The U.S. Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) was created in 1973 and reports to the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General. The AGAC represents the U.S. Attorneys and provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General on matters of policy, procedure, and management impacting the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys.

The purpose of the AGAC is to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the Attorney General’s priority throughout the broad U.S. justice system. [28 CFR § 0.10]

As much as possible pay attention to the dates and names (highlighted) as they each play an important role in understanding what has taken place in the past two years.

On February 8th, 2017, the Senate confirmed Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General.

On November 13th, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed the first nine U.S. Attorney’s to serve on his Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC).

NOTE: Why AG Sessions waited nine months to appoint his Advisory Committee members is unknown.

Those November 2017 appointments included: U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Richard Moore; U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John W. Huber; U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Justin E. Herdman; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Robert Higdon; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma Trent Shores; U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Joshua Minkler; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen; and Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Alaska Bryan Schroder.

AG Jeff Sessions appointed Richard Moore (Alabama) as Chairman of the AGAC, and John W Huber (Utah) as Vice-Chairman.

“I am pleased to announce the first members of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee under this administration. These U.S. Attorneys will play an important role in carrying out the Department of Justice’s mission to reduce violent crime, combat transnational criminal organizations, secure our southern border, end the devastating opioid crisis, and return to the rule of law,” said Attorney General Sessions

Four months later, on March 12th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the appointment of six additional U.S. Attorneys to serve two-year terms on the AGAC, joining the nine members previously selected on November 13, 2017.

The six additional members were:

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Erin Nealy Cox; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Richard P. Donoghue; U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama Louis V. Franklin, Sr.; U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois John R. Lausch, Jr.; U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Andrew E. Lelling; and U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David C. Weiss. (link)

[Many of you may remember John Lausch was also the AGAC member who Jeff Sessions instructed in April 2018 to act as the facilitator for congressional document demands.]

Sidenote: Three of these AG Advisory Committee members would later play a role in the DOJ issues surrounding potential misconduct, and FISA-gate/Spygate:

♦John Huber was instructed by Jeff Sessions (November 22nd, 2017) to review congressional concerns about DOJ and FBI bias surrounding Hillary Clinton -vs- Donald Trump (election 2016), coordinate with IG Michael Horowitz, and respond with recommendations (if any). [Full stop]

♦John Lausch was instructed by Sessions (April 8th, 2018) to facilitate document delivery to congressional oversight. [That didn’t work out; likely due to Mueller probe control and a combination of departmental embarrassment.]

♦Jessie K. Liu, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was assigned the criminal referral of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (April 19, 2018); and was in charge of the impaneled grand jury (Approx. July 2018); [8 months ago]

Likely selected by Attorney General Barr, Ms. Liu is soon going to be promoted, if confirmed, to be the Associate Attorney General; the Justice Department’s No. 3 top official [replacing Rachael Brand].

Hopefully now you can see additional context for why Jeff Sessions requested administrative assistance specifically from John Huber & John Lausch as it pertained to growing congressional demands of the AG. Both are on the AG Advisory Committee.

Given the distance from the original McCabe grand jury investigation (8 months); and accepting the current high-profile book tour by Andrew McCabe; and considering Ms. Liu is soon to exit as U.S. Attorney for DC; it would appear legal issues around McCabe are no longer looming. However, McCabe’s lawsuit against the DOJ is still ongoing.

Though I would be remiss in not pointing out the leak of a grand jury looking into the criminal McCabe referral (based on lies to the OIG) might make a great cover story for an ongoing review of McCabe’s involvement in constructing the FISA fraud. {fingers-crossed}

♦ Early in the morning on March 7th, 2019, the U.S. DOJ announced a sweeping operation against multiple entities surrounding “elder abuse”. More than 260 indictments (link). A few hours later AG William Barr held a press conference (link). Shortly after the press conference Barr met with victims (link); and mid-afternoon, after meeting with victims, AG Barr met with key tech industry leadership to discuss what they could do to help the DOJ combat “elder abuse” (link).

All of that is the basic background and context for THIS event which took place late in the afternoon on the same day, March 7th, 2019:

Pictured: On March 7th, 2019, newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr meets with the aforementioned Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC). Note AGAC Chairman Richard Moore standing to the left (two hands on chair), as Mr. Barr meets his AGAC Vice-Chairman John Huber.

Late in the afternoon AG William Barr held the first meeting with the AG Advisory Committee. Much speculation is being made around this meeting. Some have projected a great deal more meaning into this picture than actually exists.

The March 7th meeting was simply the introductory session of the fifteen AGAC members to Attorney General William Barr. U.S. Attorney John Huber was present for the meeting as Vice-Chairman of the AGAC, nothing more. Anything beyond that is wild speculation.

Within this meeting, AG Barr is able to meet the Advisory Committee members, assess their skills and competence and lay out his vision for the U.S DOJ under his tenure. Nothing more purposeful than an assembly of the AGAC should be read into this meeting.

US Attorneys thoroughly enjoyed our time with AG Barr this week. He is a solid, proven leader with a clear vision for the @DOJ. We will move forward with his priorities, hold offenders accountable, and advance the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/cl1ApkgD7o — U.S. Attorney Huber (@USAttyHuber) March 8, 2019

U.S. Attorney John Huber, who serves as vice chair of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, met with new AG William Barr this week in Washington, D. C. ⁦@TheJusticeDept⁩ pic.twitter.com/3cZqagJCAv — US Attorney Utah (@DUTnews) March 7, 2019

Despite CTH being the first to discover the existence of a U.S. Attorney back in February 2018 working with/advising Horowitz; and confirming that discovery in March 2018 before it was publicly admitted; CTH can find absolutely no evidence that John Huber remained attached to any of the investigative outcomes from the OIG reports.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but Paul Sperry also did a lot of interviews looking for evidence that Huber was active and supporting the OIG effort. Sperry came away with the same conclusions [read here]. Exactly the opposite is visible, and current witnesses within the IG FISA review have not been interviewed by any U.S. Attorney.

