Category Important

Jun 10 2018

Perfect Timing – Part II: The Trump Doctrine…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 9, 2018 by

When we ended part I... A U.S. foreign policy that provides the opportunity for fully-realized national authenticity is a paradigm shift amid a world that has grown accustomed to corrupt globalists, bankers and financial elites who have established a business model by dictating terms to national leaders they control and influence.

When you take the influence of corporate/financial brokers out of foreign policy, all of a sudden those global influence peddlers are worthless. Absent of their ability to provide any benefit, nations no longer purchase these brokered services.

As soon as influence brokers are dispatched, national politicians become accountable to the voices of their citizens. When representing the voices of citizens becomes the primary political driver of national policy, the authentic image of the nation is allowed to surface.

In western, or what we would call ‘more democratized systems of government‘, the consequence of removing multinational corporate and financial influence peddlers presents two options for the governing authority occupying political office:

♦One option is to refuse to allow the authentic voice of a nationalist citizenry to rise.  Essentially to commit to a retention of the status quo; an elitist view; a globalist perspective.  This requires shifting to a more openly authoritarian system of government within both the economic and social spheres. Those who control the reigns of power refuse to acquiesce to a changed landscape.

♦The second option is to allow the authentic and organic rise of nationalism.  To accept the voices of the middle-class majority; to structure the economic and social landscape in a manner that allows the underlying identity to surface naturally.

Fortunately we are living in a time of great history, and we have two representative examples playing-out in real time.  •One example is the U.K. and voices of the British people who have voted to Brexit the European Union.  •The second example is Mexico, and the upcoming July 1st election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (aka AM LO), a national socialist.

In the U.K. we see the government turning more authoritarian and distancing itself from the voices of the majority who chose to rebuke the collective association of the EU.  In recent decisions the government has taken a more harsh approach toward suppressing opposition, and as a consequence oppressing free speech and civil liberties.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to those who have followed the arc of history when the collective global elite are rejected.  Globalism can only thrive amid a class structure where the elites, though few in number, have more controlling power over the direction of government.  It is not accidental that the EU has appointed officials and unelected bureaucrats as the primary decision-making authority.

By its very nature collectivism requires a central planning authority who can act independent of the underlying national voice.  As the Trump Doctrine clashes with the European global elite, the withdrawal of the U.S. financial underwriting creates a natural problem.  Subsidies are needed to retain multiculturalism.  If a national citizenry has to pay for the indulgent decisions of the influence class, a crisis becomes only a matter of time.

Wealth distribution requires a host.  Since the end of World War II the U.S. has been a bottomless treasury for EU subsidy.  The payments have been direct and indirect.  The indirect have been via U.S. military bases providing security, and also by U.S. trade policy permitting one-way tariff systems.   Both forms of indirect payment are now being reversed as part of the modern Trump Doctrine.

Similarly, in Mexico the Trump Doctrine also extends toward changed trade policies; this time via NAFTA.  The restructuring of NAFTA disfavors multinational corporations who have exploited structural loopholes that were designed into the agreement.

With President Trump confronting the NAFTA fatal flaw, and absent of the ability of corporations to influence the direction of the administration, the trade deal ultimately presents the same outcome for Mexico as it does the EU – LESS DOLLARS.

However, in Mexico, the larger systems of government are not as strongly structured to withstand the withdrawal of billions of U.S. dollars.  The government of Mexico is not in the same position as the EU and cannot double-down on more oppressive controls.  Therefore the authentic voice of the Mexican people is likely to rise.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AM LO), is a nationalist but he is not a free-market capitalist.  AM LO is more akin to a Hugo Chavez soft-Marxist approach with a view the central governing authority is the best structure to control the outputs of the production base and distribute equity.

The fabric of socialism runs naturally through the DNA strain of Mexico, and indeed much of South America.  This is one of the reasons why the current Mexican government is so corrupt.  Multinational corporations always find it easier to exploit socialist minded government officials.

When bribery and graft are the natural way of business engagement, the multinationals will exploit every opportunity to maximize profit. Withdraw the benefit (loophole exploitation) to the financial systems, and the bribery and graft dries up quickly.  A bottom-up nationalist, albeit a soft-Marxist like AM LO, is the ultimate beneficiary.

The authentic sense of the Mexican people, rises in the persona of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador – who actually does personify the underlying nature of the classic Mexican class-struggle.

Thus we see two similar yet distinct outcomes of the Trump Doctrine. Within a highly structured U.K. parliamentary government the leadership becomes more authoritarian and rebukes the electorate; and in Mexico a less structured government becomes more socialist and embraces the underlying nature of the electorate.

It is not accidental the historic nature of the U.K. is a Monarchy, and the historic nature of Mexico is socialist.  Revolution not withstanding, both countries are now returning to their roots.

We are indeed living in historic times.

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador extended his double-digit opinion poll lead to claim half of voter support ahead of Mexico’s July 1 presidential election, a voter survey showed on Monday.

Lopez Obrador, who has consistently ranked in the lead in major polls, has 50 percent of voter support, 26 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, according to the poll published in newspaper El Financiero.

