Deal or No Deal – There’s a Transparency Within Two Factions of DOJ and FBI Political “Small Group”…

It was Friday December 1st, 2017, when the media first hit the headlines announcing the guilty plea for former National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn.  It was less than 24 hours later, Saturday December 2nd, when ‘a group’ within the DOJ hit back with announcements revealing the political bias of FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Despite the transparency of timing the media ignored the relationship between the two events.  However, people who were following the granular details -within the intelligence community conflict- accepted the IG releases would be used as fuel for congressional review and inquiry….. and that’s exactly what happened.

Unfortunately, the focus was so intense on what later became ‘dueling memos’ no-one paused to look at the granules against the bigger picture.  Despite the media story pointing out Strzok and Page were removed from duties on the Special Counsel (Mueller) team in July and August 2017, no-one questioned what was happening between July/August 2017 and the December 2nd media release announcing their dispatch.

If anyone in January had begun cross referencing the Nunes, Goodlatte, Grassley discoveries and their volumes of investigative interviews; against the backdrop of the IG information to Mueller in July ’17; they would have possibly connected the dots that outlined the appearance of a criminal review – and a transparent need for an authorized DOJ entity to construct rules for cooperation within the ongoing IG investigation.

We now know Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DAG Rod Rosenstein assigned federal prosecutor John W. Huber to that task.  However, even without knowing his name, we always knew the existence of the parallel prosecutor because the fingerprints of his tasks were evident.

The IG couldn’t simultaneously report on his discovery of criminal conduct and yet construct the parameters for cooperation and compliance with his investigation.  IG Horowitz doesn’t have that authority, that’s a federal prosecutors job.

So if people within the FBI and DOJ were cooperating with an internal investigation that was discovering criminal conduct, someone from within the DOJ had to be cutting the deals.   Jeff Sessions told us yesterday that person is John Huber.

As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures shared:

“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”

If you stand back and look at all activity from July 2017 through March 2018 you can get a good feel for who is inside the “small group”, who is cooperating and who is not.

COOPERATING GROUP – FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI/DOJ lawyer Lisa Page, DOJ Attorney Bruce Ohr, DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas; FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker and Asst. FBI Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, are all still employed within the system.  Strzok, Page, Ohr, and Baker have been removed from responsibilities, but there are still there.  Bill Priestap is still in responsibility and still there.

NOT COOPERATING GROUP – FBI Communications Director Mike Kortan (quit), DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General David Laufman (quit), DOJAG Loretta Lynch AAG Sally Yates, -NSD Asst Attorney General Mary McCord (quit), FBI Director James Comey (fired), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe (fired), FBI Director Chief-of-staff James Rybicki (quit).

AG Sessions, while responding to an irrelevant congressional request for a special counsel, told us yesterday that Huber is in charge of a “team” of prosecutors.  Yet some weird and seemingly illogical reason, many people don’t seem to understand that.

There’s already a team of prosecutors reviewing all the evidence of criminality collected by Inspector General Horowitz.  FULLSTOP.

There’s no need for a special counsel.  Jonathan Turley understands this.

It is nonsensical to demand a Special Counsel when there has been a team of federal prosecutors reviewing the evidence for over six months.  The outcome of their collective effort goes directly to federal indictments; there is simply no need for a special counsel.

Remember, the IG is looking at gross misconduct of official DOJ and FBI policy and practices.  The prosecutor is looking at criminal misconduct from within those offices.   The IG releases findings to the public, the prosecutor does not – until the courtroom.   There is an overlap within the parallel of the IG and Prosecutor, but both have entirely different objectives.

There’s also evidence of an existing Grand Jury.

There are two types of federal grand juries:  Under 18 US Code Sec. 3321 SEE HERE  And Special Grand Juries under 18 US Code Sec 3331 SEE HERE

If you review Code Sec 3331 for special grand juries you’ll see that the criminal activity has to be “in the district”, and that special grand juries don’t have to be impaneled new. Existing ones can be used for new/different purposes.  Section 158 of the US Attorneys manual is pretty much based on 3331: SEE HERE

The location of the grand jury is directly connected to the criminality behind the FBI and DOJ conduct.  The location of the criminality determines the location of the Grand Jury.

Within the current IG Horowitz/Prosecutor Huber investigation there is a lot of varied criminality…. however there is one location where many of the criminal actions overlap…. that’s the location of the currently seated Grand Jury.

