ehhhh... not really.
Clinesmith and Moyer worked in FBI (both involved in creating the falsified C.Page evidence). Clinesmith cites, Moyer assembles.
Then hand-off to Tashina Guahar in Main Justice (DOJ-NSD) for review/filing. That's where Atkinson comes in.
Clinesmith and Moyer worked in FBI (both involved in creating the falsified C.Page evidence). Clinesmith cites, Moyer assembles.
Then hand-off to Tashina Guahar in Main Justice (DOJ-NSD) for review/filing. That's where Atkinson comes in.
Tashina (Main Justice) verifies assembly from FBI, then presents to DOJ-NSD head for signature. The two heads during timeframe were John Carlin, Mary McCord (and later Dana Boente)
Current ICIG Michael Atkinson was the chief legal counsel for Carlin and McCord (later Boente)
Current ICIG Michael Atkinson was the chief legal counsel for Carlin and McCord (later Boente)
Where we can see the Horowitz report intercepting the issue, and subsequently people behind the problem, is in what happens when AG Bill Barr gets the draft report of the IG findings in September (2 months ago).
Currently being highlighted is how Kevin Clinesmith was removed from his position and now facing a criminal review. (Manufacturing false evidence to FISC)
As noted, Clinesmith was removed in September, when the draft IG report was submitted.
As noted, Clinesmith was removed in September, when the draft IG report was submitted.
However, what's not yet being reported or noted by anyone is how main justice FISA lawyer Tashina Guahar also left her post at DOJ-NSD at the exact same time as Clinesmith.
Reportedly "Tash" went to work for Boeing.
Reportedly "Tash" went to work for Boeing.
The timing (Sept.), the material at issue (FISA App), and the location within the process (FBI -> DOJ-NSD), would seem to link both departures from DOJ.
Kevin Clinesmith and Tashina Guahar both left at the same time.
[Though it could be a coincidence.]
Kevin Clinesmith and Tashina Guahar both left at the same time.
[Though it could be a coincidence.]
The NYT report said Clinesmith's manipulation of the underlying evidence (woods file citation) happened during one of the "re-authorizations", not the original submission October 21st, 2016.
The original application (Oct 2016), and the January 2017 re-authorization are identical. There doesn't appear to be any material additions.
Again, assuming the NYT report is close to accurate.
The underlying evidence that Clinesmith modified was done for either the April or June 2017.
I find this part very interesting.
The underlying evidence that Clinesmith modified was done for either the April or June 2017.
I find this part very interesting.
....Because Clinesmith transferred into/onto the Mueller investigation that began in May.
If the material that Clinesmith modified was for the June 2017 FISA reauthorization. Clinesmith would have been manipulating evidence while part of Mueller's team.
If the material that Clinesmith modified was for the June 2017 FISA reauthorization. Clinesmith would have been manipulating evidence while part of Mueller's team.
That timing would speak toward the motives and intents of the Mueller operation writ large.
The timing would also speak to the reason why Mueller asked Rosenstein for an expanded scope memo around the same time Clinesmith was manipulating evidence for a FISA renewal.
The timing would also speak to the reason why Mueller asked Rosenstein for an expanded scope memo around the same time Clinesmith was manipulating evidence for a FISA renewal.
There's a particular lack of curiosity amid the media for the exact timing of that Woods File manipulation.
I find the lack of curiosity interesting.
/END
I find the lack of curiosity interesting.
/END