The former Mexico City mayor’s support rose from 46 percent in a May survey by the same pollster. (read more)

Jun 7 2018

Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege


Published on Nov 13, 2017

I was in Vancouver Friday November 3rd talking at an event sponsored by the very active University of British Columbia Free Speech Club (start one on your campus — if you’re a student, that is :)). I wanted to delve more deeply into the ideology on the radical side of the leftist spectrum, and to specifically address the idea of white privilege. Hopefully that’s what I did. Relevant links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson Self Authoring: http://selfauthoring.com/ Understand Myself: http://understandmyself.com/ Jordan Peterson Website: http://jordanbpeterson.com/ Podcast: http://jordanbpeterson.com/jordan-b-p… Reading List: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2017/03/gr… Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson
May 21 2018

Former CIA Director John Brennan Quotes Cicero While DOJ Expands IG FISA Abuse Investigation…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 20, 2018 by

[Read To End] Former CIA Director John Brennan took to twitter today in response to President Trump’s notification of a formal intent to request DOJ review of politicization of the United States intelligence apparatus:

Brennan Tweet Link – Hi John !

Interesting choice and timing… then again, not unexpected:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”  ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

(click image to enlarge)

You see, we’ve been in this battle for quite some time…. POTUS just expanded the war.

In response to President Trump’s zippo ignition:

….The DOJ releases the following statement:

Notice how the DOJ statement is worded.  The Third Phase of the IG investigation, the FISA abuse investigation, is now expanded to include “whether the FBI held a political motive in the counterintelligence investigation.”

This is the origination letter from the IG regarding the Phase Three investigation:

A few key points to remember against the backdrop of: “whether the FBI held a political motive in the counterintelligence investigation.”

First, both DOJ Deputy (National Security Division) Bruce Ohr, and FBI Agent Peter Strzok are still under the employ of the DOJ and FBI respectively.

Each of these outlined people, Bruce and Peter, would have direct first-hand knowledge as to the answer of the motivations behind the FBI counterintelligence operation; and the use of the FISA court to seek surveillance authority therein.

This is key to understanding the forward aspects of an internal criminal investigation, against the backdrop that the original intent of the IG review (Clinton email investigation) is complete.  Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok were removed at least seven months ago from any official DOJ and FBI duty.  Yet, against the backdrop of INSD and IG investigations they both remain in employment limbo.  That doesn’t happen accidentally.

There is a purposeful reasoning for retention of two clearly outlined figures central to the OIG and INSD review.  Both Ohr and Strzok are entwined in the larger -likely corrupt- intelligence aspects of “Crossfire Hurricane”.  What I mean to say is they have specific knowledge valuable to IG Horowitz, the FBI Inspection Division, and any ongoing criminal investigation of U.S. Attorney John Huber.

Secondly, it is important to remember there is a massive amount of evidence within the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages that has been intentionally redacted.  As previously outlined it is likely U.S. Attorney John Huber was the person doing the redactions; and it should be noted that curiously no-one in the committees that matter (Nunes, Goodlatte, Grassley)  have ever asked for those text message redactions to be removed.

The text message redactions are likely due to Huber’s desire to preserve the integrity of his criminal evidence, while still complying with congressional oversight demands.  This is where the oft forgotten John Lausch comes into play.

The usurping ‘black hats’, those remaining inside the apparatus as well as those who exited in/around the message releases, have no idea what is behind the redactions in those text messages.   Those redactions are there for a reason; and I would again draw attention to the origination of the message material in December 2017.  At the time of their release no-one was asking for them…. The release of the messages was purposeful.

Lastly, it should be noted the exit of DOJ/FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker, happened two weeks prior to the release of the IG review outline on the Clinton investigation.   Obviously, Page and Baker had exhausted their usefulness; and transparently obvious by the immediate employment alignment with James Baker, there was no legal immunity deal for prior cooperation. [Baker went to work for Benjamin Wittes, a 2016 guiding hand in the DOJ usurpation and friend of James Comey]

What also appears obvious is that Page and Baker could only take the investigative inquiry as high in the food chain as FBI Director Comey and Asst. FBI Director McCabe.  However, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was the lead point of contact for John Brennan in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  It was noted that Strzok actually did much of the ICA authorship from the perspective of the FBI; therefore Strzok’s work reaches deep into the motives of Brennan.

Similarly, on the DOJ-NSD side – Bruce Ohr remains under control.  Like Strzok, Mr. Ohr possesses key knowledge related to the National Security Division of the DOJ and the interactions with Christopher Steele and more importantly Fusion-GPS.  Again, it is not coincidental that Ohr was demoted twice, yet his overall employment never terminated.

Bruce Ohr can connect the motives of John P Carlin (former NSD head), along with Mary McCord (she replaced Carlin October 2016), Sally Yates – who ran the big overall picture of the DOJ-NSD and protected the NSD from inspector general oversight; as well as Loretta Lynch.  During the 2015 and 2016 activities of the DOJ-NSD Bruce Ohr was the #4 person in the Main Justice hierarchy [1. Lynch, 2. Yates, 3.Carlin/McCord, then 4. Ohr].