The Great Flood

There is little doubt that the amount of water on earth really does not change. There is simply what is known as the Water Cycle whereby evaporation moves water to the sky and then it is redistributed as rain elsewhere. Therefore, the likelihood of an actual flood in Biblical terms that covered the entire world is unlikely. What we do know is that there a wealth of evidence that the movement of the plates clearly resulted in the great flood that created the Mediterranean sea and there is also evidence that there are cities under the Black Sea.

There is evidence that there was a tremendous flood when there was a break in the land at the Straits of Gibralter. What has surfaced is evidence that when that breach took place, the water rushed into the basin at probably around 100 mph. This is certainly something that would be remembered and probably handed down from generation to generation. (see Scientific American)

Nevertheless, it is also obvious that the sea level has risen in the Mediterranean even since the time of Julius Caesar (100-44BC).  The city of ancient Alexandria in Egypt lies below the sea. Obviously, even in relatively modern times, the sea level has risen flooding communities. So actually stating definitively when did the Biblical Event of the flood take place is difficult to pinpoint because there have been great floods from 3 million years ago to 2,000 years ago.  What is certain is that the sea levels have risen and fallen and this is part of nature – not instigated by humans.

The Noah Coinage of Phrygia

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I have a question please, taking the lead from your recent article in your blog “Noah’s Ark Commemorated on Roman Coins”
Question: Do you happen to have found a copy of the Apion Treatise (answers to Josephus) in your historical searches? (Apion — Historian from Alexandria)
Background: Titus Flavius Josephus, born in 37 AD in Jerulasem, 160 years before Septimus reign introduced to the Roman elite to the Jewish mythology of the Bible thru his writings. The historian Apion from Alexandria wrote a treatise answering to the historical claims of Josephus. Josephus also responded with his treatise – Against Apion, which has survived. Apion’s Treatise is not published or found (lost??), according to the results of my searches.
Can you please enlighten me.
Thank you Kindly,


ANSWER: Josephus has been a contemporary historical source with respect to the conquest of Judaea by the Romans under the command of Vespasian (69-79AD). It is also true that he became an adviser to Vespasian’s son Titus (79-81AD). However, most of his writings appear to be really trying to redeem himself among his fellow Jews. In the Preface to Jewish Wars, Josephus actually criticizes historians that misrepresented the events of Roman-Jewish War. He wrote: “they have a mind to demonstrate the greatness of the Romans, while they still diminish and lessen the actions of the Jews.”

The Jewish War was a very big and profound event. It came after the death of Nero (54-68AD) and the empire was plunged into civil war. Vespasian (69-79AD) was vying to be emperor and the Jews looked at this opportunity to seek independence from Rome. However, like Catalonia in Spain, if they are allowed to just leave, this threatens not just Spain but would encourage others to leave the EU. This is precisely the same set of facts that existed following the death of Nero in 68AD.

If Judaea was allowed to just leave, other provinces would have done the same. They even issued their own coinage. Thus, the punitive actions of Vespasian against the Jews must be understood within this context. We have the victory over the Jews appears on coins of Vespasian of every denomination.

It is highly unlikely that the other works of Josephus were widely read by Romans. Josephus’s Against Apion is a two-volume defense of Judaism as classical religion and philosophy. Josephus stressed its antiquity and suggested that the Greek religions lacked that ancient tradition and were more modern. Josephus attacks the Greek writer Apion and his anti-Judaic allegations. So once again, this appears to be a work that may be also out of guilt that he supported the Romans to pick the winning side.

The bronze coin pictured above of Apameia was struck for Septimius Severus (192-211AD). The reverse legend mentions the city’s AGONOTHETES (chief organizer of the games) or chief magistrate, ARTEMAS, who probably was Jewish. Noah’s name, given in Greek as NOE, which appears on the ark. The subject matter does appear to be very popular and it may be entirely attributed to Jewish magistrates. Apameia was a city in Phrygia, which during the 3rd century AD, was under Roman rule. The Noah coin design must have been very popular since it was struck for the emperors even after Septimius Severus such as Severus Alexander (222-235AD), Gordian III (238-244AD), Philip I (244-249AD), and Trebonianus Gallus (251-253AD), over the course of 61 years.

Apameia was a merchant city (today Dinar in western Turkey) whose ruins remain to this day. It was a very prosperous city during Roman times. It was a trade/commercial center that was connected to Asia by caravans carrying silks, spices, incense, perfumes, and medicines. The population of the city was very much like London and New York; very cosmopolitan with a mixture of Phrygians, Lydians, Cappadocians, Pisidians, Greeks, Romans and Jews. The common bond was mercantilism. They were a society composed of traders.

The origin of the city was founded by Phrygians prior to 1,000 BC and it was named Celaenae. It was located in a well-watered oasis at the source of the Meander River. Its coinage from the 2nd century BC shows an elephant head which is a clear symbol of its connection with Asia through trade. This city sat on the ancient old ‘Royal Road’ from the Middle East to the Aegean Sea that was originally constructed by the Persians some 500 years before this coin was struck. The location afforded Apameia control over all the caravan routes from Asia. Even when Alexander the Great invaded this region, he made the city one of his military bases.

Following the death of Alexander, it fell to the control of Antiochus I Soter (280-261BC)(meaning Savior) of the Syrian/Seleukid Empire. Antiochus I built a new city in 270BC below the citadel of Ceaenae and named it Apameia after his mother. Then Antiochus brought Babylonian Jews to serve as garrison soldiers, civil servants and royal administrators in his new city. This is most likely the connection why we ultimately find Noah coins being struck in this city. Some argue this was a punishment because the Jews had resisted Alexander’s conquest of Babylon where they lived at that point in history.

The Antiochus III (223-187BC), the Great, brought another large group of Persian Jews to Apameia in 188BC. Josephus in his work, ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ said that Antiochus III settled 2,000 Jewish families from Babylon in Lydia and Phrygia. Josephus goes on to say that these Jews were given special privileges including tax exemptions for ten years and were permitted to adhere to their own customs, laws, and religion. (Antiquities, Book XII, iii.4). These settlers may account for the large communities of Jews that suddenly emerged in the ancient Asian cities of Antioch, Apameia, Delos, Ephesus, and Sardes.

It is clear that by the time we reach Septimus Severus at the end of the 2nd century AD, the Jews had risen to high political positions in the city. Therefore, the Noah coins are unique to this city and are a reflection of the cosmopolitan culture that existed thanks to commerce. The ark is portrayed as a kibotos, which was an Apameian packing case used in trade with a lid. This is, therefore, blending the trade of the city with the Jewish parable.


President Trump Delivers an Easter and Passover Message…

President Donald Trump delivers a message from the Office of the President for Passover and Easter.

Good Friday Reproaches

Were You There

It is Finished. And Bowing His Head He Handed Over The Spirit.

The-Passion-of-the-Christ-001JN 18:1—19:42

Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley
to where there was a garden,
into which he and his disciples entered.
Judas his betrayer also knew the place,
because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.
So Judas got a band of soldiers and guards
from the chief priests and the Pharisees
and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him,
went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?”
They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.”
He said to them, “I AM.”
Judas his betrayer was also with them.
When he said to them, “I AM, “
they turned away and fell to the ground.
So he again asked them,
“Whom are you looking for?”
They said, “Jesus the Nazorean.”
Jesus answered,
“I told you that I AM.
So if you are looking for me, let these men go.”
This was to fulfill what he had said,
“I have not lost any of those you gave me.”
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it,
struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear.
The slave’s name was Malchus.
Jesus said to Peter,
“Put your sword into its scabbard.
Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?”

st05_gethsemane_torchesSo the band of soldiers, the tribune, and the Jewish guards seized Jesus,
bound him, and brought him to Annas first.
He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas,
who was high priest that year.
It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews
that it was better that one man should die rather than the people.

Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus.
Now the other disciple was known to the high priest,
and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
But Peter stood at the gate outside.
So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest,
went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.
Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter,
“You are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?”
He said, “I am not.”
Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire
that they had made, because it was cold,
and were warming themselves.
Peter was also standing there keeping warm.

The high priest questioned Jesus
about his disciples and about his doctrine.
Jesus answered him,
“I have spoken publicly to the world.
I have always taught in a synagogue
or in the temple area where all the Jews gather,
and in secret I have said nothing. Why ask me?
Ask those who heard me what I said to them.
They know what I said.”
When he had said this,
one of the temple guards standing there struck Jesus and said,
“Is this the way you answer the high priest?”
Jesus answered him,
“If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong;
but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”
Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm.
And they said to him,
“You are not one of his disciples, are you?”
He denied it and said,
“I am not.”
One of the slaves of the high priest,
a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said,
“Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?”
Again Peter denied it.
And immediately the cock crowed.

Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium.
It was morning.
And they themselves did not enter the praetorium,
in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover.
So Pilate came out to them and said,
“What charge do you bring against this man?”
They answered and said to him,
“If he were not a criminal,
we would not have handed him over to you.”
At this, Pilate said to them,
“Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.”
The Jews answered him,
“We do not have the right to execute anyone, “
in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled
that he said indicating the kind of death he would die.
So Pilate went back into the praetorium
and summoned Jesus and said to him,
“Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus answered,
“Do you say this on your own
or have others told you about me?”
Pilate answered,
“I am not a Jew, am I?
Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me.
What have you done?”
Jesus answered,
“My kingdom does not belong to this world.
If my kingdom did belong to this world,
my attendants would be fighting
to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.
But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”
So Pilate said to him,
“Then you are a king?”
Jesus answered,
“You say I am a king.
For this I was born and for this I came into the world,
to testify to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

When he had said this,
he again went out to the Jews and said to them,
“I find no guilt in him.
But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover.
Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
They cried out again,
“Not this one but Barabbas!”
Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.

2004-passion-christ-floggingThen Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged.
And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head,
and clothed him in a purple cloak,
and they came to him and said,
“Hail, King of the Jews!”
And they struck him repeatedly.
Once more Pilate went out and said to them,
“Look, I am bringing him out to you,
so that you may know that I find no guilt in him.”
So Jesus came out,
wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak.
And he said to them, “Behold, the man!”
When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out,
“Crucify him, crucify him!”
Pilate said to them,
“Take him yourselves and crucify him.
I find no guilt in him.”
The Jews answered,
“We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die,
because he made himself the Son of God.”
Now when Pilate heard this statement,
he became even more afraid,
and went back into the praetorium and said to Jesus,
“Where are you from?”
Jesus did not answer him.
So Pilate said to him,
“Do you not speak to me?
Do you not know that I have power to release you
and I have power to crucify you?”
Jesus answered him,
“You would have no power over me
if it had not been given to you from above.
For this reason the one who handed me over to you
has the greater sin.”
Consequently, Pilate tried to release him; but the Jews cried out,
“If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar.
Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus out
and seated him on the judge’s bench
in the place called Stone Pavement, in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon.
And he said to the Jews,
“Behold, your king!”
They cried out,
“Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!”
Pilate said to them,
“Shall I crucify your king?”
The chief priests answered,
“We have no king but Caesar.”
Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

the_passion_of_the_christ_crucifixion_1_0069So they took Jesus, and, carrying the cross himself,
he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull,
in Hebrew, Golgotha.
There they crucified him, and with him two others,
one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.
Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross.
It read,
“Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
Now many of the Jews read this inscription,
because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;
and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,
“Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’
but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews’.”
Pilate answered,
“What I have written, I have written.”

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus,
they took his clothes and divided them into four shares,
a share for each soldier.
They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless,
woven in one piece from the top down.
So they said to one another,
“Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be, “
in order that the passage of Scripture might be fulfilled that says:
They divided my garments among them,
and for my vesture they cast lots.

This is what the soldiers did.
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother
and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas,
and Mary of Magdala.
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved
he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
Then he said to the disciple,
“Behold, your mother.”
And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

After this, aware that everything was now finished,
in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled,
Jesus said, “I thirst.”
There was a vessel filled with common wine.
So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop
and put it up to his mouth.
When Jesus had taken the wine, he said,
“It is finished.”
And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

PassionPhoto1Now since it was preparation day,
in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath,
for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one,
the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken
and that they be taken down.
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first
and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.
But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead,
they did not break his legs,
but one soldier thrust his lance into his side,
and immediately blood and water flowed out.
An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true;
he knows that he is speaking the truth,
so that you also may come to believe.
For this happened so that the Scripture passage might be fulfilled:
Not a bone of it will be broken.
And again another passage says:
They will look upon him whom they have pierced.

