The Declassification Conundrum…


Today is likely to be a very busy news day.  President Trump will appear on Fox and Friends at the same time the Bureau of Labor and Statistics releases the August jobs report. RESULTS: Total employment increased by 201,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.9 percent (data here)

Additionally, there’s the congressional requests (legislative branch) for President Trump (executive branch) to declassify redacted portions of the DOJ/FBI FISA application.  So it is worthwhile discussing the “declassification conundrum” beginning with this interview:

.

The congressional request is for President Trump to declassify and release the Carter Page FISA applications (including specifically pages 10-12 and 17-34 and relevant footnotes), all of the Bruce Ohr 302s and other relevant documents, including exculpatory evidence regarding Carter Page and others, that were presented to the Gang of Eight, but not presented to the FISA Court.

At first glance it appears to be a simple request right? However, it is anything but simple for a lot of reasons.

First, here’s a link to the General Principles of declassification [SEE HERE] Yes, the President can declassify anything; however, there is a process that must be followed.

Part of that process is similar to the former declassification request surrounding the FISA memo written by HPSCI Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.

 

Note the declassification reference. Executive order 13526 [Citation Here]

Following that declassification process the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, and the Attorney General, in this example Rod Rosenstein, needed to “sign-off” on the declassification.

The process reasoning is simple in the ordinary (non corrupt) flow of events.  The intelligence agencies might need to protect part of the information, such as “sources or methods” of intelligence contained within the classified material. Under ordinary declassification procedures the President would likely not want to compromise the ‘sources’ and ‘methods’, and would defer to the intelligence experts.

In the Nunes memo declassification example the following letter accompanied the approval from the FBI and DOJ:

The Nunes memo was mostly declassified and almost all the redactions removed.

Now, lets consider the actual status of the current request – and remind ourselves we are not talking about an ordinary situation.  In this situation there are corrupt elements, current officials and career voices, within the FBI and DOJ who have a vested interest in NOT APPROVING the current request.

The President (Chief Executive) wants to declassify the FISA application material as requested.  The President requests the DOJ and FBI to remove the requested redacted portions of the Carter Page FISA application.  Specifically:

“pages 10-12 and 17-34 and relevant footnotes, all of the Bruce Ohr 302s and other relevant documents, including exculpatory evidence regarding Carter Page and others, that were presented to the Gang of Eight, but not presented to the FISA Court.”

So President Trump requests his FBI Director and Attorney General to declassify those documents as requested by congress.  However, if the FBI Director and/or Attorney General refuse to declassify those documents, then what happens?

Remember, all current behavior reflects the current DOJ and FBI leadership are just as complicit in the current corruption -via the cover-up-  as the former DOJ and FBI leadership.  The current DOJ/FBI leadership (both members of the executive branch) have been refusing to turn over these and other documents.

Yes, President Trump is the Chief Executive, but unfortunately he has executive cabinet members who are actively acting against his requests.  [See the numerous Trump tweets for examples of the President’s frustration].

Now the ordinary process becomes anything but ordinary.

Now the problem moves from process to politics.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions (he’s recused and of no help) so the request goes to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.  If they refuse, President Trump’s option is to fire and replace the officials who are blocking the request.  However, that option is politically charged…. [hence the media drum beating the 25th amendment; see, this is all coordinated].

AG Jeff Sessions is recused (frustration), and the request would be against the interests of DAG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray who are participating in a cover-up of one of the largest abuses of power in American political history.  See the problem?

The President needs the AG or DAG and FBI Director to approve and sign-off on the declassification request.  Under normal, non-corrupt, processes this would be simple.  However, under corrupt leadership, intent on hiding jaw-dropping abuse of authority within the institutions of the DOJ and FBI, the process is anything but simple.

That’s the current problem.

Hopefully everyone can see the issue.

Now lets talk about the “WHY”.  Why is Rosenstein and Wray almost certainly unwilling to release the requested material?  [If they were willing, it would have already happened]

Here’s where we need to look at the likely cause of many of the redactions, “Sources and Methods” – the all too familiar phrase.

As we saw from the unredacted portions of the original FISA application release, the FBI and DOJ used corrupt intelligence (Steele Dossier) and media reports as “sources” for their original FISA warrant.

It is almost certain that under the redactions currently being requested to be removed there are more media reports used as “sources”.  Indeed, Representative Mark Meadows has alluded to exactly that.

The FBI and DOJ have leaked to the media, and then used those media reports to validate their FISA warrants and renewal applications.  The “sources and methods” are corrupt.

So lets walk this out while overlaying aspects we have already identified.

How likely is it that the 3rd FISA renewal signed by Rod Rosenstein (June 29th, 2017), the subject of the current request, was based -in part- on media reports?

Highly likely?  I would say, yes.

So again, walking this out.

Remember the March 17th, 2017, FISC copy that was given to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and leaked by the Senate Security Director James Wolfe to his concubine/journalist Ali Watkins?

How likely is it that the Buzzfeed, WaPo and New York Times articles, that used the leaked FISA application in their reporting, were included as part of the renewal request?

Likely?  I would say, yes.

If so, think about what has almost certainly happened.

The FISA Court released a copy of the Carter Page FISA application to the SSCI.  The SSCI then leaked the FISA Application to the media. The media then reported on Carter Page as part of the vast Russian Conspiracy (the insurance policy) based on the SSCI leak.  The FBI and DOJ then used the 2017 media reporting from the SSCI leak to request the June 2017 FISA renewal.

Keep in mind, all of this happened under the current FBI and DOJ leadership.

Can you see the corruption problem for the DOJ and FBI?

Now, keep walking this out.  How likely is it that James Wolfe leaked that FISA application at the request of Senators on the SSCI?   Remember his defense?

Attorneys for James A. Wolfe sent letters to all 15 senators on the committee, notifying them that their testimony may be sought as part of Mr. Wolfe’s defense, according to two people familiar with the matter. (link)

So what this looks like is an intentional effort within the SSCI (See Mark Warner, Adam Waldman, et al) to create a process to ensure the FISA surveillance warrant was extended in 2017.  This renewal was critical; it was part of the insurance policy being executed.  Remember Adam Waldman, the guy text messaging with Mark Warner, lying to Chuck Grassley to avoid giving testimony to congress?

See the big picture?

See the scale of corruption?

Corruption this deep explains why James Wolfe was not charged with the leaking of highly classified intelligence, and only given the much lesser charge of lying to the FBI about the leaking.  Also, remember throughout the 2016 election Senator Dianne Feinstein was a Gang-of-Eight member and Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Now do you remember the $50 million raised by former Dianne Feinstein SSCI Senior Staffer Daniel Jones to continue funding Fusion GPS *after* the 2016 election?

Against this big picture backdrop doesn’t that money seem like it would be available for hush-money payments to the complicit media apparatus for services rendered?

Remember, Daniel Jones is closely connected to leaks given to the New York Times. The fate of the media and the corrupt officials within the FBI and DOJ are attached.  How likely is it that Ali Watkins direct or indirect reporting is part of the FISA renewal?

Now, do the hit jobs by the New York Times make sense?  Anonymous Op-eds?  Articles and discussions about needing to invoke the 25th Amendment?

Corrupt politicians, corrupt media, corrupt FBI and DOJ officials past and present; all of them have a vested interest in opposition to any declassification sunlight.

So yes, President Trump can request declassification within his executive authority; however, he needs DOJ and FBI officials within his executive branch who are willing to follow instructions.  If those officials are connected -or implicated- directly or indirectly in the corruption…. well, just how would you expect to see it play out?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it would play out exactly as we have been watching it play out for the past nine months.

Making sense now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.