A flood of DOJ/FBI moves, leaks and details this week highlight the desperation of an aligned group of Obama officials and ideologues which began with the FBI raid on the offices and home of Michael Cohen. All of the subsequent activity is connected.
This week began with a dramatic early-morning raid on the home, office and hotel room of a sitting U.S. president’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. The week ended in equally dramatic fashion, in a packed courtroom, following numerous media leaks from New York U.S. Attorneys and FBI investigators about the content of their Cohen raid. In the big picture all of this week’s activity appears related to a coordinated propaganda strategy.
Looking up from the granules, we can see a clear and comprehensive plan to flood the zone with propaganda narratives to distract, dilute and obfuscate.
If we look at the big picture the stylistic content of the James Comey book; the timing of the release; the timing of the raid on Cohen; the leaks of scraped material from the raid to the media; all of this falls into a pattern. A strategy that was originally outlined by James Comey’s friend back in October of 2016. SEE HERE. We knew the DOJ/FBI raid on Cohen was likely a larger strategy to gather opposition research.
With the OIG reports coming rapidly to a conclusion, and with the IG reports being so detailed in their fact-outline, the “small group” is at an inflection point where their risk is growing. A larger awakening is taking place.
Knowing the connection between the FBI, DOJ-NSD, Fusion-GPS, Clinton Campaign and Christopher Steele political activity in 2016, we also pondered if the larger motive behind the raid might be connected to the use of DOJ and FBI databases to conduct searches on political opposition, and the need to hide therein.
The intelligence mistake of Michael Cohen traveling to Prague, is a direct-line thread connecting the FBI/DOJ FISA(702)(17) searches to Fusion-GPS and the Steele dossier. As such there would be a very strong motive for similarly aligned political entities within the U.S. intelligence apparatus to take strong action to cloud the connection. In short they need to lower the risk.
This week we also discovered the origin of the 2016 FBI Counterintelligence Operation against candidate Trump began as an outcome of a CIA referral connected to Australia and the U.K. In essence, fellow ideologues within GCHQ (U.K), and their Australian counterparts, worked collaboratively with the U.S. intelligence apparatus to oppose Donald Trump; and create a false narrative that would undermine the 2016 presidential election.
After Donald Trump won the election, all of the aligned intelligence entities -including Obama officials therein- were now at risk. The issues extend beyond the activity of the DOJ and FBI, and one of the trails of their collective activity ended up inside the Steele Dossier with the false fact surrounding Michael Cohen. The intelligence apparatus needs to create something, anything, that removes that connection.
As if on cue…. late the afternoon one of the leaks from the Mueller Team specifically targets this threat:
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Confirmation of the trip would lend credence to a retired British spy’s report that Cohen strategized there with a powerful Kremlin figure about Russian meddling in the U.S. election. (read more)
This is where it becomes critical to remind yourself of how far this group has already gone to manipulate the outcomes of the election. Do not sell these Machiavellian-mind people short. Remember, one of the key benefits of the raid on Michael Cohen was to create the architecture underneath media narratives (stories) created out of loin cloth. The actual content of evidence captured in the FBI raid is irrelevant, they only need the basic element of truth -that the raid took place- as the foundation for the downstream propaganda.
The U.K., Australia and the U.S. intelligence apparatus, foreign (cia) and domestic (fbi/doj-nsd) collaborated to influence the 2016 U.S. election outcome. As such, those same entities have a vested interest in now creating a false series of facts that remove the threat within the false Michael Cohen Prague visit.
The “small group” of Mueller activists within the DOJ and FBI need to create any alternate appearance in order to cover for the very real likelihood the intelligence apparatus used Christopher Steele to launder search outcomes from the abuse of the U.S. FISA database (NSA, FBI and DOJ-NSD). This crew needs to create a plausible way the specific Cohen event could have made it into the Steele Dossier without using U.S. intelligence databases.
The raid on Michael Cohen creates the basis for the false claims. The use of friendly foreign intelligence to potentially substantiate false claims is the plausible deniability they need. Everything is essentially propaganda.