After this, Joseph of Arimathea,
secretly a disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews,
asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus.
And Pilate permitted it.
So he came and took his body.
Nicodemus, the one who had first come to him at night,
also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes
weighing about one hundred pounds.
They took the body of Jesus
and bound it with burial cloths along with the spices,
according to the Jewish burial custom.
Now in the place where he had been crucified there was a garden,
and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been buried.
So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day;
for the tomb was close by.


In my church, on Holy Thursday evening, the Eucharist is removed from the tabernacle, and taken to a place of repose. The altar is stripped. Christ is no longer present in the sanctuary. Good Friday is the one day of the year when mass cannot be said. 


These visible signs of the coming Passion point us toward the Friday that changed everything, for the whole world. Don’t deprive yourself of the day of our Lord’s sacrifice. Stop. Pray. Let your heart break a little. Experience Good Friday, that you may truly be renewed on Easter Sunday.


Noor Salman Jury Foreman: Despite Not Guilty Verdict “We were convinced she did know”…

Today, a Florida jury on Friday acquitted Noor Salman, the widow of Pulse nightclub terrorist Omar Mateen, for charges of being an accomplice in the attack.

31-year-old Mrs. Salman was found not guilty of all charges relating to her providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and obstruction of justice.  On June 11, 2016, her husband attacked the club killing 49 people.  After the jury found Mrs. Salman not guilty the jury foreman released the following statement:

ORLANDO – […] “I want to make several things very clear. A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack. The charges were aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. I felt the both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job presenting their case. I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements. The bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.” (read full statement)

Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows Discuss The IG Referral to FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and McCabes Firing…

Representative Jim Jordan and Representative Mark Meadows have NOT seen the widely discussed Inspector General report on politicization of the FBI and DOJ.  The IG report will likely be released in segments according to the substance within the investigation.

However, what Jordan and Meadows have seen is the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) file sent to Jeff Sessions outlining reason for their recommendation of termination for Andrew McCabe; and that OPR summary includes the IG evidence that backs-up the referral to the OPR.

Daily Caller – “[McCabe] didn’t lie just once; he lied four times,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Thursday.

“Four times he lied. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the [FBI’s] Office of Professional Responsibility, and he lied twice under oath to the inspector general.”

Jordan, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier on Thursday the Office of Professional Responsibility report revealed McCabe not only did not tell Comey he authorized leaks to the media, he “affirmatively denied” he did so.  (read more)

AG Sessions Letter to House and Senate Highlights a Lengthy Review by Prosecutor John W. Huber…

It is important anyone interested in the FBI and DOJ investigation take the time to digest the details within Attorney General Jeff Sessions notification letter to congress outlining his previous appointment of U.S Attorney John Huber to parallel Inspector General Michael Horowitz as a prosecutor.

Do not trust the pundit filtration of content, take the time to read it yourself.


Absorbing the DOJ has a long-standing criminal investigation will likely create anxiety for those committed to an irrational intolerance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions; but the substance remains evident regardless of sentiment.

The Bigger Picture – If we accept the historic context for DOJ official communication stemming from the IG investigation, it would appear the notification letter is timed with the conclusion of investigative evidence collection. As such, the timing is safe for the DOJ to reveal the name of the prosecutor many previously refused to believe existed.

There was  already an appointed person, a prosecutor, from “outside of Washington”, in place prior to the recent request for a Special Counsel by Goodlatte and Gowdy. That was exactly what an objective analysis of the events previously outlined – and we previously noted.

Attorney Jeff Sessions previously outlined the existence of an outside prosecutor who has been in place for quite a while, exactly as we thought.  All the evidence of this was/is clear if you follow the granular details closely. Here’s how we figure it out; and also the reason why no-one in Washington DC -including congress and the president- was previously aware, until today.

…”to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee sent to us” – HERE is an Example. And here is a response:

♦#1) The DOJ Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) has an obligation to notify his superiors when he/she discovers illegal activity, or conduct that is likely unlawful, while conducting an internal investigation. The IG cannot sit on knowledge or evidence of likely criminal conduct, just because he/she is conducting an investigation. This is the same reason why IG Horowitz had to inform Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July of 2017 of the potentially unlawful conduct of members on his team (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok).

♦#2) The same people under investigation within the IG purview (FBI and DOJ officials) are transparently cooperating with the Inspector General. That cooperation, in combination with a likelihood of unlawful conduct, would require a DOJ official (prosecutor) to be assigned to negotiate and outline the DOJ legal terms of investigative compliance. The person negotiating the terms for cooperation would NOT be the Inspector General; because of the potential for criminal charges related to the investigated individuals, it would be the job of a DOJ career prosecutor to comply with legal needs.

