At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.

The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrettnoted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”

At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

However, that said, the edits help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.

The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.

If the WaPo article had added all the detail and left in how the line-level attorney worked for Peter Strzok everyone would have known who it was.  Hence they put in more details about his activity but removed the Strzok reference.

Kevin Clinesmith was one of the key FBI small group members on the original Clinton investigation known as the “mid-year exam”, or in text messages the “MYE”.

Within the MYE Clinesmith was one of the key legal staff working with Peter Strzok.  Clinesmith was lawyer #2 for Strzok who eventually transferred to the subsequent Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Clinesmith was also previously reported to be having an intimate relationship with another member of the FBI team, Sally Moyer, though that is uncertain. [Tashina “Tash” Guahar was also a key legal figure on the Main Justice side of the MYE team.]

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).

Ms. Moyer was responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.

When the MYE investigation finished, the Carter Page FISA construction is where Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer come together in their next assignment, the FBI investigation of Trump.

Additionally, Tashina “Tash” Guahar was then Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice. In essence the FISA lawyer.

[Related Sidebar: Current ICIG Michael Atkinson, the IG who modified the whistle-blower forms and allowed a hearsay CIA whistle-blower complaint, was the chief legal counsel for the head of the DOJ-NSD at the time all of this was happening.  Yeah, sketchy]

This is what it looks like put together:

In the Carter Page FISA application FBI line-level lawyer Clinesmith is responsible for the underlying evidence. FBI unit chief lawyer Sally Moyer is responsible for the citations (the “woods file”) that identifies the underlying evidence.  And then DOJ Tashina Guahar is responsible for the final application assembly; then it goes off to the top level DOJ and FBI superiors for signatures and submission to the court.

The WaPo article cites Clinesmith: “erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim.” That “back up citation” would be where his girlfriend Sally Moyer puts the Woods File citation.

This FISA assembly process: Clinesmith to Moyer to Guahar, took place in October 2016.

Almost three years later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz finishes his investigation and notes the issue with the documentation that supports the Woods File requirement.

This is part of Horowitz draft report as delivered to Attorney General Barr in September. According to the Washington Post Clinesmith is “forced to resign.”  Sally Moyer has unknown status at the FBI.  However, Tashina Guahar was still at DOJ-NSD.

Shortly after IG Horowitz delivers the rough draft of his investigation to AG Bill Barr, Tash Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.   With this hindsight the reason for Guahar’s mysterious exit makes sense.

According to both the CNN and Washington Post report, the issue with the underlying ‘Woods File’ evidence has led U.S. Attorney John Durham to conduct a criminal investigation.  That investigation would include Kevin Clinesmith, the “line-level lawyer”.

A concerning part of the Washington post report is this:

[…] That conduct did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had a proper legal and factual basis, the officials said.

That sounds like a white-wash outcome; mistakes were made, move along etc. etc.  But, if we look back upon the status of our research when the Sally Moyer transcript was released, that outcome was actually predictable.

FromMAY 2019:

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.

Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:

.

Pictured Above: Ms. Sally Moyer

A review of the Moyer transcript clarifies a few aspects:

First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the 2018 inspector general report into FBI conduct during the 2016 election outlining the DOJ and FBI activity.

In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth. Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:

Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how FBI verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.

The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the FBI source material is just accurately cited and attributed.  Note that’s where Clinesmith comes in.

Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion.  The FBI citation is the “Woods Procedure”, and it is in this citation process where Kevin Clinesmith is said to have made false documents to support the citation(s).

Sally Moyer infers the merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim.  However, this is where the IG report is taking issue with the FBI citation:

…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)

If he’s altering an email, it sounds to me like Clinesmith is modifying communication with an FBI source to construct a citation for a claim within the FISA application; perhaps that FBI source is Christopher Steele.

Again, it’s circular.

Here we go.  Today is the day the inspector general closed the “Principal Review” phase of the upcoming IG report.  Now is when the small group of corrupt DOJ and FBI officials -spotlighted by the IG investigation- begin trying to shape the narrative; and the leaks start with a whopper:

….An FBI official was caught altering documents within the 2016 surveillance operation against President Trump…

Keep in mind which FBI officials are now working for the media outlet, CNN, that is providing the leaks; ie. former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe; the spokesman for James Comey, Josh Campbell; a former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa; or the former FBI chief legal counsel, James Baker.  All now work for CNN.

It’s important to note the media source aspect because normally this type of leak would go to the Washington Post or New York Times first; ergo, it likely stems as a personal leak to one of the former allied FBI officials now working for CNN.

Washington (CNN) – An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

[…] Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham.

[…] It’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

[…] The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn’t yet known, and it’s not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government. No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.

The Justice Department and inspector general’s office declined to comment. (read more)

Josh Campbell is James Comey’s spokesperson and working for CNN:

Representative Jim Jordan appears with Bret Baier to discuss the last two weeks of impeachment testimony.  Baier, the evolving human cabbage patch doll, attempts to protect the DC impeach narrative.

.

Jim Jordan is exceptional. At the conclusion of todays testimony Jordan also held a brief press conference (below).

.

Representatives Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise discuss the partisan effort to remove President Trump through a one-sided impeachment effort.

.

Within the interview Ms. Stefanik notes the outside money pouring in to her district in a concerted effort to remove her from office.  The link to support her IS HERE

Support Elise Stefanik Here

Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race.  Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.  CNN is reporting:

The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th.  That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.

Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done.  We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020.  So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.

But that is not all that is inside this window.

Eight Legislative Days in December

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released.  On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative:  Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump.  This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch.   This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump.  It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings.  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling.  There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100% – Probability of loss to Pelosi 80%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday November 25th.

The House’s letter to federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington points out that it is considering impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, for which McGahn would be a key witness since he spoke to special counsel Robert Mueller for the obstruction investigation, and for lying to Mueller, after testimony at Roger Stone’s criminal trial raised questions about Trump’s written answers to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90% – Probability of loss 50%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry”, and the committee approach therein.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

This is why Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release for their narrative foundation.

Today begins day five of the House impeachment hearings.  Testimony today will include Fiona Hill, President Trump’s top adviser on Russia; and David Holmes, a very sketchy State Department fellow whose wife, Stephanie Holmes, also works at the State Dept; holding a previous assignment with former Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch.

The foreign service office is one big internecine anti-MAGA network of mutually aligned career interests, and hard-core political operatives.  The fiasco starts at 9:00am EDT

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS News Livestream

.

.

Earlier today President Trump presented a challenge.  “Try it live“:

CNN’s Fredo decided to take the challenge.   After failing miserably, the panel of pundits needs to start a round of conspiracy theory to cover the epic fail. WATCH: