Investigating the Investigators

Areas of focus for the House committee on the “Weaponization of the Federal Government"

With House Republicans having decided on the Speaker, one of their next items of business is one that is well overdue: the formation of a new subcommittee on the “Weaponization of the Federal Government,” which would conduct a thorough investigation of abuses by federal law enforcement and national security agencies.  

According to a recent interview with Rep. Chip Roy, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has “committed to giving the subcommittee at least as much funding and staffing as the House special committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.”

It’s about time.

Of course, the very name of the subcommittee – the “Weaponization of the Federal Government” – suggests a wide-ranging inquiry that could look into the actions of a number of federal agencies – the FBI/DOJ, Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and NSA, etc. It would include efforts by the Biden Administration and FDA/CDC to eliminate unapproved speech about COVID-19 and how the FBI made sure social media companies, including Twitter, took down alleged misinformation about the 2020 election and had a part in the suppression of the Hunter Biden story.

And that’s just the more recent history of governmental abuses. What else is out there, still waiting to be uncovered? There is sure to be more. We just haven’t heard of it yet.

Then there are the federal abuses of their investigative powers, starting with the Russiagate fiasco. Yet even with Russiagate there’s much we don’t know. It’s either hidden under layers of classifications or kept secret as part of federal investigative steps. Or the evidence remains with the DNC and Crowdstrike, assuming it hasn’t been destroyed.

But if we could suggest areas of Russiagate-related focus for Congressional investigators – a long list that we’ve had to narrow down to things we’re personally most curious about – here’s where we would start.¹

1. The DNC “Hack”

Topping the list is the holy grail of them all, the purported Russian hack of the DNC servers. Initially leading the investigation and response to the hack was no other than Michael Sussmann, the DNC/Hillary Campaign lawyer who would later draw charges from Special Counsel John Durham for lying to the FBI about other Russian information: the Alfa Bank/Trump connections.

As has been documented here and elsewhere, the investigation into the DNC hack was bungled from the start. The FBI never took possession of the DNC servers, instead relying on conclusions formed by DNC contractor Crowdstrike (which, by the way, was hired by Michael Sussmann on behalf of his clients). The FBI never obtained the complete reports from Crowdstrike. And even Crowdstrike had no direct evidence of exfiltration. As explained by Aaron Mate, the manner in which the Russian attribution is described by US intelligence officials signals that they “lacked concrete evidence for their Russian hacking claim.”

Part of the DNC hack inquiry would be further documentation of who at the FBI raised red flags about the investigation’s scope and seemingly pre-determined outcome. It would also get into who made the decisions. That gets us to the next topic.

2. Corrupted Leadership of the FBI and DOJ

This is an admittedly broad category, covering years of investigative and prosecutorial decision. But its importance is underscored by what we have learned about how the dubious investigations they decided to pursue (like how they targeted Flynn) and how that leadership’s killed necessary investigative into witnesses damning to their “collusion” narrative.

With respect to the FBI, the Michael Sussmann trial revealed how FBI headquarters ordered there to be a “full field investigation” opened into the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations. This decision was made by the FBI’s 7th floor, including Director James Comey. And it was a significant step according to one FBI Special Agent: “In order to open a full field investigation, we would need specific and articulable facts that a threat to U.S. national security has occurred or there’s been a violation of federal law.” Based on what information did Comey possess to make that order?

The Sussmann trial also demonstrated that FBI Headquarters disapproved the request from FBI agents investigating the Alfa Bank allegations to interview the source of the information. Which FBI leader denied that request?

3. Corruption of Special Counsel Mueller

Regarding the Mueller Special Counsel, one former FBI Intelligence Analyst testified that members of the Mueller Special Counsel took the position “to not investigate Mr. [Charles] Dolan.” (If you recall, Dolan was a Clinton ally who ended up being a source for the Steele reports.) This former FBI Intelligence Analyst explained:

“We had been instructed at SCO not to take further action on the matter involving Mr. Dolan and Mr. Danchenko’s relationship.”

By that time, the Mueller Special Counsel was aware the connection between Dolan and Danchenko and there were suspicions, if not direct knowledge, that Dolan had informed the Steele reports. The FBI asked Danchenko about Dolan on June 15, 2017 – before Mueller asked for the 4th FISA warrant on Carter Page, which was submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on June 29, 2017.

Later on, the Mueller Special Counsel would prevent the FBI agents under its supervision from investigating Dolan. One FBI Agent compiled a comprehensive report on Dolan and corroborated Dolan’s involvement in the Steele reports. She submitted that report to the Mueller Special Counsel and requested further investigation of Dolan. She was told that investigation “was not going to be opened.”  

It’s hard to overstate the importance of this inquiry. The instructions by Team Mueller to not investigate the Dolan-Danchenko relationship, and to shut down the investigation of Dolan himself, are informed by Team Mueller’s understanding of the consequences of those investigative steps: blowing up the Carter Page FISA warrants, exposing the deception to the FISA court, and the accountability from the FBI/DOJ/Mueller that would come from revealing the truth.

That’s just scratching the surface. Other matters that deserve inquiry include the wiping of Special Counsel phones (a potentially criminal act).

4. The DARPA Connection

As documented by our friends Undead and Margot Cleveland, “The U.S. Department of Defense and private individuals pumping the Alfa Bank hoax also assisted former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Donald Trump for supposed collusion with Russia.”

But there’s more to it than that, as provided by Cleveland in this must-read. There’s the allegation that these researchers helped assist with the “DNC attack attribution.” This raised a question from a member of Special Counsel John Durham’s team:

“Do you believe that DARPA should be instructing you to investigate the origins of a hacker (Guccifer_2.0) that hacked a political entity (DNC)?”

5. The FBI’s 2018 deceptive letter to the FISA Court

In this letter, the FBI assured the FISA court that they found Danchenko to be “truthful and cooperative.” This was written after the FBI knew that Danchenko had lied to them, with his deception starting in January 2017.

That letter was purportedly reviewed by the FBI, which “confirmed its factual accuracy.” It still must be determined who at the FBI reviewed that letter and who vouched for the accuracy of Danchenko. Hopefully we can be provided answers.

6. The CIA Collecting Information on President-Elect Trump

As we detailed in this article, in February 2017 the CIA received manipulated information and data from Michael Sussmann that purported to show that Trump, or Trump associates, “had suspicious interactions with internet protocol (IP) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider.”

Currently, we don’t know what the CIA did with that information. Maybe they analyzed the data. Maybe that simply passed it on to the FBI. But, at a minimum, we should ask why the CIA was so willing to accept a meeting and take possession of information from a DNC lawyer that was allegedly damning to the President-elect. And there’s another important question: what else did they collect on American soil?

7. Current Conflicts within the Office of Attorney General Garland

As we’ve reported, Jake Sullivan is a witness in the Durham inquiry, being there for the Clinton Campaign’s Fusion GPS misconduct. He was mentioned during the Michael Sussmann trial as one of the campaign staffers who received updates on the Fusion GPS “opposition research.”

Sullivan’s wife is Margaret Goodlander, who servers as counsel to AG Garland. We have strong reason to believe that Goodlander is keeping tabs on the Durham investigation. There’s a serious concern that she’s being provided non-public information on what happens in the Durham investigation. Totally improper for a government official who happens to be the spouse of a witness.

8. Release the materials, the unredacted reports and 302s. Let the public see what happened for themselves.

9. Finally, and this one is unrelated to Trump/Russia - but how about House Republicans demand all CIA and FBI documents on Jeffrey Epstein? We know they’re out there.

1. We’re limited on space and couldn’t include everything that should be investigated. We also note that Special Counsel Durham is looking into some of these very same issues. His report, whenever its submitted, may answer many of these questions.