The statement today from Rod Rosenstein:

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action.”

This should be viewed with all of the aforementioned facts as the foundation.  There is a ton of investigative evidence unknown to the media and anyone outside of the work of both Michael Horowitz and John Huber.

The media has spent a year polishing the pedestal of Rod Rosenstein.  It would be almost impossible, at least stunningly transparent in the hypocrisy therein, for them to attempt to tear down his credibility now.

Executive Branch leadership received the IG Draft Report on DOJ and FBI conduct surrounding the Clinton investigation last Thursday.  Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is no doubt the President would be briefed on those findings most likely by Don McGahn (WH Counsel) and Chief-of-Staff John Kelly.

PS. If you think POTUS wrote the specific language in the tweets earlier today, I have a great deal on some South Florida real estate for ya…

May 12 2018

Senator Chuck Grassley Drops Atomic Sledgehammer on FBI – Requests FBI Reports and Testimony From Special Agent Joe Pientka…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 11, 2018 by

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has just dropped a sunlight grenade into the prosecution of Michael Flynn with a jaw-dropping request letter (full pdf below) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.  [Judiciary Link Here]

Within the letter Chairman Grassley outlines a prior briefing from fired FBI Director James Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and contrasts the false presentations of Comey -regarding Michael Flynn- against recently known evidence.

Additionally, Grassley is requesting: ♦the transcription of the phone call(s) intercepted by the FBI between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak; ♦the FD 302’s written by the FBI in their interview with Michael Flynn; ♦and testimony from Special Agent Joe Pientka, likely the second FBI agent who was partnered with Peter Strzok for the Flynn interview.

The name of the second FBI agent was previously unknown, and it’s likely Chairman Grassley outed the name for a very specific reason.  This is a BIG shot across the bow.

Previously the Justice Department was refusing to provide any information to the committee pertinent to Grassley’s requests, citing the ongoing investigation. However, the Senator is now outlining his request against the backdrop of the Judge in the Flynn case demanding the Special Counsel turn over all exculpatory information.

Judge Contreras was presiding judge on the initial guilty plea, then “was recused”. Judge Sullivan took over and demanded the DOJ turn over all exculpatory evidence.

Senator Grassley outlines the February 15th, 2017, briefing provided by James Comey to the committee:

[…]  Like the Flynn interview itself, that briefing was not transcribed. Also like the Flynn interview, there are notes taken by a career, non-partisan law enforcement officer who was present. The agent was on detail to the Committee staff at the time.

According to that agent’s contemporaneous notes, Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, “saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying.” Our own Committee staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.”

Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview. In the months since then, the Special Counsel obtained a guilty plea from Lt. General Flynn for that precise alleged conduct.

It is important to remember – there a widely held belief that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the FBI agents (Strzok and Pientka) to shape their FBI reports of the interview (FD-302’s) to assist a “Flynn lied” narrative.

There is a great deal of debate surrounding the guilty plea as an outcome of a carefully constructed and coordinated plan by FBI and DOJ officials to target Flynn.

The letter continues:

[…] The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. With Flynn’s plea, the investigation appears concluded.

Additionally, while we are aware that the Special Counsel’s office has moved to delay Lt. General Flynn’s sentencing on several occasions, we presume that all related records already have been provided to the defense pursuant to Judge Sullivan’s February 16, 2018 order requiring production of all potentially exculpatory material. Thus, although the case is not yet adjudicated, the Committee’s oversight interest in the underlying documents requested more than a year ago now outweighs any legitimate executive branch interest in withholding it. So too does the Committee’s interest in learning the FBI agents’ actual assessments of their interview of Lt. Gen. Flynn, particularly given the apparent contradiction between what then Directory Comey told us in March 2017 and what he now claims.

Then comes the hammer:

[…]  In addition, please make Special Agent Joe Pientka available for a transcribed interview with Committee staff no later than one week following the production of the requested documents…

BOOM !!

Here’s the full letter:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/378959078/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-Nqp1yP4sXSDULHvdpOty

.

Regarding the “widely held belief” that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the FBI agents (Strzok and Pientka) to shape their FBI reports of the interview (FD-302’s) to assist a “Flynn lied” narrative…. evidence of that is within the most recent text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails…(Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

♦Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails if everything was by the book?

BECAUSE IT WASN’T!

It was a conspiracy to entrap Gen Mike Flynn. All Strzok needed was an excuse to speak w Flynn. Everything in the 302 was likely fabricated.

♦February 14th, 2017, there is another note about the FBI reports filed from the interview.

Peter Strzok asks Lisa Page if FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is OK with his report: “Also, is Andy good with F-302?”

Lisa Page replies: “Launch on F 302”.

