╌>

Sifting the FBI’s Garbage

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  s  •  9 months ago  •  3 comments

Sifting the FBI’s Garbage

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


There’s a lesson for informants (and politicians) everywhere in the Alexander Smirnov story: If you are going to lie to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, make sure it’s a lie the FBI wants to hear.

That’s not the story the media is telling about the arrest of Mr. Smirnov, the FBI “confidential human source” indicted last week for allegedly fabricating claims that Joe and Hunter Biden received bribes from a Ukrainian energy firm. The press instead is using the revelation to slather egg all over the faces of congressional Republicans who highlighted those claims as part of their investigation of the Biden family business. The better question: Does the FBI apply anything beyond politics to its disaster of a confidential source program?

It’s not as if Mr. Smirnov is alone. The FBI enabled the “dossier” hoax by swallowing a compilation of fabulist claims presented to it by “confidential human source” Christopher Steele. It was aware Mr. Steele was working for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, had evidence he was blabbing to the press, and had been presented with a pile of tabloid-like accusations, yet chose to forgo any vetting and instead present him to a court as a credible source. Mr. Steele’s nonsense—coming at a time FBI leadership fretted over a Donald Trump presidency—was nonsense the FBI wanted to hear.

Special counsel John Durham later filed charges against Igor Danchenko, one of Mr. Steele’s subsources, presenting powerful evidence that he lied to the FBI in 2017 interviews by fabricating sources and information. Yet a jury acquitted Mr. Danchenko after FBI agents testified that while they couldn’t verify his claims, never made him take a polygraph test, and feared he was lying, they nonetheless trusted him. Mr. Danchenko’s credibility—coming at a time when the FBI’s reputation risked further collapse—was a credibility the FBI found useful to back.

Mr. Smirnov seems unlikely to be as lucky. According to the indictment, in 2020 he told the FBI that Burisma executives had told him in 2015 and 2016 that they hired Hunter to “protect us, through his dad” and had paid Hunter and Joe $5 million apiece for that aid. When Republicans in 2023 heard about the FBI write-up of these claims, they demanded the bureau hand it over. The FBI initially balked, arguing their source was too valuable to risk exposing.

House Oversight Committee Republicans say the FBI told Congress their source had worked for the bureau since 2010, had been paid roughly $200,000 for information, and was deemed “highly credible.” Ranking Oversight Democrat Jamie Raskin acknowledged the FBI’s briefing about credibility. Republicans say Director Christopher Wray also confirmed the FBI used Mr. Smirnov’s information in investigations until June 2023 (when the bribery claims went public). The FBI affirmed Mr. Smirnov’s credibility so long as it was useful to do so.

It isn’t useful any longer. Republicans for months have hounded special counsel David Weiss, who is handling the Hunter Biden probe, to explain what he’s done since 2020 to verify or refute the Smirnov claims. Last week’s indictment, which he sought, is his answer. The FBI’s “highly credible” source is now presented as a brazen liar, a boaster, a profiteer who played a double game with the bureau, and a partisan who had it in for Joe Biden.

If this is true, it ought to be massive story that the FBI for 13 years relied on a man who prosecutors now worry has troubling and “extensive” ties to Russian intelligence. Instead, the media in its desire to embarrass Republicans is working to absolve the FBI, with the  explaining the bureau never did “think much” of the Smirnov claims and concluded in 2020 that they “did not merit continued investigation.”


That’s it? The FBI is presented with an explosive bribery claim about a former vice president from a “credible source” who says it came directly from participants, dismisses said claim, and does nothing to re-evaluate its relationship with that source? (Mr. Smirnov hasn’t entered a plea, and his lawyers say he intends to “fight the power of the government.”)

This incompetence is having real-world consequences. The country is still living with the fallout from the Russia-collusion hoax, while Hunter’s lawyers have already filed court papers claiming Mr. Smirnov’s “rabbit hole of lies” “infected” the case against their client. Shall we add up the taxpayer cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Mr. Durham’s clean-up of it, the Justice Department’s manpower on the Smirnov case, and congressional and inspector-general investigations? That’s aside from the serious question of whether FBI sources are rightly beginning to worry that their worth depends solely on how politically useful the FBI views them on any given day.

The GOP’s Biden probe doesn’t sink or swim on the bribery claims, though given recent history Republicans would have been wise to treat the dramatic Smirnov accusations more carefully. Garbage in is garbage out. But it’s the FBI that ought to have to explain the steaming pile of trash.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Sean Treacy    9 months ago

. The FBI’s “highly credible” source is now presented as a brazen liar, a boaster, a profiteer who played a double game with the bureau, and a partisan who had it in for Joe Biden.

