The admissions within the New York Times story today -outlining how President Obama’s intelligence apparatus ran simultaneous intelligence operations against the Trump campaign- are starting to merge the FBI and CIA operations. CTH anticipated this.

With new information about the “U.K. operation” using Stefan Halper (CIA asset and FBI informant); and the details of the contacts by U.S. intelligence operative Azra Turk; we can overlay the timeline and see a clear picture.

On August 15th, 2016, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok discussed the “insurance policy“:

Two weeks later, September 2nd, 2016, CIA operative Stefan Halper reaches out to George Papadopoulos and introduces him to CIA/FBI asset Azra Turk.

This alignment between the CIA and FBI is not a surprise to anyone who has followed the story behind the 2015/2016 political surveillance issues.  However, there’s a specific connection here many are missing.

Remember, everything AFTER March 9th, 2016, is a cover-story.  Everything after March 9th, 2016, are operations from both the CIA and FBI to hide the political surveillance that was going on before March 9th, 2016.  The surveillance was happening through exploitation of the NSA database through unauthorized FISA search queries; and involved both the CIA and FBI.

This is the point that has not been emphasized enough. However, FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer outlined the connection, albeit with mandatory redactions.  The connective evidence is in a footnote on page #87 of Collyer’s report that few are paying attention to:

Read that carefully and you’ll see an agreement between the CIA and FBI to allow contractors.  Note:

“[CIA] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding enter into [in ????])”

CTH believes that redacted date is 2012 as a result of another section of the report and the emphasis that Collyer is placing on the time-frame throughout her full report.  Notice also:

“Despite the existence of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers) no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.”

So there was a secret agreement between the CIA and the FBI that was kept hidden from the FISA court until 2016 when Director Mike Rogers exposed and reported it.

The agreement centered around “access to FBI systems“; and, THIS IS IMPORTANT, we know the overarching issue was “deliberate decisionmaking” that led to “contractor access to the NSA database”, and the fact those contractors were searching “U.S. persons”.

Can you see the process now?

Can you see the potentially layered illegality of the process now?

CIA operatives (contractors) were using FBI portal access (per the secret agreement) to exploit the NSA database and extract search results.  Remember, the CIA is not supposed to be conducting surveillance, aka “spying”, inside the U.S. on American citizens.

In essence the secret agreement, unknown to the court, was the CIA hiding their extraction of U.S. person information by using FBI database access.  [Through the DOJ-NSD (National Security Division)]   Now does it make sense why the DOJ would not allow Inspector General oversight?

In 2015 the Office of Inspector General requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The secret MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the CIA and FBI was the reason why the DOJ-NSD could never allow inspector general oversight.

In the Obama-era political surveillance programs the lines between the CIA and FBI were blurred. They were working together through contractors. This is why you are noticing blurred lines between the CIA and FBI in the construct of the cover-up.

This is the parallel tracks we previously described, copied below for reference:

Everything after March 9th, 2016, is a function of two intelligence units, the CIA and FBI, operating together to coverup prior political surveillance and spy operations.

Prior to March 9th, 2016, the surveillance and spy operation was using the NSA database to track and monitor their political opposition.  However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. [Full Backstory]

The evidence for this is found in the documents attached to both operations; and bolsters the original statements by Congressman Devin Nunes as highlighted below.

♦The CIA track took place between March and July 2016, and consisted of using foreign intelligence allies in Italy, the U.K and Australia to create a background illusion of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign.  This operation was based on earlier -more innocuous- contacts from various countries, weaponized and redeployed in what everyone calls “spygate”.  This track successfully culminated in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

♦The FBI track was domestic-centric, albeit sub-contracted to Fusion GPS and later a former British intelligence officer, and took place between April and October 2016; also to create the illusion of Russian involvement.  This operation is best known around the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page.  The FBI track continued with the Mueller investigation into 2017, 2018 and 2019.

In April of 2018 Devin Nunes noted:

[Transcript] “So it took us a long time to actually get this, what’s called the electronic communication, as we know it now for your viewers, what it is it’s the original intelligence, original reasons that the counterintelligence was started.

Now this is really important to us because the counterintelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens. And we’ve long wanted to know: what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation? So what we’ve found now, after the investigators have reviewed it, is that in fact there was no intelligence.

So we have a traditional partnership with what’s called the Five Eyes Agreement. Five Eyes Agreement involves our friends in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and of course, us. So long time processes and procedures in place where we move intelligence across.

We are not supposed to spy on each others’ citizens. And it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government.

