by the DNC! Only the world's premier law enforcement agency would make a "mistake" like that. Or a DOJ lawyer.

Vladimir, hopefully, doesn't interfere in the 2020 election by sending one of the GRU 12 to court to demand discovery as required by US law. I'm sure Brennan, Comey and Clapper and the Crowdstrike team would love to testify about those matters.

[Factotum]

The current release of Clint Eastwood's brilliant new movie "Richard Jewell", which showcases the FBI rush to judgement along with a braying media, could not be timed better. What a coincidence, with the Horowitz report still ringing in our ears. And the lynch-mob media still howling for Trump blood.

Favorite line: Jewell has deep and loyal admiration for "the government" which he sees personified as the FBI team who is now interrogating him as the Atlanta bombing suspect.

His lawyer warns Jewell: the FBI investigators are not the government, but just three guys who happen work for the government, strongly admonishing Jewell to know the difference.

[Factotum]

Twisted - I hope you take a look at a recent Hoover Institution interview with Victor Davis Hansen about Trump, and where he fits into our historic political American saga - he is the right man at the right time, yet as many like him since time immemorial he will ultimately be seen as a tragic hero -Hansen explains why in classical, mythic terms.

Quite a compelling interview - and yes Victor Davis Hansen does predict Trump's re-election. But that he will never be a loved person by the opposition, no matter how much he accomplishes. Which is his fatal personal flaw - he has done so much, yet his opposition is unrelenting.

Obama'a legacy was thin as tissue paper. Trump' legacy is fixed by the sheer number of strict-constructionist judges he was able to appoint to the federal bench - and within striking distance of deeply changing the US Supreme Court for decades to come. Back to our foundational roots at this very unstable time - the unstable Obama progressive agenda time, that Trump inherited. Trump does far more than complain; he rolled his sleeves up and got things done.

[turcopolier]

TTG

Well, that is bizarrere given his well known fear of germs. So, you think he is mad?

[The Twisted Genius]

Mad as a hatter
Full of shit
Crafty as a fox

Any or all of the above.

[turcopolier]

TTG

so, you would have preferred Clinton or Sanders as president.

[The Twisted Genius]

Fred, CrowdStrike could have edited those disk images before turning them over to the FBI and the other IT security companies that corroborated CrowdStrike's work. If that edit was discovered by the FBI, I doubt they would ever get another government contract. If their competitors discovered the edit, CrowdStrike would be hounded out of the industry. And it would still have to match the data captured from the GRU's command and control server and transfer point servers. A successful editing job would have been a tall order.

[The Twisted Genius]

I probably would have been happy with Sanders. Given the extent of Russia's attempted interference with the election, I'd be leery of how antagonistic Clinton would have been towards Russia. And she wouldn't have improved anything in the Mideast. At least Trump might do something there, although his first three years have been a bust in that department.

[akaPatience]

Gee, during her polygraph exam, I wonder if Stormy's eyes were as glazed, with hugely dilated pupils, as they were during her 60 Minutes interview?

[English Outsider]

100% agree. " .. if you trade a little liberty for more security, you will neither have security nor liberty is where I stand." A satisfactory balance between security and liberty is most difficult to achieve and, as said, you could see the Senators referring to just that question as the hearing progressed.

But here it's just a question of what normal practice is. If it's not normal practice to doctor a file then doctoring a file to (ultimately) get Trump could show malicious intent. If they do it all the time then it just shows they're following routine and no malicious intent can be inferred.

I think that that's what TTG is pointing out. It's also why Larry Johnson, in that part of his article quoted, left his options open. Certainly Horowitz did and that refusal to go an inch further than what can be proved past doubt - and to both sides - is just what gives credibility to his report.