And we know from their discussions of manipulating FBI reports a year earlier, inside the Hillary Clinton investigation – that Peter Strzok has withheld information, and manipulated information, through use of the 302 reports:

(Full Back-story HERE)

 

May 11 2018

The Insurance Policy, The “EC”, The 2016 FBI Counterintel Operation, and The Mysterious Informant Who Originated Brennan’s EC…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 11, 2018 by

•On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of August (1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK intelligence officials. •On August 15th, 2016 Peter Strzok sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the “insurance policy“, needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election.

Recently there has been a great deal of interest in the origination OF the 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation, and how the FISA court was later used to gain Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page; part of that operation.

The current line of inquiry surrounds the originating “EC” or “electronic communication” that was generated by CIA Director John Brennan and passed on to FBI Director James Comey. The EC initiated the FBI Counterintelligence Operation.

Specifically, House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes has asked about a redacted name within the “EC”, which has led to the DOJ and FBI claiming to release the name would compromise the individual.

All of these inquires, and refusals, center around the origination authority for the FBI Counterintelligence operation. The origination led to the FISA warrant. Remember that.

Chairman Nunes sent Main Justice a classified letter asking questions. DOJ responded saying they would not comply with providing information (letter)  The Washington Post claimed Nunes was looking for information on an FBI/DOJ ‘source’: “a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI.” Additionally, this “source” was later also described by WaPo as a witness for Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the Nunes inquiry was appropriate. With Ryan’s support, Chairman Nunes threatened to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of congress for non-compliance with valid congressional oversight. DOJ responded saying they’d like a private meeting.  Yesterday that meeting took place.  Outcome? Sketchy.

In addition to everyone here, Wall Street Journal Author Kimberly Strassel also smells the familiar aroma of a cover-up deployed by administrative state officials inside the DOJ and FBI.  The DOJ is refusing to allow public inquiry into the source John Brennan used to create the “EC”.  Additionally, the Deep State media advocates, writ large, are working furiously to attack Chairman Devin Nunes for his inquires.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Obviously the compliant media, Democrats and second-tier DOJ/FBI officials don’t want anyone to discover the source of the 2016 counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.  Their defensive shield is to claim national security, and ambiguous/undefined threats to ‘sources and methods‘ if CIA Director Brennan’s “source”, was identified.

Well, you know what happens next. Internet researchers smell blood in the Deep State swamp…. People start digging into the details.

Here’s what is already known about the source from leaks:  •a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, •who is a U.S. citizen and who was •involved in the Russia collusion probe. Revealing the source “might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” •may be overseas, •have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.”

As Kimberly Strassel notes:

“I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.”

Consider me irresponsible.

The needle on my give-a-damn-meter broke off around the time the Page/Strzok texts were published.  The intelligence apparatus is still actively trying to destroy a constitutionally elected president. The IC and their co-dependents within the FBI and DOJ are the ones hiding information to protect themselves.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Some brilliant research was already assembled by various people who have looked deeply into this story {HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE} the trail is transparent and Brennan’s FBI/CIA source appears is quite obvious.   I’m just going to connect their well researched dots.

Remember the Peter Strzok trip to London?  The source of John Brennan’s “EC” is likely FBI and CIA operative Stefan Halper a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

A great background on Halper is HERE.

There are about two dozen check-references to identify who the ‘source’ was in providing the underlying intelligence to CIA Director John Brennan; who then wrote the “EC” for the FBI; which started the 2016 Counterintelligence Operation.

Stefan Halper checks off every single box:  √Currently overseas. √Current/Former CIA operative. √Current/Former source for FBI. √Anti-Trump motive. √Formerly put together this exact type of operation. √Connections to UK spies/intel community/politicians. √Connection to Australian spies/intel community. √Connection to Alexander Downer. √Political operative. √Wanted Clinton to win 2016 election. √Connects to Carter Page. √Connects to George Papadopoulos. √Connects to John Brennan. ETC.

Two months ago Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.  Halper was way too sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign aides. [SEE HERE]

DAILY CALLER – Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign.

The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. (Please Keep Reading)

Again, Go Deep HERE and HERE.

Stefan Halper posesses a very specific set of skills from all of his prior work within politics and the intelligence community. Halper was in contact with every official and entity in the set-up; and Halper was in the right places at the times when all of these set-up meetings and issues took place.

So, what did he do?

Simple, his job was to locate then dirty-up anyone he could convince: 1) to meet with him; 2) engage in his requests; and 3) engage contacts he set up.  Halper was setting up a classic operation to use unknown “useful idiots” to give the appearance of Russian allies/actors.

Halper  provided the underlying imaging, the optics needed for the “EC” referral; which Brennan then used to trigger James Comey; who originated the FBI Counterintelligence Operation.

The fraudulent origin, in combination with the October FISA warrant needed for surveillance gathering, would drive the insurance policy that Peter Strzok described to Lisa Page.

Neither Carter Page or George Papadopoulos would need to be an active participant in the scheme.  They could be simply (UI) useful idiots.  Hence:

[…] Papadopoulos questioned Halper’s motivation for contacting him, according to a source familiar with Papadopoulos’ thinking. That’s not just because of the randomness of the initial inquiry but because of questions Halper is said to have asked during their face-to-face meetings in London.

