A Washington Post spin article attempts to defend the DOJ/FBI “small group” 2016 campaign effort by claiming vindication from IG Horowitz and U.S. AG Barr not accepting the finding. But not so fast…

Before getting to the WaPo narrative construction a little background review is worthwhile; starting with the original investigative purpose of the IG review. The Horowitz review was initiated to look into how the DOJ and FBI secured a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page:

IG Horowitz was never investigating the predicate claims that initiated the CIA/FBI operation known as “Crossfire Hurricane”. So how exactly would AG Barr and IG Horowitz be diverging on an aspect to a predicate that Horowitz was never reviewing?

Additionally, IG Horowitz was never tasked or empowered to interview CIA officers who are known to have been at the heart of the pre-July 2016 operation. Horowitz was/is focused on the DOJ and FBI compliance with legal requirements for the FISA application that was assembled for use in October 2016, and renewed throughout 2017.

So what we are seeing in the Washington Post framework is the intentional use of a narrow IG review to obfuscate, provide cover, and conflate a larger investigation undertaken by U.S. Attorney Durham. The media attempt to conflate two narratives is not accidental.

Going back to the apropos statement by David Mamet: ‘in order to succeed in their endeavors leftists have to pretend not to know things’; never is this more clear than when you consider the status of U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Obviously the investigation by Durham is the key investigation of the political activity of the intelligence community during the 2016 election; but have you ever seen a single media journalist attempting to interview Durham about the progress? Think about it.

You know what it looks like, you’ve seen it a thousand times on television.

…The U.S. attorney is walking into the office from his car and a half dozen cameras and reporters are rushing alongside and asking questions. Have you seen that customary media effort even once since U.S. Attorney Durham was announced as investigating the origins of the Trump campaign surveillance? No, why not?

Have you witnessed a single reporter even attempting to ask cursory questions to U.S. Attorney Durham? The reason for the void is within what Mamet described… the need to pretend not to know things. Combine that ideological need with intentional leaking to Washington Post reporters like Devlin Barrett and you discover the strategy, reason and purpose for a conflation of investigative findings.

This crew of corrupt and political FBI, DOJ and IC officials, hang out socially with same network of media journalists, friends and spouses who cover them. These are like-minded travelers who together with political operatives all collate in the same tribal circles.

Think of what would happen on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or a Sunday talk show if a person were to ask the pundit: Hey, Chuck Todd how come you never see an NBC news crew and satellite truck trying to get a comment from John Durham?…

Within the WaPo article they note: “Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report.” Why is that sentence placed within the WaPo chaff and countermeasures?

The answer is simple. The described AG letter is transparently going to be included, because Barr has to explain -with an ongoing investigation- that Horowitz did not have access to CIA, DIA, ODNI and ancillary contributory information that builds out on the FISA aspect to his IG 2016 election review. The Horowitz report is a fact-finding investigation for one important part, but it is only one part.

Understanding that Durham is looking at the July 31st, Crossfire Hurricane predicate; and the intelligence activity that preceded that predicate; it makes sense for AG Bill Barr to qualify the parameters of the Inspector General FISA report.

Additionally, understanding that Durham is looking at the preceding 2015 and 2016 predicate, it makes sense within the collective network of interests we would see this type of political priority resurface:

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origin of the James Clapper and John Brennan initiated Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) is a risk to all of the interests who assembled the 2016 vast Russian collusion-conspiracy. Again, Horowitz was not tasked to go anywhere near this. Horowitz is looking at whether the DOJ and FBI complied with internal DOJ/FBI rules and processes during their FISA application and use within the FISA court.

The Washington Post wants to sell a narrative that AG Bill Barr is not accepting the inspector general finding on the origin of the Russia investigation; but the inspector general did not investigate the origin of the Russia investigation. The purpose of the WaPo report is to intentionally conflate the two issues.

(Via Washington Post) Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign. Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, these people said. It’s not yet clear how Barr plans to make his objection to Horowitz’s conclusion known. The inspector general report, currently in draft form, is being finalized after input from various witnesses and offices that were scrutinized by the inspector general. Barr or a senior Justice Department official could submit a formal letter as part of that process, which would then be included in the final report. It is standard practice for every inspector general report to include a written response from the department. Barr could forgo a written rebuttal on that specific point and just publicly state his concerns. (more) See the wordplay? There are no “concerns“, there are distinctions. I’ll be the first person who will call out the IG for whitewashing the findings of his investigation depending on the evidence he outlines or hides. Horowitz did that with the 2018 report on DOJ/FBI activity in the Clinton email investigation. However, that said, I’m also the first person to say ignore the media, and let’s wait and see the actual report. …”How incredibly tragic is it, with all the documents and communications that AG Bill Barr & U.S. Attorney Durham can see today, that they are not acted upon BEFORE the House can brand President Trump with the words “Impeached President” for the rest of eternity.”… FUBAR !