They knew they would lose the fact battle, so they chose to fight a propaganda war.
…that’s the essential argument made by James Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes in his plan of action written in October 2016 when he described the “insurance policy” – in his outline of what to do in the unlikely event Trump wins. You might remember that Wittes was the friend FBI Director James Comey used to leak his memos to the New York Times.
The OIG report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is devastating to the “small group” and not just for what it outlines, but also for what it doesn’t provide.
There are bound to be multiple reports and discussions which will flow from an outcome of the content therein. However, here’s some of the ‘big picture’ takeaways for those who have followed the very granular details.
One of the more pertinent issues – it is now demonstrably proven that Andrew McCabe lied to FBI investigators, on several occasions, and also that he lied to the Inspector General. Note the criminally important factor here is: “lied to FBI investigators”.
On page #29, there’s some very specific and interesting details that deserve to be highlighted (emphasis mine).
We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his OIG audio-recorded interview under oath on July 28, 2017, when he falsely stated that: (a) he was not aware of Special Counsel being authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) he did not know, because he was out of town, “where [Special Counsel] was or what she was doing” during the relevant time period. (pdf link)
It is not just the next few paragraphs that outline the scope of the attempted duplicity and fraud by McCabe, but also the footnotes.
Remember, we know specifically from congressional evidence, provided by the FBI investigative unit, the FBI took custody of the initial batch of text message between DOJ-FBI Special Counsel Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on July 22nd, 2017. It is clear those text messages were provided by Lisa Page to clear up the contradiction between her truthful statements and the lies told earlier by Andrew McCabe.
The first IG interview with McCabe takes place on July 28th, after McCabe speaks to FBI investigators and before the IG has an opportunity to understand the evidence provided by Lisa Page proving the false statements. The footnotes here are important (emphasis mine):
[Footnote #14 – Page 20] In response to review a draft of this report, counsel for McCabe argued that, in asking McCabe about the October 27-30 texts between Special Counsel and DAD regarding the WSJ article, the OIG engaged in improper and unethical conduct, and violated an allegedly explicit agreement with McCabe that when he was interviewed by the OIG on July 28 he would not be questioned outside the presence of counsel with respect to matters for which he was being investigated.
McCabe provides no evidence in support of his claim, and based on the OIG’s review of the available evidence, including the transcript of McCabe’s recorded OIG interview on July 28 and the OIG’s contemporaneous notes, as described below, McCabe’s claim is contradicted by the investigative record.
As an initial matter, at the time of the July 28 interview, McCabe was not a subject of an OIG investigation of disclosures in the October 30 WSJ article, nor did the OIG suspect him of having been the source of an unauthorized disclosure of non-public information related to that article.
The OIG did not open its investigation of McCabe concerning the WSJ article until August 31, after being informed by INSD that McCabe had provided INSD agents with information on August 18, 2017, that contradicted the information that he had provided to INSD agents on May 9.
Second, the OIG has no record that McCabe stated in advance of the July 28 interview that he was represented by counsel. Moreover, the recording of the July 28 interview shows that at no time did McCabe give any indication that he was represented by counsel. The transcript of the interview shows that the OIG informed McCabe, who has a law degree, that the interview was about “issues raised by the text messages” between Special Counsel and DAD, and that the OIG would not be asking McCabe questions about “other issues related to your recusal in the McAulliffe investigation . . . or any issues related to that.” McCabe responded “Okay” and did not articulate or request any further limitations on the questions he would answer.
The OIG added that “This is a voluntary interview. What that means is that if you don’t want to answer a question, that’s fully within your rights.” That “will not be held against you . . . .” The recording of McCabe’s interview further demonstrates that the OIG was entirely solicitous of McCabe’s requests not to respond to certain questions.
Towards the end of the interview, before beginning an area of questioning unrelated to Special Counsel/DAD texts or the WSJ article, the OIG prefaced his question to McCabe by stating “if you feel this is connected to the things that are making you uncomfortable, will you let me know?” McCabe responded, “Yes. Yeah, you can ask, I’ll let you . . . If I don’t feel comfortable going forward, I’ll let you know.”
