Sep 24

Sep 24 Spygate: Leaky WaPo reporter drops book to spin Weiner laptop bungle

By TATIANA PROPHET

Washington Post reporter Devlin Barrett knows his way around Washington’s spy agencies. He knows them so well, that he was the favorite avenue for the targeted leaks of FBI attorney Lisa Page and counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, the lead agent on Crossfire Hurricane (the probe into Russian attempts to steal the 2016 presidential election).

It was Barrett who first identified Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as the target of a FISA warrant (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant) — after Lisa Page (no relation) arranged the leak by her own account, for a WaPo story in April 2017. The intent was to smear Carter Page and set the stage for the “insurance policy” that agent Strzok had referred to in his private texts with lawyer Page. It took three years for the public to learn that Carter Page had been a CIA asset all along, and that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered an e-mail shared with the FISA court, to state that Page was not a CIA asset. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last month to altering an e-mail.

Now Barrett, clearly more than an observer in the travesty that was FISA-gate, has written a book about a uniquely puzzling aspect of the election: the infamous Oct. 28 letter to Congress written by then-FBI director James Comey which amounted to a textbook definition of an “October Surprise.”

On Tuesday, Barrett adapted his own book, titled “October Surprise,” in The Washington Post with an article entitled “Book excerpt: An FBI sex crimes investigator helped trigger 2016’s ‘October Surprise.’ “

Here is the analysis and opinion part of this article: Barrett’s book is an attempt to get ahead of more revelations in the scandal that has already received a reprimand from agency inspector general Michael Horowitz.

In the excerpt, he takes the point of view of FBI Special Agent John Robertson, the investigator in the New York field office tasked with going over Anthony Weiner’s laptop as part of the sex crimes case involving Weiner and a 15-year-old girl. Those of us following these things have heard about the New York FBI field office informing FBI leadership including deputy director Andrew McCabe in a Sept. 28 weekly teleconference, of the existence of hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton-related e-mails on the laptop. Comey was blowing hot air at Congress that day.

Agent Strzok and McCabe ended up sitting on the info for a month and not even executing a search warrant to examine the laptop until the end of October — hence leading to the totally unnecessary “cover my ass” October Surprise Oct. 28 by James Comey.

In this article is Insider’s attempt to spin the delay as a series of unfortunate events, while providing insight into how important those e-mails might be.

”These appeared to include the emails from Clinton's earliest days as secretary of state —the time period when she was most likely to have explained or commented on her decision to use private email — which the FBI had been unable to retrieve through other means.”

Barrett does not mention reasons for top brass sitting on the evidence. Via protagonist Robertson, he instead fingers Robertson’s immediate superiors Amanda Kramer and Stephanie Lake, as hearing his concerns about the delay in examining the new evidence. According to the book, it was prosecutors Kramer and Lake who told Robertson that if he went outside his chain of command, he could be fired and even prosecuted.

Barrett brings in then-US attorney Preet Bahrara as being informed of the delay, but not wishing to step on “a whole slew of” toes at the FBI by disrupting the chain of command. Bharara decided to consult with then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to Barrett. Strangely, though, his article doesn’t state what Yates advised — just brings up her name. We know Yates was at the Jan. 5, 2017, White House meeting discussing incoming National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn and his calls to then-Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak during the transition period. We also know that she tnestified to Congress after her firing that she personally viewed the surveillance material on Trump after his unmasking (requested by DNI James Clapper).

Barrett’s spin of omission is strong in this article; as he failed to mention how long Andrew McCabe had known about the hundreds of thousands of Clinton-related e-mails that had gone unexamined for weeks before Comey’s parlor trick.

And the parlor trick wouldn’t have been necessary if it weren’t for special agent John Robertson, who raised enough of an alarm that the FBI top brass was worried that if they didn’t disclose the Weiner laptop to Congress, they would end up looking even more incompetent than they already did.

Barrett appears to understand his task well: Divulge all material that has already made it out of classified (i.e., anything in the Horowitz report), drop a few names of people who might end up taking the fall for the flagrant misconduct and alleged criminal behavior, and leave readers in a state of confusion over a scandal that appears more tiresome than titillating (by design).

This is a common technique by spy agencies and their minions: Make things look very damning for their henchmen, then in the end? Admit to lesser offences and display some slaps on the wrist. Case in point:

“In the coming years and months, FBI and Justice Department officials far higher up the chain — including Comey — would write similar memos, seeking to document sensitive conversations in real time and protect their reputations as they dealt with investigations of political figures,” writes Barrett. “Robertson’s email — which has not been previously disclosed — was the first in that pattern, revealing a crisis of conscience that would repeat and reverberate throughout the FBI, the Justice Department and the country in ways no one could predict.

Amazing that the intel establishment appears to be throwing Clapper, Yates, Bharara, Kramer and Lake under the bus. Perhaps they’ve become excellent singers during their time in the private sector. Stay tuned for more big reveals, and definitely some scapegoating.

Special Agent John Robertson has the last word, as quoted by Barrett:

“I have very deep misgivings about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation into the Hillary Clinton email matter,” Robertson wrote in a memo to himself. Reports Barrett: “however, I am not an institutional representative of the FBI. I do not have the authority (or competence, I suppose) to make determinations of this nature.”

Describes the skilled spinmeister Barrett:

“ ‘Put simply: I don’t believe the handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is that I have completed CYA, and I have done so,’ Robertson wrote, using the acronym for ‘cover your ass.’ “

“ ‘Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be prosecuted, and she wished to ‘talk me out of it’ should I want to whistleblow. I was informed that this material’ — the Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop — ‘was obtained after the subpoena was served, and the subpoena is only for materials possessed at the time of service.’ “