Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News to discuss the current ‘investigative’ status and reports of Brennan -vs- Comey on the use of the Steele Dossier within the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA.
Gowdy is one of the few people, along with John Ratcliffe, who has seen the full and unredacted FISA application used against Carter Page.
.
Regarding the use of the Steele Dossier within the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment; as Gowdy notes there is a likelihood both Brennan and Comey are both correct. It goes back to a story from a couple of months ago [SEE HERE]
The exit door begins to close. According to the latest leak provided to John Solomon the State Department information -deconstructing Chris Steele- was presented to FBI Agent Peter Strzok a week before they used Steele’s sketchy dossier to prop up the FBI FISA application on Carter Page.
John Solomon – […] The officials declined to say what the FBI did with the information about Steele after it reached Strzok’s team, or what the email specifically revealed. A publicly disclosed version of the email has been heavily redacted in the name of national security.
While much remains to be answered, the email exchange means FBI supervisors knew Steele had contact with State and had reason to inquire what he was saying before they sought the warrant. If they had inquired, agents would have learned Steele had admitted to Kavalec he had been leaking to the news media, had a political deadline of Election Day to get his information public and had provided demonstrably false intelligence in one case, as I reported last week. (read more)
It’s almost guaranteed the reason Kavelec’s email to the FBI was redacted is specifically because Ms. Kavelec used her State Dept. portal to check on travel records and noted the “Michael Cohen in Prague” story was false. Kavalec would have easy access to State Dept. travel records.
Chris Steele told Ms. Kavalec about Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to communicate/coordinate with the Russians. Kavalec made note of the claim:
Michael Cohen has denied ever traveling to Prague. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has supported Cohen on this issue; passport records show Cohen has never traveled to Prague. It appears Ms. Kavalec checked her State Dept. travel records and confirmed the same.
However, the CURRENT FBI wants to hide Ms. Kavalec’s warning/notification that Steele was delivering false information about Cohen traveling to Prague:
So put it all together. Chris Steele was producing the dossier for the FBI to use. Steele told State Dept. official Kavalec about the same information in his dossier. The State Dept. checked, and found out the information was false. The State Dept. warned the FBI. However, the FBI ignored the warning; and a week later used the dossier in the application for a retroactive Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. Person Carter Page.
To cover themselves; and because the claim was so central to the purpose of the Steele Dossier; the FBI then redacted the State Dept. warning about Michael Cohen traveling to Prague in the public email from the State Department.
Worse yet, in the application itself the FBI said the information proving Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power came from the State Dept:
The false claim about Cohen’s travel to Prague has been discussed here for well over a year. [January 2018]
So, the question is: Why is the FBI so damned committed to this Steele Dossier?
That answer is simple. In October 2016, they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant. They needed the 2016 FISA warrant to cover-up for all of the unauthorized and illegal surveillance activity that was already underway throughout 2016.
The Russian election interference narrative; the use of Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, the London and Australian embassy personnel; Erika Thompson, Alexander Downer, U.S. DIA officials; everything around Crossfire Hurricane; and everything after to include the construct of the Steele Dossier; all of it was needed for the creation of an ‘after-the-fact‘ plausible justification to cover-up what Mike Rogers discovered in early 2016, AND the downstream unmasked records that existed in the Obama White House SCIF.
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump. The intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. They already knew everything about the Trump campaign.
The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a justification for pre-existing surveillance operations. Fusion fulfilled that objective by contracting for the Steele Dossier.
That’s why the FBI, and later the Mueller team, were/are so strongly committed to, and defending, the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content. Once they had the dossier in hand the FBI proceeded forward for an ex post facto FISA warrant.
The goal was retroactive surveillance authority. The FBI used the Carter Page FISA application. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the dossier in the system, and the FISA authority as justification.
Against the backdrop of media reports surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham, and an investigation into potentially corrupt 2016 investigators, perhaps it’s worthwhile to pause, evaluate, reset the outlook and review the backstories.