And that’s why we had to see that original communication. So now we’re trying to figure out, as you know, we are investigating the State Department, we think there’s some major irregularities in the State Department, and we’re trying to figure out how this information about Mr. Papadopoulos of all people who was supposedly meeting with some folks in London, how that made it over across into the FBI’s hands.” (video link)

The direct evidence for what Devin Nunes is describing is found in two specific documents.  Each of the documents is unique to their track.  One track is the CIA the other track is the FBI.  The merging point that binds them is the U.S. State Department.

♦ First, we review the CIA track.

The evidence for the CIA track is found in the Weissmann-Mueller report.  More specifically, it is found in the intentional way the report tries to conflate two contact points.

This track is CIA Director John Brennan’s work, with enlisted help from the FBI counterintelligence unit (Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap) as they travel to the U.K.

After western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud (posed as a Russian) plants a story on George Papadopoulos about Russia having “emails of Clinton”, the operation then needs Papadopoulos to share the information.  That’s where a joint network comes in.  The network is the U.S. embassy in London; the Australian embassy in London; the Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer; and his top aide Erika Thompson.

Notice page #89 of the report; but read carefully and specifically notice the date Weissmann and Mueller use to frame the Russia story extraction from Papadopoulos:

The meeting on May 6th, was NOT a meeting with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer.  That meeting did not happen until May 10th.  The recent release of documentsfrom Australia confirm this timeline.

The meeting on May 6th was between George Papadopoulos and Downer’s aide, Erika Thompson:  …”that the Trump campaign had received information from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

So, if the U.S. used the information from the May 6, 2016, meeting as conveyed on July 26th, 2016, it was the conversation with Erika Thompson that opened Crossfire Hurricane; not the meeting with Alexander Downer on May 10th. {Go Deep}

This subtle but important distinction in contact and communication reconciles the statement by Devin Nunes; because Thompson is also a reported intelligence operative (spy) and information from her would not be passing through “Five Eyes” official channels.   However, for their intents and purposes, the U.S. operation needed to give the appearance of official channels, so the *inference* between the claim and the footnote *implies* Ambassador Downer.  But you can see that’s not actually what happened.

This is an example of Weissmann/Mueller disguising the actual origin in their report.  They are giving cover to the reality that unofficial intelligence was the actual basis for the originating “EC” or two-page electronic communication from CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey. It was that 2-page EC, likely written by FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, that initiated “Crossfire Hurricane”.

The page in the Weissmann/Mueller report is factually true but the inference is false.  It is written in the way they intended, to give a false impression.  It is quite subtle and sneaky.

What is outlined on Page #89 is also the CIA track that ran from March to July 31st, 2016.

The operation positioned Joseph Mifsud as a Russian spy; has him plant information on George Papadopoulos; then uses U.S. and AU operatives to withdraw the information; thereby giving the appearance that a Trump campaign official, Papadopoulos, was receiving and passing-on Russian intelligence.  This is the CIA justification for creating the EC.  This is the CIA cover story.

Now let’s review the evidence of the FBI track and how it also connects to the U.S. State Department.  This one is more brutally obvious because the document had to be less ambiguous in construct.   This involves the FISA application on U.S. Person Carter Page.

♦ The FBI Track – The Steele Dossier, FISA Warrant and Carter Page.

The second page of the FISA application used to gain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. Carter Page identifies where the material came from.  Notice the direct attribution is to the State Department; not the DOJ or FBI, and certainly not Christopher Steele.

Applying hindsight to the backstory of the Clinton Campaign hiring Fusion GPS, and Fusion hiring Christopher Steele for the Dossier; and the dossier being passed on to the FBI and DOJ via various channels… Question: why would the DOJ be citing the State Department for their claim?

The answer is simple.  Carter Page was a known person to the FBI and DOJ.  Carter Page was a subject witness from 2012 to 2016 in the Evgeny Buryakov case [DOJ March 2016].  How could the FBI claim Carter Page was “an agent of a foreign power” to the FISA court in October 2016, when they only finished using him as a cooperating subject witness in May of 2016?  [DOJ May 2016]

The short answers are: (1) they couldn’t; (2) they were in a big hurry; there was a sense of urgency; they needed the FISA and Steele Dossier as insurance policy; and (3) it wasn’t safe for the DOJ/FBI to make the ‘foreign agent‘ claim against their own prior witness if things went sideways.

Remember, this is all a coverup.  Their efforts are about gaining position and appearances to justify a preceding action. Their efforts are not focused on an actual investigation. So they told the FISC the information came from the State Department and [Redacted]. Whichever source could give them the best legal justification to gain the FISA warrant was the leading point in the thought process.

Despite everything around the Steele Dossier primarily inbound from Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele to the DOJ and FBI, the people creating the FISA illusion needed to use the State Department as a valid reference for fraudulent claims they were making.

From the beginning Fusion-GPS was not hired to research Donald Trump; the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. The intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing surveillance and spy operations.  Fusion created the dossier for them.