♦#3) Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr and Bill Priestap have quotes inside the HPSCI memos. Those quotes come from investigative interviews; no congressional committee has interviewed those persons. Those would be a few of the people in #2 above; and their testimony to Horowitz and a DOJ Prosecutor, would make them witnesses in a criminal investigation. That explains why they have not given interviews to congressional committees. The DOJ needs to keep the integrity of their testimony inside the investigative unit. (ie. in the control of the DOJ official from outside Washington that Jeff Sessions notes).

♦#4) President Trump is the chief executive over the DOJ and FBI; however, in this odd dynamic he is also the victim within the conspiracy as potentially outlined by the investigation. Therefore, again to protect the integrity of the investigation and witness testimony, the victim would be kept at arms length and not informed of the criminal investigation. That’s why POTUS Trump doesn’t know; and AG Sessions must keep distance from any discussion with the executive due to this separation.

♦#5) Cooperating witness testimony in a criminal investigation also means congress would not know of the details. Congress (Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte) wouldn’t even know a criminal investigation was opened. The prosecutor works parallel with, but separate from, the IG investigation. Congress would know of the IG, but not the prosecutor. This interview by AG Sessions is the first indication congress would have of a DOJ official already looking at the criminal issues.

♦#6) And the most transparent reason why we know there’s a DOJ prosecutor already on the case is because Jeff Sessions just said there was.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions – Federal Prosecutor John W. Huber

Here’s the U.S. Code explaining the power of the Inspector General – SEE HERE

(Source LINK)

Additionally on February 27th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below). During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions if the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.

Attorney General Sessions affirmed the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI was indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]


This February 27th mention by AG Jeff Sessions WAS NOT NEWS.

That’s why yesterday’s admission by IG Horowitz in this regard was NOT a surprise.  It was happening all along.

(Go Deep)

The February statement by Jeff Sessions was exactly what those who have followed closely will note had seemed to be the direction of the IG investigation since mid-year 2017.

As AG Sessions affirmed, repeatedly, IG Horowitz was NOT limited in scope. Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse. If he found an issue, he had the authority to follow it.

Add this fact to General Sessions’ answers about the appointment of a DOJ official from outside Washington on March 8th, 2018, and you could clearly see the IG and appointed prosecutor have been working together for quite some time.

How long?

Likely since the time when IG Horowitz first informed the AG (Sessions) and DAG (Rosenstein) that he may have discovered significant evidence of unlawful conduct within the DOJ and FBI.  That would be around July/August 2017, when IG Horowitz was bound by duty to inform DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  That notification led to the removal of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

More visibility of the now revealed prosecutor was clear within the timeline:

January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.

Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.

The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.

On January 8th, Bruce Ohr was demoted for the second time. [AND DOJ officials scheduled Bruce Ohr to be available to Devin Nunes on January 17th]

On January 9th, the DOJ provided the unredacted DOJ/FBI documents requested to Chairman Nunes; the documents the DOJ produced surrounded the Clinton-Steele Dossier and the FISA Title-1 application. The documents were assigned to a SCIF in the basement of the House. Those documents become the basis for Chairman Nunes to outline his memo; essentially a declassification request to the White House written by Trey Gowdy.

As a result of the agreement between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes, one member from each side of the HPSCI aisle (one Democrat and one Republican) was permitted to review the original FISA application documents which included the Clinton-Steele dossier use therein.

Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff were the two Intel committee members who reviewed. (Remember, this is January 9th, 2018) [Only Gowdy, Schiff, Ratcliffe and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte reviewed the original FISA documents]

A week later, January 16th, 2018, Chairman Nunes postponed the witness interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr scheduled for the next day, January 17th.

Instead, on January 18th, 2018, the HPSCI voted to allow all members of the House to review the Nunes-Gowdy Memo created after the DOJ provided the documents (January 9th). [January 18th THROUGH February 2nd was #ReleaseTheMemo]

Now remember, throughout this time none of those prior agreed-upon FIVE witnesses (Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, Ohr) have been interviewed. Everyone’s attention shifted from witness testimony to the Memo; and as Democrat Eric Swalwell stated, no witness was interviewed. Period. [<- key point].