There’s room for cautious optimism, but there’s also reason to temper expectations. First within the latest Fox News report, the following is noted:
Fox News – […] Durham, known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor, according to a source, will focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use and assignments of FBI informants, as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. Durham was asked to help Barr to “ensure that intelligence collection activities by the U.S. Government related to the Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign were lawful and appropriate.”
A source also told Fox News that Barr is working “collaboratively” on the investigation with FBI Director Chris Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and that Durham is also working directly with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is currently reviewing allegations of misconduct in issuance of FISA warrants, and the role of FBI informants during the early stages of the investigation. (read more)
If this report is correct; and if this review parameter is accurate as described; then Durham is ONLY looking at the gross intelligence activity prior to the 2016 election.
This is pertinent because it means Durham is NOT looking at the DOJ/FBI corrupt activity that surrounds the Mueller probe, Rod Rosenstein, corrupt current FBI agents/officials; corrupt investigative outcomes and cover-ups that occurred during 2017 and 2018 (James Wolfe etc.)… Regardless of disposition, career DOJ and FBI employees (ie. Mueller’s staff of workers), will remain safe under this limited review. Keep this in mind.
Recently Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a farewell address during the departure of DAG Rod Rosenstein. Many people took the highly visible back-slapping internecine send-off to mean that Rosenstein was departing as an honorable soldier; and Barr’s praise of Rosenstein was evidence of his honorable character… Et cetera, Et cetera.
But what was the alternative?
Was it possible for U.S. Attorney General William Barr to publicly outline the years-long gross abuses and inherent corruption of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation in full public visibility? Was it possible for him to verbally destroy the reputations of all participating members within both organizations over the past three years? Of course not.
Think about the ramifications of brutal honesty.
If Barr was publicly and brutally honest, the political backlash would not only be nuclear in scale; but also our foreign adversaries would immediately pounce on a narrative of how this great constitutional republic was built upon lies and fraud. The reputation of the United States law enforcement and intelligence community could likely never recover. From an intellectually honest position, clearly AG Barr had limited options.
That said, with the introduction of John H Durham, what the hell was U.S. Attorney John Huber (Utah) doing for the past two years? Huber was previously assigned to assist Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz in November of 2017, so why is John Durham now assigned to OIG Horowitz seemingly to do the same thing? The answer is not complex.
Originally Horowitz was assigned on January 12, 2017, to review issues related to the DOJ and FBI relating to improper conduct in advance of the 2016 election. [Read] That original mandate led to two investigations/reports: (1) Leaks from the FBI (Andrew McCabe outlined); and (2) Overall DOJ/FBI investigative bias and political outcome. Mid-way through these investigations, November 2017, is when Huber was assigned to assist. [Read]
In March 2018, while the two avenues of investigation were ongoing; at the request of AG Jeff Sessions; the OIG opened a third review: Potential FISA abuse [Read] So in March 2018, Michael Horowiz has three investigations underway.
A month later, April 13, 2018, Horowitz releases the IG report on McCabe. Now he’s down to two investigations again. On June 14, 2018, Horowitz releases the IG report on DOJ and FBI misconduct/bias. Now the only remaining investigation is the FISA review. This is when any visible activity by John Huber ends. It makes sense Huber would end in/around June 2018, because Horowitz had an easily manageable, albeit important, singular review.
WASHINGTON DC – […] US Attorney John Huber in Utah is no longer involved on Russia issues. Huber had originally been tasked with looking at allegations of surveillance abuse by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but has been in a holding pattern as the inspector general completes his review of the surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Huber’s review of other issues related to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation is nearing completion, the source said.
♦ A criminal referral on McCabe for leaking to media was sent to DC U.S. Attorney Jessica Liu in April 2018. That criminal review looks like it was dropped approximately six months later; around the same time the criminal DOJ cover-up operation for SSCI leaker James Wolfe was executed in October of 2018. Yes, I’m saying “criminal cover-up” carried out by the DOJ to protect the multiple institutions of government who would have been severely impacted.