At a later point in the interview, after answering a number of questions unrelated to Special Counsel/DAD texts, McCabe expressed a preference for not answering further questions, and the OIG did not ask further questions on the topic.
Third, McCabe’s submission mischaracterizes an October 4, 2017, email exchange with the OIG as evidencing that at the time of McCabe’s July 28 OIG interview, McCabe was the subject of an OIG leak investigation. As noted above, the OIG did not know about McCabe’s involvement in the disclosure to the WSJ at the time of the July 28 interview, and only opened an investigation into his actions related to that disclosure on August 31, 2017, after the lack of candor referral to the OIG by INSD.
Lastly, despite having been questioned at length by the OIG on November 29, 2017, about the reasons for his false statements to the OIG on July 28, McCabe never once raised any of these issues. Moreover, the same counsel who submitted on behalf of McCabe these accusations of impropriety by the OIG was present for the entire OIG interview on November 29 yet never once raised any of these issues.
McCabe had every incentive to raise these issues as early as possible, and surely on November 29, when he was represented by counsel and was asked pointed questions by the OIG about his July 28 testimony denying that Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to reporters during that time period. McCabe did not do so until nearly 7 months after the July 28 interview and nearly 3 months after the November 29 interview.
That’s a long footnote that essentially outlines the timeline of events; and effectively eliminates any affirmative defense that McCabe might attempt.
However, more importantly, note the fact the interview was recorded and transcribed…. because that leads to the more glaring point missing from the actual IG report. There is no accompanying addendum containing the transcript or the recording. Why not?
Answer: Because the transcript and recording of the interview(s) with McCabe are now evidence for a criminal prosecution.
If Horowitz’s federal prosecutor, John Huber, was not going to criminally charge Andrew McCabe for lying we would have seen the transcript. The absence of the transcript, and the intentional notation of the recordings by the OIG, indicate McCabe will almost certainly be charged. The evidence is overwhelming.
Lastly, the release of this IG report is affirming our prior expectations. There will be several releases of individual components within the larger OIG investigation. This is only the first release, and only covers one specific issue of Andrew McCabe directing leaks to the media and then lying about it to FBI investigators.
Each of these aspects is an investigation unto itself, and will likely result in a stand-alone report:
åUnlawful and coordinated media leaks РPart I (McCabe);
åFalse statements to investigators about unauthorized media leaks РPart I;
•Clinton email, manipulated investigations with predetermined outcomes;
•False testimony to FBI, congress and under oath to IG (Comey/McCabe);
•Manipulated FBI 302 reports, and/or false presentation of documents;
•Willful political corruption by Asst. Director Andrew McCabe; Director Comey etc.
•Unlawful use of FBI and NSD databases;
•Political issues within Main Justice DOJ-NSD (Carlin, McCord, Ohr, Yates);
•Issues with the FISA court; •false presentations; •source material (Steele Dossier);
•State Department involvement. •unmasking. •origination of counterintelligence op.
The issues being investigated by the OIG are massive and complex. That’s why it would be beneficial to carve-out the FISA court aspects, declassify the content, and allow those inquiries to proceed independent of the IG and federal prosecutor John Huber.
It was noted –and reported– yesterday, that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter (full pdf below) to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein demanding un-redacted FBI origination documents surrounding the beginning of the July 2016 counterintelligence operation against candidate Donald Trump, and the FISA application stemming from that investigation.
The issues surrounding the declassification of the FISA application and subsequent FISA warrant against Carter Page are not new. The new aspect within the Nunes demand relates to a request for the intelligence community “electronic communication” (EC) that kicked off the initial FBI counterintelligence op. Within that new line of inquiry the subject of interest is ultimately former CIA Director John Brennan.
However, there are issues here; serious issues, and likely only those who are deep in the weeds of this entire dynamic are going to understand. There are VERY valid reasons why the FBI (Wray) and DOJ (Rosenstein) would push back against HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes. It’s complicated, and we’ll try to unpack.