The FBI knew Carter Page.  Essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep} as their insurance policy.

So there we see two parallel tracks; one from the CIA, and one from the FBI.  Both intended to provide a cover story for political surveillance and spy operations that preceded March 9, 2016. The CIA track created ‘crossfire hurricane’.  The FBI track created the Steele Dossier.  Both had the same purpose.

Both tracks originated from ‘unofficial channels’ and then transferred into official status through the use of two documents.  The CIA generated the two-page “EC”; and the FBI generated the FISA application from the Steele Dossier.

Both tracks held the same coverup purpose; both tracks were insurance policies; and both tracks merged for intelligence exploitation after President Trump won the election.  After the election the goal was shifted to remove the risk Trump represented.

Once they had the legal justifications for targeting Trump, albeit fraudulently obtained, the effort could move into phase three: by-the-book processes.  The FBI track evolved into the Mueller probe; that’s why the Dossier is so important to the validity of the special counsel.

Everything after March 9th, 2016, through today – is covering for everything that happened before March 9th when “contractors” were allowed by the FBI and DOJ to have weaponized access to the NSA database for political surveillance and spy operations.

This two-track process and ultimate merging is what all of the documentary evidence supports.  I suspect when the arc of the story concludes, this is where we will be.

The most important sentence in Judge Collyer’s brief:

 …”many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.”..

This Page #82 sentence specifically highlights that during the 2016 presidential campaign, those who had access to the NSA database were searching the same phone numbers, email addresses, electronic “identifiers”, or people, repeatedly over different dates.

Specific people were being tracked/monitored.

A report in the New York Times, transparently timed and placed by officials within the intelligence apparatus trying to get out ahead of internal investigations, outlines how the FBI sent counterintelligence spies to engage with Trump campaign officials in 2016.

In a stunning admission The New York Times describes how the FBI enlisted a female agent to work the “operation” in the U.K. during August-September 2016 posing as an aide for U.S. intelligence asset/FBI informant Stefan Halper.

Halper was an FBI operative and  Cambridge professor who set up meetings with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos.  The female agent used a fake name, Azra Turk, and presented herself as an assistant to Stefan Halper; however, she was actually an undercover intelligence operative of the FBI.

NYT […] The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.

The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it“Spygate.”

Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper. The move was a sign that the bureau wanted in place a trained investigator for a layer of oversight, as well as someone who could gather information for or serve as a credible witness in any potential prosecution that emerged from the case.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment, as did a lawyer for Mr. Halper, Robert D. Luskin. Last year, Bill Priestap, then the bureau’s top counterintelligence agent who was deeply involved in the Russia inquiry, told Congress during a closed-door hearing that there was no F.B.I. conspiracy against Mr. Trump or his campaign.

Obviously the group (CIA, DOJ and FBI) who constructed the political surveillance and spy operations are trying to present their side of the story, prior to investigation by AG Bill Barr and the soon-to-be-released IG report.

The London operation yielded no fruitful information, but F.B.I. officials have called the bureau’s activities in the months before the election both legal and carefully considered under extraordinary circumstances.

They are now under scrutiny as part of an investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general. He could make the results public in May or June, Attorney General William P. Barr has said. Some of the findings are likely to be classified.

It is unclear whether Mr. Horowitz will find fault with the F.B.I.’s decision to have Ms. Turk, whose real name is not publicly known, meet with Mr. Papadopoulos.

Mr. Horowitz has focused among other things on the activities of Mr. Halper, who accompanied Ms. Turk in one of her meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos and also met with him and other campaign aides separately. The bureau might also have seen Ms. Turk’s role as essential for protecting Mr. Halper’s identity as an informant if prosecutors ever needed court testimony about their activities.

Notice how the leaker of this information to the New York Times appears to have direct knowledge of exactly what IG Horowitz has investigated.  This leaked story is coming from within the still employed corrupt elements of the FBI.

[…] This account was described in interviews with people familiar with the F.B.I. activities of Mr. Halper, Ms. Turk and the inspector general’s investigation. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the subjects of a continuing inquiry.

As part of Mr. Horowitz’s investigation, his office has examined Mr. Halper’s past work as an F.B.I. informant and asked witnesses about whether agents had adequate control of Mr. Halper’s activities, people familiar with the inquiry have said.

While in London in 2016, Ms. Turk exchanged emails with Mr. Papadopoulos, saying meeting him had been the “highlight of my trip,” according to messages provided by Mr. Papadopoulos.  “I am excited about what the future holds for us :),” she wrote.

Notice how The New York Times is intentionally conflating the timing and sequencing of events in this article.

Representative Doug Collins and Asst. Attorney General Stephen Boyd blast Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler for blatant politicization of the House Judiciary Committee.