Throughout 2018, simultaneous to the Mueller probe’s ongoing corrupt effort; career officials within the institutions of the DOJ and FBI are transparently working with an agenda to protect the interests of the institutions. Career mid-tier officials and investigators (ref. 40 FBI agents for Mueller etc.) remain embedded despite the top tier firings and resignations. [Again, reference DOJ/FBI Papadopoulos operation July 2018]
A month after Wolfe was protected by a plea deal; and a month after McCabe was seemingly protected; and the same month Rosenstein provided Mueller with (the second scope memo) authority to target Mike Flynn Jr…. the mid-term election was held.
Mid-November 2018: Corrupt DOJ/FBI embeds remain in place. Mid-November 2018: President Trump does not appoint Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General.
Within a week, November 14, 2018, the OLC issues guidance that Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff, now Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, can oversee the Mueller/Weissmann probe.
♦ Now, in order to bring U.S. Attorney John H Durham into the picture, go back to the October 2018 timeline again. •DC Attorney Jessie Liu does not charging James Wolfe with leaking classified intelligence. •DC Attorney Jessie Liu (likely, very likely) drops the criminal referral of McCabe, again a leaking issue. Later McCabe goes on book tour.
When and Where was the criminal referral of former FBI legal counsel James Baker sent? October 3rd, 2018, lawyers for James Baker inform Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows that their client has been under investigation for leaking to media and the prosecutor is John Durham.
So the referral for James Baker, was sent outside DC and likely was done quite a while ago. Status? Unknown. [Baker was relieved of his FBI duties in December of 2017.] There is a distinct possibility, much like Andrew McCabe, the criminal review of James Baker was previously dropped.
Via Robert Litt […] Durham’s investigation had nothing to do with the Russia investigation or the Steele dossier. I have first-hand knowledge of this because, in my former capacity as general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I was interviewed by Durham as part of that investigation. I’m not at liberty to disclose what Durham was investigating, but it concerned events that occurred long before the 2016 election and were unrelated to Russia or the dossier. Others have reportedthat Durham has cleared Baker; I have no personal knowledge of that. (link)
While it would be false to say Durham has been investigating the origin of the Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, he obviously has been involved in the investigative perimeter of events. So one can presume he has a solid frame of reference:
FOX NEWS – Durham, known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor, according to a source, will focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use and assignments of FBI informants, as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.
CNN – […] Barr is working in close collaboration with CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray, the source said.
[…] The source said Durham and Barr are doing a comprehensive review, and Durham is with working with the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, as well. (read more)
♦ Who was the CIA Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action over Europe, while John Brennan and Peter Strzok were running their European 2016 counterintelligence operations?….
That would be current CIA Director Gina Haspel.
Bottom line: This Barr “investigation” could end up with accountability; or this Barr “investigation” could unearth so much institutional corruption and gross malfeasance that Barr will stand at a podium and duplicate recent events:
Today President Trump will be touring a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana before he delivers a statement on energy sector infrastructure and the economy. The president is expected to deliver remarks at 3:10pm EDT.
Curtis Ellis was special advisor to Secretary of Labor Acosta in the Trump administration. He is now an outside government advisor to America-First Policies, an unaffiliated economic advisory board and advocacy group. In this video Ellis walks through the big picture behind the U.S. -vs- China Trade confrontation.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. President Trump delivers remarks to the press as he departs the White House for an energy policy speech in Louisiana. The president answered multiple questions about current events including China, Bill Barr, John Durham, Iran, Don Jr., and immigration. [Video and transcript below]
.
[Transcript] 11:21 A.M. EDT – THE PRESIDENT: So, the economy is doing very well by every measure. We’re having probably the greatest economy that we’ve had anywhere, anytime, in the history of our country.
We’re having a little squabble with China because we’ve been treated very unfairly for many, many decades — for, actually, a long time. And it should have been handled a long time ago, and it wasn’t. And we’ll handle it now.
I think it’s going to be — I think it’s going to turn out extremely well. We’re at a very strong position. We are the piggy bank that everybody likes to take advantage of, or take from. And we can’t let that happen anymore.
We’ve been losing, for many years, anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion a year with China and trade with China. We can’t let that happen.
The relationship I have with President Xi is extraordinary. It’s, really, very good. But he’s for China and I’m for the USA, and it’s very simple.