It would appear that after the IG narrowed his investigative field to only the remaining FISA-investigation, there was no longer a direct need for U.S. Attorney Huber and he departed along with U.S. Attorney John Lausch.

Now, keeping the above dates in mind; and sticking to facts without supposition; here’s a factual timeline that tells a story and might help make sense of what’s going on:

♦On January 12th, 2017, the DOJ Office of Inspector General began investigating issues surrounding FBI policy breeches, media leaks, improper conduct by FBI officials and politicization by the FBI and DOJ (link) This initial investigation would result in two OIG reports (April ’18 – McCabe) and (June ’18 – Overall DOJ/FBI conduct)

♦On July 27th and September 26th, 2017, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte was demanding Jeff Sessions revisit issues about potential DOJ and FBI corruption during the Obama administration.

♦On November 13th, 2017, AG Sessions responded to congress that the OIG was already looking into it; and he was going to appoint a ‘senior U.S. Attorney‘ to assist. (link) This AG response is the same day that AG Sessions announced his first nine AG Advisory Committee members, which included John Huber as Vice-Chair (link).

♦On November 22, 2017, Sessions’ chief-of-staff, Matt Whitaker, sends a formal request for administrative review to U.S. Attorney John Huber (link). Included in the request is the prior AG response to congress so that Huber can see what needs to be reviewed. (link)

♦On March 28th, 2018, IG Michael Horowitz expanded his oversight (link) and opened up a third investigation; this time into possible FISA abuse.

♦On March 29, 2018, again shortly after appointing more AGAC members (which included John Lausch), AG Sessions responds to more congressional inquiry (link) by citing the previous IG Horowitz review, now consisting of three investigations, and a John Huber assist (if needed). (link)

♦On April 13, 2018, the first Horowitz report was published (link). This report covered mostly the behavior of Andrew McCabe and was followed six days later with a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney in Washington DC, Jessie Liu (link)

♦On June 14, 2018, the second Horowitz report was published (link). This report was much more involved and covered the totality of FBI and DOJ conduct and potential political bias throughout 2016. The report cited “poor judgement” by numerous officials, and poor internal behavior with FBI officials contacting media, but the OIG did not find “direct evidence” of political bias. There were no criminal referrals. (link)

That only leaves one OIG report remaining. The one covering potential FISA abuse:

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 report #3.

DOJ Official Bruce Ohr is likely still employed for the same reason the dispatch of Peter Strzok and James Baker was delayed prior to the finalization of IG report #2. The OIG and INSD (inspection division) can only reach those still inside the system.

On the narrow issue of how the DOJ and FBI assembled, handled and used the FISA application (and subsequent Title-1 surveillance warrant), against the Trump campaign and officials therein, Bruce Ohr is a key and central witness for the OIG (link).

Mr. Ohr has testified (transcript here) that he was interviewed by IG Horowitz about his role in assembling the information that was later used in gaining a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant without following the Woods Procedure. [Note: Mr. Ohr was never interviewed by John Huber]

Unlike the previous OIG report #2 (Election-era Issues) if the OIG can find direct and intentional “gross misconduct” (by referencing traditional and historic FISA application assembly therein), toward those officials who participated in the FISA assembly, then it becomes possible the OIG report could potentially outline that the FISA application resulted in serious fourth amendment civil rights violations. And that perspective could be a narrow opening toward legal issues for DOJ and FBI officials who participated in assembling an *intentional* and fraudulently-based application to the FISA court.

Unfortunately, that approach is a very high bar for the OIG to reach. Again, the OIG would have to find “direct evidence” of “gross misconduct” resulting in civil rights violations. The defensive arguments by the corrupt group would be filled with legal justification(s) and internal process discussion. Lots of room for reasonable doubt.

Also unfortunate, any finding of “fourth amendment” FISA-abuse would be adverse to the interests of the larger U.S. intelligence apparatus and institutional participants who rely on the current use of the FISA process. Current officials would want to protect it.

I suspect the team of DOJ/FBI officials who abused the FISA court, and are now watching things unfold, are also relying upon the institutional necessity of the FISA process to protect themselves from too much scrutiny and sunlight.

An example of that unfortunate reality is found with HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes advocating for FISA reauthorization on January 11th, 2018 (link); right in the middle of the explosive revelations and discoveries of potential abuse.

As HPSCI Chairman, Devin Nunes knew back in 2017 the FISA process was abused for corrupt political intent. However, he also knows it is a critical component and tool for the U.S. intelligence system and national security. Currently Mr. Nunes is advocating for a much larger conversation about it before any further re-authorization.

Lastly, assuming Robert Mueller is not impeding the IG’s ability to interview witnesses and gather documents; I would anticipate hearing about the end of Horowitz’s FISA report sometime in April, likely with a media leak surrounding the first draft report being submitted to principles and stakeholders for feedback.

There’s a slight chance leaks about the content therein; or at least the timing thereof; might be part of Speaker Pelosi’s recent decision to drop the impeachment narrative.

One can only imagine the downstream political chaos if IG Horowitz started cracking open the doors to possible civil rights violations from Obama-era FISA abuse.

There may not be a great deal of legal accountability forthcoming, but there could be a considerable amount of political damage. Hopefully a looming documentary declassification will deliver a thunderous amount of sunlight in all directions.