Russiagate Deep in the Woods File

A little cleanup in the Flynn aisle from sundance at CTH, Flynn Case Update: Defense, DOJ and Amicus Agree on Expedited Resolution Schedule…

The DOJ and Michael Flynn defense attorney Sidney Powell have filed a joint status report and motion for expedited hearing with Judge Emmet Sullivan. [pdf available here] According to the filing the DOJ and defense have conferred with the Sullivan appointed amicus (Gleeson) who will respond to the motion to dismiss by September 11th.

Following the Sept. 11th amicus briefing, the DOJ and defense will jointly respond and that should end the need for further briefings and replies. As a consequence the proposed date for court appearance, and hopeful final disposition, are: Sept: 23, 24, 28, 29.

The good news is that it's getting done, the bad news is that the "amicus", Sullivan's hand picked persecutor is still in the mix. DOJ should have the last word on whether someone should or should not be prosecuted.

Alex Nitzberg at JTN,  DNI Ratcliffe accuses Democrats of creating misleading intelligence document, "The Democrat memo 'by no means reflects the full and complete analysis of the IC," Ratcliffe explained." Now why would they do that?

Also from sundance, Expanded or Targeted Investigative Review of Special Counsel?…

Red State has a good article expanding consideration of the Sara Carter exclusive this week surrounding a recent DOJ and FBI admission to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann, “recreating” the original Woods File to support the June 29, 2017, Carter Page FISA application.

[Red State Here -AND- Sara Carter Here]

In essence the questions are: why would the special counsel need to re-create a file? And if so what would be the purpose behind “losing” their original?

However, CTH would add an overlaying question: What investigative event would precipitate the DOJ approaching the FBI to inquire about investigative “files” secured and handled by the special counsel?….. Such that the SSCI would need to be brought into the information pipeline recently.

I've already linked the Sara Carter article, but the Red State article from 'shipwreckedcrew' is a doozy. Did Mueller Prosecutors Know of Problems With Carter Page FISA, Approved It Anyway, and Later “Recreated” The “Woods File” To Cover Up The Misconduct? Magic 8-Ball says likely.

What that footnote suggests but doesn’t make explicit is that the FBI agents who sought the third extension were working for the SCO when the decision was made to seek the third extension — i.e., if the SCO had not wanted the third extension, no such effort would have been made. There is NO suggestion that anyone at FBI HQ or DOJ — separate from the SCO — commanded that the third application be made to extend the FISA warrant.

And this brings us to a critical issue — did SCO review the original application and first two extensions, compare the allegations in the applications against the Woods File, and realize the scope of the problems? Were these problems known before the third extension was sought under the authority of the SCO?

How does the Woods File — stored electronically in the FBI’s Sentinel database — get “lost”? And at what point in time did the SCO decide it was necessary to “reconstruct” a replacement Woods File by reverse engineering it through analyzing the applications to determine the specific factual allegations needed source documentation — other than the Steele Memos — in order to justify their inclusion in the third application to extend.

Was the ACTUAL Woods File so lacking — or so dependent on the allegations of the Steele Memos — that someone in the SCO realized it was a “ticking time bomb” waiting to be uncovered once an authorized investigator was given the responsibility to sort things out?
. . .
To COVER ALL THIS UP after the Mueller Prosecutors had signed off on seeking the third extension, the cut loose Clinesmith in the Report because they knew by that time of his falsification of the CIA email, the Mueller Prosecutors then “reverse engineered” the Woods File so it would appear to have been much more complete than it had been when the third extension was approved by the Mueller Prosecutors. It is impossible to know now whether the “recreated” Woods File is a “fair and accurate” representation of the Woods File as it existed in June 2017 when the Mueller Prosecutors approved the third application for a FISA extension.

COVER UP.

Once again demonstrating the Mueller team was a team of failed political assassins.

Nick Arama, Red State, Peter Strzok Promotes Debunked Atlantic Story Against Trump, But Gets Dropped on His Head by the White House

Are you going to try to frame me for a crime I didn’t commit, too?

Give my best to Lisa. https://t.co/0MdKBxCDlL

— Brian Morgenstern (@BMorgenstern45) September 4, 2020

and via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 09.04.20, Jeff Dunetz at da The Lid: People Must Stop Defending John McCain – He Ended His Career As A Jerk & Started Russiagate

John McCain was a war hero. But he wasn’t a senate hero. At the end of his senate career, the Senator crapped all over his conservative colleagues like Senators Paul and Cruz. He disparaged Sarah Palin in his book saying he regretted not picking Joe Lieberman instead of her. He actually said that. Despite the fact that by that time he knew that Palin destroyed her political career by becoming his running mate. In one of his last acts as a senator, he changed his vote at the last minute and blocked the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But McCain’s worst move of all was starting the process that became the Russia hoax. . . .

Fox, Hunter Biden's deals 'served' China and its military, new documentary claims. Of Course. Whatever China does, it does for the good of the CCP and the Chinese military.

The 41-minute documentary is narrated by best-selling writer Peter Schweizer, who authored 2015’s “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” and has previously written about Hunter’s business dealings in China.

It is being shown online by the BlazeTV network, which on Thursday finished posting it to YouTube in six segments.

Also, Republicans want AG to determine whether Pelosi committed criminal act for ripping up Trump speech

The GOP lawmakers believe Pelosi could have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071 which deals with the mutilation of official federal records and sets a criminal penalty of destroying documents of up to three years in prison.

The allegation against Pelosi isn't new. Immediately following the State of the Union, some conservative figures charged that Pelosi may have broken the law by ripping up her copy of Trump's speech. Now, the lawmakers say they want this issue finally resolved.

OK, it's kind of silly, but it's not like they wouldn't use it to impeach Trump (again) if they could.

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links.