We are, again, in a very, very strong position. They want to make a deal. It could absolutely happen. But, in the meantime, a lot of money is being made by the United States, and a lot of strength is being shown. This has never happened to China before.
Our economy is fantastic; theirs is not so good. We’ve gone up trillions and trillions of dollars since the election; they’ve gone way down since my election.
So, that’s the way it is. That’s the way it stands. We’re going to do very well.
Yeah.
Q Mr. President, are you confident that there will be no recession while you’re in office?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you never can say that, but we’re doing very well. We’re doing — I think we probably have the greatest economy that we’ve ever had.
The employment numbers came out. As you know, they’re record levels in almost every category: African American — the best in history, if you take a look; Hispanic American, the best in history. Yesterday, Asian American numbers came in; they are the lowest in history — the history of our country. Women — I think in 61 years, and soon that will be historic, too.
So that we are doing — and as far as employment numbers, we have the most people working today in the United States than we’ve ever had before. Almost 160 million people. So it’s really good.
Q Mr. President, trade talks collapsed with China. Would you describe it —
THE PRESIDENT: You got a machine over there.
Q Have trade talks collapsed with China? Would you describe it like that?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn’t. We have a very good dialogue. We have a dialogue going. It’ll always continue. But we made a deal with China. It was a deal that was a very good deal. It had to be a good deal; otherwise, we’re not making it. Because we’ve been down so low in trade — and other Presidents should’ve done this a long time ago — we can’t just make a new deal. And I told that to President Xi.
But we had a deal that was very close, and then they broke it. They really did. I mean, more than just — more than renegotiate, they really broke it. So we can’t have that happen.
Q Mr. President, did you ask the Attorney General to launch a probe into the Russia investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I didn’t ask him to do that.
Q Did you know he was going to do it?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t know it. I didn’t know it. But I think it’s a great thing that he did it. I saw it last night. And they want to look at how that whole hoax got started. It was a hoax. And even Mueller — not a friend of mine — even Bob Mueller came out: “No collusion.” And he had 18 people that didn’t like Donald Trump. They were Hillary Clinton fans. They contributed, many of them, to Hillary Clinton. They came out. It was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of this country.
And you know what? I am so proud of our Attorney General, that he is looking into it. I think it’s great. I did not know about it. No.
Q Mr. President, were you surprised by the Chinese retaliation, sir? You tweeted they “should not retaliate,” and then they did.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. I wasn’t surprised. But you have to understand they do $600 billion, meaning we buy $600 billion and they buy $100 billion. We have all the advantage. It’s a very small factor for us. And we have a much bigger economy now. You know, since my election, we’ve gone up so much. We have a much bigger economy than China. But if you take a look, $600 [DEL: million :DEL] [billion] versus $100 [DEL: million :DEL] [billion]. It’s a different world.
Q Mr. President, (inaudible) $100 billion in additional tariffs, then?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re looking at that very strongly. About the $325 billion — we’re looking at it very strongly.
David.
Q Mr. President, did you tell DHS to round up immigrant families?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know anything about that. I read that. It’s probably fake news. But I read that this morning. I don’t know anything about it.
Q Mr. President, why is it unfair? Why is it unfair, sir, for Don Jr. to be subpoenaed if he’s pulled out of testifying twice?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, it’s really a tough situation because my son spent, I guess, over 20 hours testifying about something that Mueller said was 100 percent okay. And now they want him to testify again. I don’t know why. I have no idea why, but it seems very unfair to me.
Q Mr. President, are you planning to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East in response to Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s fake news, okay? Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.
But I think it’s just — where was that story? In the New York Times? Well, the New York Times is fake news.
Go ahead.
Q You say this is a small squabble, but don’t you understand that American consumers may very well suffer because of this?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. So you have no tariff to pay whatsoever if you’re a business. All you have to do is build or make your product in the United States. There’s no tariff whatsoever. So that really works out very well.
Q Do you think you’re winning the trade war, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we’re winning it. We’re going to be collecting over $100 billion in tariffs. Our people, if they want, they can buy from someplace else, other than China. Or they can — really, the ideal is make their product in the USA. That’s what I really want. Yeah, we’re winning it.