If this is true, it ought to be massive story that the FBI for 13 years relied on a man who prosecutors now worry has troubling and “extensive” ties to Russian intelligence.

Following the pattern of the Steele and Danchenko debacles,  the FBI continues to get embarrassed and display a troubling partisan bias. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Sean Treacy    9 months ago

Also interesting to note former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy's summary of the complaint in the case. He describes it as peculiar. He goes into the weeds with Smirnov's history with the FBI and how cases like this are usually handled. He goes into detail on a couple of the oddities:

The gratuitous claims about Russian officials and the unnecessary disclosure of national security information:

he indictment avers that Hunter Biden has never been to Ukraine (not surprising given that his Burisma board seat was a sinecure — a pretext for buying the American vice president’s influence by paying millions to his son). But for present purposes, that is neither here nor there; the point is that neither of the two counts in the indictment charges Smirnov with lying about what Russian officials told him.

There is no good law-enforcement reason for these disclosures. They are extraneous to the false-statements charges. And from an intelligence perspective, the disclosures are exactly the kind of information that the FBI’s counterintelligence agents and the intelligence community habitually fight tooth and nail to prevent the Justice Department from disclosing in court submissions that are or may become public. Even if such information seems benign (and this information seems anything but),  our intelligence agents do not want foreign intelligence agents — especially Russia’s — to have insight into what we know and how we know it.

While it makes no law-enforcement or intelligence sense for Weiss to have revealed this information, his doing so makes perfect sense if you believe, as I have  contended , that Weiss’s main job all along has been to protect President Biden.

The failure of Weiss to investigate the claims until pressured by Republicans:

Finally, a big objective of the Smirnov indictment — another objective that has nothing to do with outlining charges and supporting evidence — is to cover up Weiss’s failure to conduct a competent investigation with the degree of aggression ordinarily expected of federal prosecutors...

Weiss “proceeded” by not proceeding. Just as he did nothing on the Hunter Biden investigation,  allowing   the statute of limitations to run on some of the  most serious criminal conduct (the conduct that occurred from 2014 through 2016 while Joe Biden was vice president), Weiss did nothing about the Smirnov allegations...

Only in late August 2023, after the plea-bargain blowup and the theatrical special-counsel appointment, did Weiss swing into action. It appears to be the first and quite possibly the only aggressive investigative action he has undertaken in the Biden probe: an energetic effort to prove that bribery allegations against Joe Biden were false, to make a case against a confidential informant, and to help Democrats portray the House Republicans’ investigation of the president as being based on “Russian disinformation” — even though none of the most critical evidence of Biden-family influence-peddling comes from Smirnov or Russians.

A very peculiar case, I’d say.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Sean Treacy    9 months ago

Parking this here as it may end up being very relevant..

Multiple pages of Smirnov Indictment contain a series of texts from May 19, 2020 in VERY large font, which Weiss characterized as "expressing bias against" Biden. Weiss failed to disclose what was happening on May 19, 2020. It was pivotal to subsequent censorship, incl laptop. On May 19, 2020, Andrii Derkach and Konstantin Kulyk (the Ukrainian prosecutor who recovered $1.5 billion of embezzled funds - the ONLY major recovery ever accomplished) held press conference that released Biden-Poroshenko tapes. Here is a link to video..

the Derkach press conference attracted little mainstream attention but was noticed in this corner. E.g. here https:// twitter.com/ClimateAudit/s tatus/1262902329138982917 .

@FoolNelson  was one of very few people who covered Derkach July 2020 press conference. in summer 2020, Dems and US security state suppressed Derkach. In Sep 2020, Derkach was sanctioned by Treasury and his social media and website erased. It was part of same operation as subsequent suppression of Hunter laptop.  Bottom line: Smirnov's texts on May 19, 2020 were about the Derkach-Kulyk press conference of May 19, 2020, which contained lurid and detailed corruption allegations.
People forget that it was Derkach, who, in October 2019, had been the first person to report - with receipts - that Hunter Biden was getting $83,333 per month ($1 million per year) to be a placeholder at Burisma. (US media reported, but did not credit information to Derkach,) Kulyk (see https:// threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700539 377116496328 ) was a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been lauded by Tetiana Chornovol for his role in recovering $1.5 billion in embezzled funds, despite obstacles by Biden-backed allies embedded within the Ukrainian government. Kulyk later sanctioned by US.  T he Smirnov indictment continues with a May 21, 2020 text about Ukraine opening an investigation into corruption revealed by Derkach and Kulyk. This was correct information: Zelensky announced investigation (but later, under pressure, appears to have shut it down)
Smirnov then sent a picture of Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with Devon Archer, a Burisma director (and long-time Hunter associate.) He was not the only person who incorrectly identified Devon Archer, a Burisma director, as its CEO.  on June 22, 2020, Derkach and Kulyk held a follow-up press conference in which they provided many further details on corruption allegations involving Burisma and Bidens. The next press conference (July 7, 2020) attracted little attention but contained an Aug 2016 Biden-Poroshenko tape that linked both Poroshenko and Biden to the Black Ledger operation that decapitated Manafort as Trump campaign manager. Derkach was then de-platformed by US agencies.
As a bit of housekeeping, comparison of the FD1023 (Grassley version) to Indictment shows that Alexander Ostapenko was Associate 1, Burisma 2 = Pozharskiy, Burisma 3= Zlochevsky daughter. Associate 2 is USPER who does not speak Russian and Smirnov's former partner.   A few days after the June 22, 2020 Derkach-Kulyk press conference about Biden corruption in Ukraine, FBI Pittsburgh contacted Handler about the previous 1023 report, which had been identified in the course of a preliminary assessment of Ukraine issues commissioned by Deputy AG.
according to the Indictment, on March 1, 2017, Smirnov reported contact with Burisma, including Pozharskyi's business card. We KNOW that Pozharskyi traveled to Washington and Dallas on March 7-11, 2017, including meetings with Hunter Biden, Cofer Black, Blue Star and Aerotek. Then in April 2017, Smirnov and Pozharskyi exchanged emails about how Burisma might do an acquisition of a public company in the US, presumably as a reverse takeover.  In May 2017, Burisma informed Ostapenko (Associate 1) that Burisma's objective was a US-based oil and gas company (not an IPO). Ostapenko forwarded email to Smirnov.
in September 2017, there was a (firmly dated) meeting in Kyiv involving Smirnov, Associate 2 (still unknown), Zlochevsky's daughter, at which Burisma declined interest in Associate 2's crypto product. teaser has something fascinating about this date in Kyiv.  T he 2020 FD1023 (see Indictment, para 25) also describes a meeting in Kyiv attended by Associate 2 and Zlochevsky's daughter. Associate 2's trip to Ukraine in 2017 was his first trip outside the US since 2011. The meeting in Kyiv described in the 2020 FD1023 seems to be a reasonable characterization of the Sept 2017 meeting. However, Weiss accused Smirnov of placing the meeting back in 2015-2016.   (with a typical miracle) connected the Kyiv trip of Smirnov and Associate 2 (his crypto friend) to a crypto conference in Kyiv on Sep 16-19, 2017 - exactly the right dates. https:// starternoise.com/d10e-conferenc e-in-kyiv-ukraine/ There's a Russiagate easter egg here. Try to find it before reading on..  here's the easter egg. One of the key figures in the Sept 2017 crypto conference in Ukraine that brought Smirnov and Associate 2 to Kyiv was Mike Costache, Sergei Millian's friend. Small world.
Smirnov told the FBI that he and Ostapenko met Zlochevsky in Vienna a couple of months after the meeting with Burisma in Kyiv (with Associate 2 and Zlochevsky's daughter). I've focused here on relative chronology. The Kyiv meeting was in Sept 2017.  The FD1023 cited in the indictment reported that Smirnov "recalled" that the Vienna meeting "took place around the time [Biden] made a pubblic statement about [Shokin] being corrupt and that he should be fired/removed from office". FBI placed the Vienna meeting in late 2015/2016
ut watch the pea carefully as to what is explicitly stated and what is assumed.   The Indictment carefully examined travel by key protagonists, but left out one important trip: they didn't discuss when (if ever) Smirnov and Ostapenko visited Vienna? Why not? If they never visited Vienna, why didnt Weiss include that as a false statement count in indictment?  Here's what I'm wondering - an d it's just an idea: placing the Kyiv trip in Sept 2017, Smirnov's relative chronology would place his Vienna meeting with Zlochevsky (if it happened) in late 2017/Jan 2018. Does that lead anywhere? I think so.
on January 23, 2018, three months after Smirnov's trip to Kyiv with Associate 2, Joe Biden gave his infamous speech about firing Shokin. https:// youtube.com/watch?v=Q0_Aqp dwqK4
he FD1023 placed the meeting in Vienna to late 2015/2016 based on their assumption that the Biden statement about Shokin referred to by Smirnov was Biden's December 2015 demand for Shokin's resignation. This results in inconsistencies and the conclusion that Smirnov lied on date.  But if Smirnov was referring to Biden's January 2018 speech, then the dates fall into place. The meeting in Kyiv with Associate 2 and Burisma is then the well-attested Sept 2017 meeting and not some phantom doppelganger meeting in 2015.
 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry


131 visitors