So to summarize so far: during January all the DOJ documents arrived, the HPSCI (Nunes) memo was written, released, declassified and released to the public on February 2nd, 2018 but no witnesses testified. [Nunes Memo – Link]

So the question becomes:

How does the exact testimony (including quotes) of Bruce Ohr, and Bill Priestap become part of the Nunes Memo if neither Bruce Ohr or Bill Priestap was ever interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee?

Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?

It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]

See where this was going? The investigative unit of the IG is providing congress with transcripts of testimony from IG investigators (DOJ and FBI employees within the OIG); with the review, control and approval of the DOJ outside prosecutor.  We now know that prosecutor is John Huber.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses, likely with his appointed DOJ prosecutor Huber, and extracted testimony. This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).

Let me remind everyone that each of the aforementioned names is still within the system. Unlike Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki or Andrew McCabe, none of the five (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Priestap) have been removed. Peter Strzok is in FBI HR; Lisa Page is doing something; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are holding down chairs somewhere; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence.

It doesn’t go unnoticed the media are transparently not following up on Peter, Lisa, Bruce Jim or Bill. No satellite trucks in front of their houses etc.; no pounding on their doors for comment etc. Nothing.

Further, ask yourself why Inspector General Michael Horowitz (or someone thereabouts) began to advance upon the entire ‘Trump operation’ with releases of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages? Why them? Surely, other collaborative communication was also captured, yet we only heard of Page and Strzok. Why?

Here’s what is becoming transparently obvious. The fab-five are cooperating with the investigative unit of the OIG. All five of them.

The text message release was strategic. It was intended to substantiate the entire enterprise, put the ‘small group on notice’ and flush out the co-conspirators. The downstream exits of Kortan, Laufman, Rybicki, McCabe et al are evidence therein.

Additionally, the OIG (Horowitz) would want to keep the testimony of Page, Strzok, Ohr, Baker and Priestap away from the Democrat politicians, well known leakers, within the House Intelligence Committee (ie. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff) until he was certain their usefulness as witnesses was exhausted.

The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.

The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG (as Jeff Sessions confirmed today) and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part.

[That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; and no-one outside the AG, AAG, and the ‘outside’ prosecutor’s office would know.]

The prior testimony/statements to the IG by the fab-five would explain why AAG Rod Rosenstein was negotiating with Devin Nunes; would explain why Rosenstein was reluctant to allow testimony; and would also explain why Nunes came away from those negotiations with wind in his investigative sails.

The DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) needs to wall-off the politics (Nunes/Congress) from the ongoing criminal investigation (DOJ-OIG-Prosecutor John Huber) to preserve the integrity of his advancing and assembling case (including criminal witness testimony).

As soon as Chairman Nunes recognized something was going on, and after a review of the FISA documents – Nunes dropped his demand for immediate testimony by the fab-five to the HPSCI mid-January. [A record is already established]

As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures recently shared:

“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”

Additionally regarding Bruce and Nellie Ohr:

“The Republican memo states they turned over all their work and testified to someone that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele and Steele was saying he didn’t want Trump in office. They didn’t testify to a Congressional committee, so it had to be the IG.”

The already existing “outside DOJ official” outlined by AG Sessions, John Huber the person who would be constructing the witness agreements with approval of his DOJ bosses, Rosenstein and Sessions.  Is this all making sense now?

All of the news and information coming forward, including the lack of follow-up attention by the Democrats regarding the minority HPSCI memo, aligns with a very specific set of facts. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with prosecutor John Huber for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor.

Thereby the Fab-Five have provided the IG investigative team and the DOJ prosecutor Huber with sworn statements and testimony which is highlighted in investigative communication between the DOJ and Chairman Nunes; and we saw snippets surfacing in the Nunes memo. That perspective explains everything seen and not seen.

It is likely the final investigative summary from the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG), Michael Horowitz, is going to be very encompassing. It is also likely to be immediately followed-up by actions, perhaps immediate indictments, from DOJ Prosecutor John Huber who Jeff Sessions brought in from outside Washington.

There is no need for a “Special Counsel” when a DOJ Prosecutor is already working with IG Horowitz. The “outside prosecutor” can begin issuing subpoenas for Grand Jury testimony and statements by the officials no longer within the DOJ/FBI, just as soon as the IG report is finished.