Begin by noting on page two of the Nunes request, Paragraph #3, something that all media writing about the Nunes demand seem to overlook. Screengrab below:
Chariman Nunes takes exception to the origination documents being redacted for his committee review while noting that “multiple members of other committees have been the beneficiaries of such access”, this is a key aspect that outlines the motive for the FBI and DOJ to proceed cautiously with the HPSCI.
From earlier research and congressional letters we know House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, holding direct statutory oversight over the DOJ, is working closely with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. It almost a certainty the committee Nunes is referring to that has been allowed access is Goodlatte’s Judiciary Committee. However, the DOJ/FBI are reluctant to share the same information with Nunes HPSCI committee.
Remember, at the instruction and authority of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor John Huber are investigating the DOJ (National Security Division) and FBI (counterintelligence unit: Priestap/Strzok) in their conduct toward the FISA court; and the potential for unlawful abuse of the process therein. As such, the FISA material is now much more than a controversial political matter, it is in the purview of an ongoing criminal investigation (Huber).
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly – yet more challenging to understand, the origination documents [“electronic communication” (EC)] surround another important aspect that directly relates to CIA Director John Brennan and his earlier testimony to congress about the origination of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Operation against Trump.
Most media and pundits discussing this issue have likely forgotten how John Brennan explained his role on May 23rd, 2017. THIS IS CRITICAL.
On March 20th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey stated he did not inform congressional oversight about the FBI counterintelligence operation against Trump, that began in July 2016, at the recommendation of his counterintelligence division head Bill Priestap, and due to “the sensitivity of the matter”. {GO DEEP}
Two months later, May 23rd, 2017, former CIA Director John Brennan testified in his opening statement to congress that, in addition to providing intelligence to the FBI, he personally informed the “Congressional Gang of Eight” of the underlying raw intelligence.
Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In essence John Brennan told congress he informed: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr of the same intelligence information he delivered to FBI Director James Comey and ODNI James Clapper. According to his testimony those briefings were between the 11th of August and 6th of September 2016.
So Devin Nunes is asking for the “electronic communication” (EC) documents that initiated the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation, while seemingly having been briefed by CIA Director John Brennan on the substance of the material in Aug/Sept 2016?
And the FBI/DOJ are reluctant to share with the HPSCI (Nunes) the same information they are willing to share with the House Judiciary (Goodlatte).
Why would that be?
Simple answer, the HPSCI is compromised.
Remember, ranking member Adam Schiff and Representative Eric Swalwell are also targets of ongoing FBI leak investigations; and notably (with that self-interest in mind) they have been working to undermine -and politicize- the outcomes of the Inspector General Horowitz investigation.
Additionally, the HPSCI is where the Awan Brothers scandal (investigation and indictments) comes into play and the Democrats on the HPSCI committee who waived the background checks for their use as IT support staff.
There are very good reasons for the FBI and DOJ to keep potentially devastating criminal evidence away from the HPSCI until Huber is prepared to use it. The HPSCI membership is inherently tied up in multiple facets of the soft-coup plot and supportive ideology within the conspiracy against candidate Trump, and later President-elect and President Donald Trump.
Lastly, and importantly, remember the Chief Legal Counsel for the FBI is now Dana Boente. If you stand back and remind yourself where within the FBI and DOJ the small group was operating, you go directly to the DOJ National Security Division.
We know from the recent text messages of Strzok/Page and from the critical last days of the Obama administration’s action they viewed Dana Boente as a threat with President-elect Trump taking office. After the top-tier of the corrupt DOJ-NSD officials were removed, Dana Boente became the head of the DOJ-NSD and subsequently IG Horowitz was granted full oversight authority (previously denied by Sally Yates).
So Dana Boente, a perceived risk from the Obama “small group” perspective, goes into the DOJ-NSD as the rats run out… Boente grants IG oversight access… and then remains inside the division for a year prior to exit and going into the FBI as Chief Legal Counsel (replacing corrupt James Baker). There’s no better authority with inside information into the heart of the conspiracy group effort than the current chief legal counsel of the FBI, Dana Boente.