According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”  (more)

Some people have called Page and/or Papadopoulos “moles”, but that’s really not what it appears they were.  The better description is “tools”.   Once Stefan Halper dirtied them up, they gave the appearance of being involved in a vast Russian conspiracy.

It was the appearance that mattered in order to generate the foundation for: the counterintelligence operation; and the subsequent FISA surveillance warrant; and the Vast Russian Conspiracy narrative; and ultimately the post-election Special Counsel investigation.  In total, this was the Peter Strzok “Insurance Policy“.

As House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has begun working backward; and with the Inspector General looking at the ‘small group’ operatives and publicizing the motives; the deep state operatives inside the DOJ and FBI obviously don’t want sunlight going all the way back to the individual(s) at the beginning of the operation.  There is a risk there. Hence, they try to hide behind ‘National Security compromise’ etc, and an ideological media willing to assist in keeping it all hidden.

Chairman Nunes has requested the documents be unredacted to the HPSCI.  The  DOJ/FBI are claiming if they unredact the originating documents, they will likely be leaked by congress and compromise the sources therein.

Additionally, Chairman Nunes published the HPSCI Report on Russian Active Measures; and in doing so the DOJ and FBI redacted his report for the public.  Nunes objected to the redactions.

In part of the report the HPSCI describes the origin of the FBI 2016 Counterintelligence Operation.  The DOJ and FBI redacted the paragraph where Nunes outlined who was targeted at the start.

If my analysis is accurate, there were FOUR initial targets of the FBI counterintelligence operation who were connected to the Trump campaign.  Here’s what I think those redactions are hiding:

[Page 12, PDF HERE]

The DOJ didn’t redact Carter Page because he was already ‘outed’ in the House FISA memo.  However, I believe the current DOJ redactions are hiding George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

Those would be the July 2016 targets outlined by the originating EC (electronic communication) from John Brennan when the FBI Counterintelligence operation began.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/377590825/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-8scILVHdovVgNIQxfOn6

.

References:

♦Daily Caller Outline on Stefan Halper.

♦The War Economy research Thread on Stefan Halper.

♦The Marketswork research that encompasses Stefan Halper.

♦Kimberly Strassel Article on DOJ/FBI cover-up

♦Background on Devin Nunes -vs- Rod Rosenstein

May 10 2018

Peter Thiel: What is Multiculturalism Really About?


Published on Jul 3, 2017

Peter Thiel is an American entrepreneur, political activist, and author. He was ranked No. 4 on the Forbes Midas List of 2014, with a net worth of $2.2 billion. He co-founded PayPal. He also was part of Donald Trumps transition team. You can find Peter Thiels book “The Diversity Myth” here: https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth… Complete Video quoted under fair use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTPOB… quoted parts: 12:06–17:39, 26:16–34:49 — This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. The topics cover the problems of leftist ideology and the consequences for society. The aim is to move free speech advocates forward and fight against the culture of SJWs.
May 8 2018

Curious Note – Robert Mueller Interviewed NSA Mike Rogers Immediately Prior To Rosenstein Renewing Third FISA Extension…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 7, 2018 by

Throughout 2015, and until April 28th, 2016, there were unknown “outside government” contractors with access to the FBI/NSA database. Those outside government agents were conducting unlawful searches of the FISA database. The 99-page FISA Court opinion by presiding justice Rosemary Collyer proves this with absolute certainty. CTH has long suspected those outside agents were doing political opposition research; and were allowed to do so as part of the political misuse of the intelligence apparatus.

Pg 83. “FBI gave raw Section 702–acquired information to a private entity that was not a federal agency and whose personnel were not sufficiently supervised by a federal agency for compliance minimization procedures.”

(2017 FISA Court Opinion – 99 Page Brief)

With the revelation of Daniel Richman, a close friend of James Comey, being an “special access employee” of the FBI, hired by Comey, CTH anticipates Richman will be discovered as one of those previously described “outside government” unpaid contractors with access to the FISA database. The new information of Richman, along with what we know of Fusion-GPS, is an example of the hidden connective tissue between the Lawfare group (outside government) and the “small group” of DOJ and FBI officials inside government.

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers ordered a FISA-702 audit, and shut down the contractor access to FISA-702(16)(17) [“to/from”(16), “about”(17)] systems on April 28th, 2016.  Those contractors -together with their inside allies- doing oppo-research, moved to make the unofficial use of the database, official.

Toward this end, Fusion GPS (an FBI contractor) hired Nellie Ohr (wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr) in May 2016. And by July 2016 the collective group of insiders and outsiders had assembled enough sketchy data-points/information to frame the outline needed for an official investigation. This is the origin of the July 2016 FBI Counterintelligence operation.

The left-wing alliance doing the work (insiders and outsiders contributing) was successful in morphing opposition research into an official FBI counterintelligence operation; that began at the same time as the GOP convention in July 2016. This is the broad-stroke outline, demonstrably provable through exhaustive research.