You know what? You want to know something? You want to know something? We always win. We always win.
How are you, Emerald?
Q I’m good. How are you?
THE PRESIDENT: Good. What’s up?
Q Do you have confidence in Christopher Wray after he said he wouldn’t exactly call it “spying”?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I didn’t understand his answer because I thought the Attorney General answered it perfectly. So I certainly didn’t understand that answer. I thought it was a ridiculous answer.
Myth 1 is that the government owes “only” $20 trillion. (In reality, it’s much more.) But luckily, Myth 10 is that there’s no way to fix this problem… Prof. Antony Davies explains.
Free Market Economics: What is the difference between paying a tax and donating to a charity? Many Americans support charities ranging from the American Red Cross to PETA, but is it moral to make others donate to a charity of your choice? Learn more at: http://www.learnliberty.org/ Rob Gressis, a professor of philosophy, went on campus at California State University – Northridge, to ask students two questions on philosophy: Is it moral to force others to give to the cause of your choice? Is it moral for the government to force others to give to the cause of your choice? Do you think it is ethical for individuals or the government to force you to donate to a charity? Watch the video and let us know your thoughts on the relationship between free will, philanthropy, and taxes in the comments below. ►Learn More The Morality of Taxation (video): Eamonn Butler discusses the morality of taxation, which he wrote about for the Taxpayers’ Alliance’s report, The Single Income Tax. http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spe… The Interactive Great American Taxing Game: Intro (video): Play the interactive game with your host, Professor Art Carden, and answer the age old question: Who Should Be Taxed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHr-m… Is Fixing Inequality A Matter of Justice? (video):This Learn Liberty-sponsored debate presents arguments for and against more government assistance to help the poor in the United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTVhg… What Can Adam Smith Teach Us About Tax Policy (article): Evaluate our current tax system against the famous economist’s four maxims of taxation for public funding. http://www.libertarianism.org/publica… ► http://LearnLiberty.org ► http://youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty ► http://twitter.com/LearnLiberty ► http://google.com/+LearnLiberty ► http://facebook.com/LearnLiberty
Governments don’t work the way most people think they do. Public choice theory explores how voters, politicians, and bureaucrats actually make decisions. Prof. Antony Davies explains.
Recorded on February 21, 2019. What is “false black power?” According to Jason Riley, author of False Black Power?, it is political clout, whereas true black power is human capital and culture. Riley and Peter Robinson dive into the arguments in Riley’s new book, the history of African Americans in the United States, and welfare inequality in black communities. Riley discusses the Moynihan report of 1965, which documented the rise of black families headed by single women in inner cities and how this report was something black sociologists had already been writing about for several years. He argues that there was clearly a breakdown of the nuclear family and that this is a result of the “Great Society” welfare programs of the 1960s rather than the legacy of slavery or Jim Crow laws. In the 1960s, Riley posits that the black activist community’s shift towards political engagement was misguided. He argues that the idea of black political clout leading to black economic advancement was misplaced. Other impoverished communities (i.e. Irish, Jewish, and Italian immigrant communities) at various times in American history focused on economic advancement first before trying to achieve political clout, and they were successful. Instead, the black community focused first on electing black politicians, which ended up doing very little for the economic advancement of the community as politicians typically put their own interests first, above their communities’. Riley points out that the economic data shows that black communities became more impoverished under black leadership. Riley proposes a solution of advocating for more school-choice vouchers, which allow black parents to take better control of their children’s futures and place them in the best schools for them. He also argues for reducing social safety nets, making them a more temporary form of welfare rather than the multigenerational welfare system currently in place. Other resources https://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-He… Please Stop Helping Us, by Jason Riley https://www.hoover.org/research/discr… – Discrimination and Disparities, with Thomas Sowell https://californiaglobe.com/fr/stanfo… Stanford Hoover Institution economist targets socialism, fears ‘we may not make it’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUvQx… – Sowell: Politicians using race as their ticket to whatever racket they’re running Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UncKnowledge/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/UncKnowledge/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/uncommon_knowle…
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 