A cop’s view (of how “source” should be construed), means jack. It’s for the jury, not the cop, to assess what the CIA meant by “source”.
Just as it would be BS, for the CPD to fold Laquan McD’s knife, and fail to inform the jury that they had obtained it in the unfolded position.

This is Police Work 101.

I speculated that it might have had something to do with the fact that the case was assigned via a computer program to Judge James Boasberg, who is also now the Chief Judge of the FISC — the Court misled by Clinesmith’s conduct, among other things — and that it is unlikely Judge Boasberg will remain in the case. I thought the failure to file the Plea Agreement might have something to do with waiting for the case to be reassigned. But when I saw the full text of comments made by Clinesmith’s attorney after the Information was filed, I have suspicions now that the Parties are still talking about a guilty plea, and are not yet firm on that outcome.

He goes into the legal details extensively, citing the lawyer’s statement that we’ve already discussed here*, and concludes:

Clinesmith’s attorney made a public statement that he said reflects Clinesmith’s view today — that he lacked intent to deceive, and that he believed his writing — the email he transmitted — was accurate when it was sent.

That statement is not consistent with a guilty plea to a Section 1001 charge. This may be why there was no hearing yesterday, and why no Plea Agreement outlining the facts admitted to by Clinesmith has not been filed. If this is not resolved in a manner that satisfies a federal judge, Durham may have no choice but to seek an indictment of Clinesmith from a federal jury — and there are more serious charges he could bring.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

*Neo quoted it in her post: “Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility,”

I have no idea why shipwreckedcrew is only just now parsing its meaning in re the plea deal.

I’m glad you talked about this RedState article:

https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/08/14/897459/?utm_source=whatfinger

The author Michael Thau is to be commended. Clear and concise writing.

To me, it’s been a given, for years.
For most Dems, it’s a religion, they have nothing else to live for.
Tho she didn’t specify this, I’ll bet that by “so glaringly evident”, she mainly meant to Indies, and Dersh-type Dems.

To drive the point home of just how bad the responses to the corruption were prior to this news [Clinesmith’s possible plea], Drew Holden (better known on Twitter as keeper of the receipts) has put out a thread showing past Democrat and media reactions. It’s something to behold.

Drew’s closing Tweet: “The great irony here of course is that all of these people did exactly what they accused Trump (wrongly) of doing: making the FBI into a political issue rather than trying to get to the truth.
Something tells me we’re a long way from getting there, but getting closer…”

Bonchie at RedState concludes:

The amount of gaslighting and purposeful obtuseness that has been employed over the last several years is just incredible. (Most of) these people are not dumb. They could see what we all saw, yet for purely political reasons they acted blind to it all. Not only that, they chastised and tried to shame anyone who would dare speak the truth. There’s a bit of poetic justice in seeing their narrative blow up in their faces.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/07/lets-clear-up-a-misconception-there-is-no-doj-policy-restricting-indictments-prior-to-an-election/

There is a policy that prohibits the taking of any overt enforcement action for the purpose of affecting an election. That is prohibited. But that policy doesn’t prohibit taking the same enforcement action when there is no such nefarious intention.
…
This relates directly to the matters now under investigation by Durham. But the policy only “recommends” Durham consult with Public Integrity, it does not require him to do so, nor does it prohibit him from acting based on some arbitrary date and the calendar and the prospect that one side or the other might be politically embarrassed by DOJ action such as the return of an indictment against loyalists of one particular party.
…
Again, from Comey and Preet Bharara — Obama’s US Attorney for the Southern District of New York — the only “explicit policy” is about crimes involving the election process. And even the “unwritten guidance” only concerns not indicting political candidates.

Attorney General Barr has said on multiple occasions that the Durham investigation is not examining possible criminal charges for anyone running for office. That satisfies the “unwritten guidance”. The investigation does not involve election process crimes. That satisfies the DOJ’s explicit policy restrictions. So what else might there be?

There isn’t anything.
…
The prosecutor should take “significant investigative steps … when the case is ready, not earlier or later.”

So whenever you see a left-wing former Obama DOJ official claim that Durham and Barr would be violating DOJ policy by bringing any indictments between now and November, blow them up on Twitter — and link this story.

THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. POLICY.

Normally the Information and a Memorandum of Plea Agreement are filed simultaneously, and the filing of the two documents is the basis upon which the district judge to whom the case is assigned will schedule a hearing to for entry of the guilty plea. The arrangements are normally coordinated in advance of the filing — a simple telephone call to the Chambers of the assigned Judge is all that it takes after the papers are filed. Typically the hearing takes place the same day as the filing where — as here — the filing happens in the morning.

But no Plea Agreement was filed yesterday.

He speculates about one thing that could have been a good reason, but it is only speculation at this point.
Stay tuned—