A year later, sometime in late June of 2017, a month after the appointment of Robert Mueller, the special counsel met with Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. The New York Times cited the meeting in an article posted on June 14th of 2017.

Mr. Mueller wants to question Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence; Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency; and Richard Ledgett, the former N.S.A. deputy director. (LINK)

Remember, DNI Dan Coats and NSA Mike Rogers were working together in March and April of 2017.  It was thanks to Dan Coats we have access to the critical declassified FISA report (Rosemary Collyer) in April of 2017.  Coats declassified the content, albeit with redactions – it is from this release of information that much is learned in 2017.

Depending on who was questioning; and considering that these are apex intelligence members who would be interviewed by only senior members of the special counsel, likely Robert Mueller himself; and considering Robert Mueller was one of the key architects of the FISA court (post 9-11); there is almost NO WAY Dan Coats and Mike Rogers would not inform Mueller of the DOJ and FBI FISA issues and the political corruption therein.

This conversation between Coats, Rogers and Mueller, is likely around the end of June, or beginning of July, 2017…..  Now, consider and overlay:

One of the most frequent questions about Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein circles around his decision to reauthorize the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used against Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign. In this outline we take the timeline and overlay new information that helps to understand what was going on:

  • Why did Rosenstein renew that sketchy FISA warrant July 18th, 2017?
  • Why did Mueller request clarity two weeks later on August 2nd, 2017?

To understand the dynamic we must remind ourselves what was known at key dates in the investigative decision-making. None of this is intended to exhibit an opinion toward the motives of those making decisions; however, in hindsight we can clearly outline what was known and what was not known at the time these decisions were made.

Recently we have gained clarity toward the scope of investigative evidence held by Robert Mueller. Thanks to some debriefing interviews by ‘witness’ Michael Caputo we more thoroughly understand what evidence is held by Robert Mueller; and, more importantly the scale of that evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion about how it was obtained.

It appears Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of Russian interference and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion, right where the FBI counterintelligence operation left-off. This is additionally supported by reviewing the original investigative instructions as outlined by Rod Rosenstein the day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel:

The key phrase here is: “to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election”… Here, Rosenstein is clearly instructing Robert Mueller to pick-up the former Counterintelligence Investigation previously headed by FBI Asst. Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and his #2 FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The date of this appointment is May 17th, 2017. Approximately a week after President Trump fired James Comey on May 9th.

(LINK)

So there we have the three areas of direct authority: ¹Links or coordination between the Russian Government and the campaign of Donald Trump. ²Matters that may arise from the investigation of the Russian government and the campaign of Donald Trump. And ³other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). [<- ie. ‘Jurisdiction‘]

So there’s the instructions to Robert Mueller and his team on May 17th, 2017.

As an outcome of this May 2017 reassignment of investigative authority, Mueller now takes over from Bill Priestap. The Special Counsel takes over the investigation from the FBI.

The lead FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, is in immediate communication with Robert Mueller’s point person Aaron Zelby via email; and FBI agent Peter Strzok eventually finds himself part of the Special Counsel investigative team.

It is important to remember, at the time all of this is taking place, no-one inside the DOJ Inspector General’s office (DOJ-OIG) or the Internal Investigation Division (INSD) of the FBI is aware of the evidence that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ assigned Special Counsel Lisa Page have been part of a group shaping a months long “insurance policy” against the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump. Nor is anyone aware that Andrew McCabe, Michael Kortan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok are leaking frequently to their media allies. Those discoveries come later.

In May 2017 Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein would not know the history of what activity was happening inside the FBI “small group” scheme; however they would likely know of the FISA abuse in 2016 as outlined by NSA Director Mike Rogers.

It was ten months before the Special Counsel was assigned when Page and Strzok were messaging each-other about the “insurance policy” discussed in Andrew McCabe’s office. The Page/Strzok messages were on August 18th, 2016.

That “insurance policy” is widely believed to have been short-hand to describe an effort to conduct surveillance on candidate Trump, which could later ensure a strategic plan to disrupt and possibly eliminate Trump if elected, via the Russia collusion narrative.

That plan needed legal FBI authority to conduct surveillance – which could be used to weaponize intelligence. That plan culminated in the Carter Page Title-1 FISA warrant as the deployment mechanism, on October 21st, 2016.

Apparently, without knowledge of the underlying sketchy context inside the application (Steele Dossier) of the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant, on July 18th, 2017, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein renews the FISA warrant as the 3rd continuance of an investigative tool. This time to be used by Robert Mueller. And with this intensely broad and intrusive surveillance authority Mueller’s investigative unit now has the legal authority to capture the records of everyone within two-hops of Carter Page. That includes the entire Trump campaign and likely almost all of the Trump administration.

This explains why Michael Caputo said: “Mueller has everything, on every person related to the campaign.” Including calls, emails, text messages, the works.

However, between the start of the Mueller special counsel (May) and the date of the FISA renewal (July 18), OIG and INSD investigators began to discover issues as a result of an internal leak investigation. [OIG Report on McCabe] Questions to FBI Communication Director Mike Kortan, Andrew McCabe, and his lawyer Lisa Page resulted in contradictions within their statements.

  • •May 2017 McCabe denies leaking for WSJ story (to FBI).
  • •July 2017 McCabe denies again (to IG Horowitz).
  • •July 20th, 2017 Horowitz gets Strzok/Page text messages. Proving McCabe constructed the WSJ story and lied to FBI investigators and Inspector General.

Immediately after Rosenstein reauthorizes the FISA warrant (7/18/17), Lisa Page turns over text messages to support her version of events. OIG and INSD investigators get the Page/Strzok messages on July 20th, 2017:

[Congressional Report – Page 18, Item #3, second paragraph] “The DOJ OIG obtained the initial batch of text messages on July 20, 2017.”

Now things get interesting.

As a result of those messages delivered July 20, soon thereafter the IG informs Robert Mueller there are big issues with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were/are both on the special counsel team. Obviously INSD and OIG investigators are pouring through the messages.

As a result of that IG notification Robert Mueller removes Peter Strzok. It is reported that Lisa Page left a few weeks before. In “Appendix C” we discover the final text from Lisa Page to Strzok took place on June 25th, 2017: “Don’t ever text me again“. This final message follows Strzok’s heavily redacted text message June 22nd about not being able to reach out. So we can assume, with reasonable accuracy, Lisa Page was a non-factor in the Robert Mueller investigation around late June and Peter Strzok is removed sometime shortly after Mueller gets the details about their compromise late July/beginning August.

It is likely Rod Rosenstein is informed of the same issue(s) soon after he reauthorized the FISA warrant, July 18th. Prior to that initial IG notification; and prior to OIG and FBI Inspection Division review of the scale of the issue; no-one outside the “small group” new about the scheme, or the “insurance policy”.

However, at the beginning of August 2017 both Rosenstein and Mueller now have some idea something is seriously wrong within the prior corrupt FBI investigation that was using the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant Rosenstein just renewed two weeks earlier.

So what happened next?

Well look at the date of this “newest special counsel instruction“:

(full pdf available here)

In hindsight it is now clear why Robert Mueller would be reaching out to Rod Rosenstein and telling the Asst. Attorney General that, against the revelations of what the prior FBI investigative unit was doing; and with Mueller having interviewed Admiral Mike Rogers earlier; Rosenstein better provide Mueller increased clarity as to the specifics of what he is authorized to review.

By the very end of July, 2017, the released investigative evidence is clear – both Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller become aware of the initial issues with Page and Strzok, and likely how those issues were quickly escalating as the IG and INSD discover through reviews of evidence and in-person interviews the outline of a broad conspiracy.

It’s no surprise that Mueller takes pause and requests clear instructions in writing; but we still don’t know what’s behind that massive redaction.

SUMMARY: An honest review of the timeline shows the third FISA renewal happened right before Rosenstein and Mueller became aware of the first signs of the corruption. Additionally, a clear hindsight review of the content within the application, vis-a-vis the fraudulent use of the Clinton-Steele dossier, shows a clear reason why it was never reauthorized again; and easily why Carter Page was never charged with anything.

Once the IG and INSD investigators had the time to go deeper into the internal investigation, this is around the point when Utah federal prosecutor John Huber is brought into the findings surfacing within the IG and INSD investigation. Huber’s task likely to review all of the discoveries for potentially criminal conduct, grand jury evidence and possible criminal indictments if warranted.

However, all of that said, none of this explains why Asst. AG Rosenstein did not shut down the special counsel investigation in/around Sept. or October 2017 as soon as the scale of internal corruption was known. Unless the extraneous Flynn, Papadopolous and Manafort findings, some of which likely stemmed from the use of the FISA extensions in the period from May through October, became the agenda for continuance.

Here’s where everyone wants to know motive(s) behind Mueller, Rosenstein and the corresponding investigators. Truthfully, this is also where an argument can be made in both directions.

So, you decide for yourself.

May 7 2018

Refresh on How DOJ and FBI “Small Group” Officials Intentionally Worked To Clear Hillary Clinton…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 6, 2018 by

The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General review of DOJ and FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation has been ongoing for over 17 months. That’s a long time for a single investigation, and with good reason. The scale of the misconduct is staggering.

John Spiropoulos, a former TV news reporter at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, has created a series of video reports as a reminder on the background on the crime, the coverup and the corruption.  Here’s the series:

Part II:

.

Part III:

.

Part IV:

.

Part V:

.

May 3 2018

Preparing for The Inspector General Report on The FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 3, 2018 by

The 16-month Inspector General review of the DOJ/FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email is soon to be made public. The IG inquiry is specifically looking into whether the FBI investigation was corrupted by political influence in their determination of the Clinton outcome. The preliminary investigative outcomes speak for themselves.

As a result of the known OIG investigative findings already the top FBI and DOJ officials in charge of the Clinton investigation have been fired, demoted or removed from responsibility:  Director James Comey (fired), Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (fired), FBI Legal Counsel James Baker (removed – status unknown);  FBI investigative Agent Peter Strzok (demoted, reassigned); DOJ special counsel to McCabe, Lisa Page, (removed, reassigned); and DOJ Deputy AAG Bruce Ohr (demoted, twice).

