The Predication Game

But, Easy, even assuming that Barr is sincere and intends to follow through, my concern is that I suspect he will find predication for the investigation. I think this because the intelligence and investigative agencies of our government are quite aware of what the 4th Amendment and Justice Department regs require before they can use the powerful tools at their command. And as I go over all the events of the last three years, it seems obvious to me that we are seeing a very sophisticated scheme to create a predicate and justification for an investigation. In fact, the scheme was so sophisticated that it beggars belief that this is the first time the FBI et al sought to begin an investigation in such a manner. This was obviously something approaching standard practice that the FBI et al had honed to near perfection for many years.

Consider: they want to investigate the Trump campaign to find collusion with Russia, but they have no evidence of such. What to do? Well, find a member of the Trump campaign and plant him with insider information about Russian involvement in the American election process, e.g. hacking Hillary's emails. Then, cover your tracks by having a seemingly independent source 'discover' that campaign member to have insider connections with Russia, and voila! You have the reasonable grounds you need to begin an investigation of the Trump campaign.

And this is clearly what happened with George Papadopolous. He tells them in early 2016 that he is joining the Trump campaign, and in the course of a few days - a few days! - they are able to put together a global initiative - global initiative! - to set him up as the 'evidence' that the Trump campaign had nefarious contacts with Russia. There is evidence that the highest levels of the Italian intelligence agency introduce him to the mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud, who gives Papadopolous the information that Russia has 30,000 of Hillary's emails. Then the highest levels of British intelligence along with long time CIA assets introduce him in London to an ostensibly innocent bystander, Alexander Downer, an Ambassador from Australia, where Papadopolous is induced to pass on the information he got from Joseph Mifsud about the Russians having Hillary's emails. It is then Alexander Downer who passes on the 'information' that Papadopolous, a member of the Trump campaign, apparently has insider knowledge about Russia and Russian interference in the American electoral process.

At this point, the loop is closed and the FBI et al has the 'independent' evidence from the Australian Ambassador that will permit them to begin a full boat investigation of the Trump campaign.

Stated like this, it's all an obvious subterfuge to skirt the 4th Amendment and public policy prohibitions against turning the tools of the government against an opposing political party. But that does not take into account the sophistication and expertise of our high government officials in 'laying a predicate' for an investigation. As I said, a troubling aspect of all of this is that this looks like a practiced operation that has been honed to perfection by the FBI et al for many years. So, I suspect that Barr will find enough of a 'predicate' such that all the parties stayed just over the 'right' side of the line in beginning this investigation, even though the overall circumstances point to corruption.

Compare, Barr's recent decision not to prosecute James Comey for leaking classified and other information. James Comey is a smart, experienced guy, and he knew exactly what the rules and regs required vis a vis internal investigative information. So he fashioned 7 memos with particular attention to the type of information contained in each, and then meticulously distributed them in such a way that he would always stay just shy of the line of a violation - or at least, a violation concrete enough to warrrant prosecution. As a result, Barr had to pass on prosecution, and Comey skates.

Put simply, I suspect Barr will be similarly powerless to do anything about the corruption he finds in his "predicate" investigation, except by instituting new rules and regs to hopefully prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Which is a good thing, a very good thing - but far from a satisfying conclusion to this whole tawdry affair.