Additionally other officials resigned immediately after the preliminary IG findings were made public: FBI Communications Director Mike Kortan (quit); Director Comey Chief-of-Staff, Jim Rybicki (quit); DOJ-NSD DAAG Mary McCord (quit); DOJ Deputy AAG David Laufman (quit).   In total, almost no-one within the “small group” conducting the Clinton email investigation has survived initial Office of Inspector General scrutiny.

The OIG review of the DOJ and FBI conduct has taken a long time; and with good reason. The scale of the misconduct is staggering. John Spiropoulos, a former TV news reporter at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, has created a series of video reports as a reminder on the background on the crime, the coverup and the corruption.

Here’s the series:

Part II:

.

Part III:

.

Part IV:

.

Part V:

.

Apr 29 2018

The Prequel – Understanding Lisa Page and Peter Strzok…


Re-Posted From The Conservative Tree House on April 29, 2018 by

As many people are aware, CTH has decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony and media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel assigned to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.

Suffice to say, this project was no small task; reading the messages in a chronological order takes a minimum of four to six hours.  It is understandable why so much mystery and confusion circles the rather complex storyline. However, before going into the deep weeds – two distinct issues must frame what will soon follow:

♦First, notice a catch-phrase by fired FBI Director James Comey in every interview: “that was not my understanding.”  That phrase is Mr. Comey’s  ‘go-to’ lead-in at the beginning of every explanation, amid challenging questions presented to him, on his current book tour.  That phrase is also a highly legalized linguistics and deployed for a specific reason.

♦Second, if you are going to endeavor to read through all of the released messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and/or review an outline of content that utilizes their communication as the background to understand events within the FBI and DOJ-NSD; it helps to have a familiarity from their perspective.

Having said that, this encapsulation of the Page and Strzok outlook by “Newhere” is both fair and accurate:

The nature and tone sound like a couple of earnest, self-important, professional bureaucrats who see themselves as high-achieving stand-outs among their peers, doing the “right thing” or at least the “best” thing among some ugly office politics and broader forces.

Among the two of them, they unquestionably believe themselves “the good guys,” with appropriate motives and judgment.

They are preoccupied with their professional reputations, ambitions and positioning. They spend lots of time dissecting the minutiae of day-to-day interactions and orchestrating mundane office dynamics, and often reassure each other on their respective “excellence” and superiority. All to a degree that pegs their maturity and self-awareness at a level of maybe adolescent. They interpret events and decisions around them in insular terms, like teenagers passing notes in homeroom about high school social cliques.

Takeaways?

— They weren’t driven by specifically by partisan bias. Viewing it as simple bias only minimizes the bigger problem. They were consummate professional bureaucrats, intuiting, anticipating, and expanding upon the goals of leadership, both spoken and implied. Contempt for the implicated political actors was a given; all politicians are intellectually and morally inferior, and (in their minds) the country needs professionals like them having the tools to stand watch and “protect” the country when necessary.

— Trump was viewed as so obviously “dangerous” that extreme measures were necessary. This wasn’t a *partisan* sentiment — it was (again, in their minds) a professional judgment. Which is how they managed the cognitive dissonance of behaving as they did while seeing themselves as moral actors.

These aren’t sociopaths with no consciences. They have the conscience of a common, professional technocrat. Self-delusion and self-importance that warps the moral compass (e.g., they feel aggrieved by things like being left out of a meeting, and they hyper-focus on their own “credit-seeking” vs. “team player” motivations, as if THESE are the pressing moral issues at stake . . ). They are professional technocrats like a lot of professional technocrats, who believe their jobs are singularly important, that they face pressures that are uniquely complicated — who know they hold replaceable jobs, but secretly believe themselves irreplaceable.

Professionalism becomes its own ethic, from which perspective actual ethics are quaint, a luxury for academics or simpletons. This isn’t spoken or acknowledged.

— The scariest part: conduct in the the Clinton/Trump investigations wasn’t anomalous. The fact that these “professionals” behaved this way with only a faint notion of the significance of what they were doing suggests it was more business-as-usual than the biggest scandal of our lifetimes. Meaning it’s even a bigger scandal.

— They did have at least a faint notion that they had ventured well outside of “by the book” territory, but were again deluded by feeling indispensable, hand-picked by the highest echelons of bureau hierarchy, to which they aspired. Page, in particular, felt special because she was chosen by McCabe. Their moral compasses were aimed at pleasing those whose favor they sought.

— They seemed to see the FBI as white hats vis a vis DOJ. I think they truly believed that any corruption/politicization came from DOJ, and FBI jockeying/mischief was trying to set things right against all these other corrupting [political] forces.

–Page’s final “never write to me again” doesn’t seem like a hostile snub. Seems more like a signal/coded message to a friend: “We’re scr*wed. Every (wo)man for himself. I’m looking out for myself. You should too.”