That’s why the investigative White Hats are going to keep the HPSCI at a distance.
When reviewing new information against the backdrop of existing information it is important not to get so caught up in the weeds that you miss the obvious. This is the important aspect to a new information release from Robert Mueller.
Overnight last night Special Counsel Robert Mueller released an attachment as part of a responsive court pleading. The attachment was a previously unknown letter from Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller outlining the specific authority of his investigative appointment. The letter from Rosenstein to Mueller is dated August 2nd, 2017.
There are several elements to break down, and one of the best ways to review the information is to first ask “why”?
Question #1) Why did Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein deliver a non-public outline of investigative authority to Mueller on August 2nd, 2017?
Question #2) Why would Robert Mueller be seeking a signed more specific outline of his investigative authority on August 2nd, 2017; a full three months after he was assigned the role of Special Counsel?
Question #3) Why would Robert Mueller need to redact the content of an official outline of his investigative instructions from the Asst. Attorney General?
First, it is important to put the Rod Rosenstein releases into context.
On Wednesday May 17th, 2017 Rosenstein announced the following:
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein today announced the appointment of former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.
The “previously-confirmed FBI investigation … efforts” is apparently code-speak for the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign confirmed by FBI Director James Comey on March 20th, 2017 to congress.
The simultaneous release of investigative intent then includes a more specific and formal outline, which does include Donald Trump:
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.
Now, as we previously discussed: “Robert Mueller didn’t necessarily appoint or select a team of lawyers and investigators…. the previously assembled team of lawyers and investigatorsselected him.” The key player in that assembly was FBI Chief-Legal-Counsel and personal confidant to Robert Mueller, James Baker. (pictured right)
Remember, the “small group”, career officials inside the DOJ and FBI needed to continue their group effort after the election. Therefore they needed to stay assembled as a group; they needed to stay on task, to facilitate the original intent of their association. The Special Counsel was merely a way, an approach, a tool for this specific team to continue their efforts after the 2016 presidential election, nothing more – nothing less.
The team already existed. The objectives already existed. The only thing they needed was a willfully-blind leader and an excuse to continue their ideological efforts. Robert Mueller became their selected willfully-blind leader because the small group already knew him and they knew they could manipulate/use him.
Their ideological association is why the same people behind Phase 1 (Clinton Exoneration ’15, ’16), and Phase 2 (opposition research, counterintelligence and surveillance against Trump ’15, ’16, ’17), became the same people in Phase 3, the post-election vast Russian-Trump Collusion Conspiracy; also known as “The Insurance Policy”. In many ways Phase 3 was/is more of a continued opposition research endeavor, part of the “resistance” per se, with a good dose of self-preservation binding them all together.
Robert Mueller could technically shut down the official Special Counsel tomorrow and for the ‘small group’ nothing would change much. The ‘group’ shifts back out of government work and reconnects with Fusion GPS (or similar). They inform their media allies to change the official name of their tasks from ‘investigation’ back to ‘opposition research’. Sans Mueller all group tasks remain consistent, and three days from now it’s just another Friday.
If it is a paradigm shift to understand that Mueller didn’t select his team, but rather the team selected him…. then a similar paradigm shift will be found in the following motive behind Robert Mueller requesting Rosenstein to outline his investigation on August 2nd, 2017:
Mueller wasn’t asking Rosenstein to expand the focus of the endeavor; team Mueller was asking Rosenstein to NARROW the focus of their investigation.
Why would Team Mueller be asked to narrow the focus?
Because Inspector General Michael Horowitz just informed him/them of his discovery of the conspiracy behind the DOJ and FBI plan against Donald Trump.
On July 20th, 2017 IG Horowitz gets the Page/Strzok text messages. Horowitz informs Mueller there is evidence of a conspiracy evident within his team. That had to be an ‘oh, shit’ moment for the “small group”; and for Robert Mueller.
The investigation was going on for more than two months and the team was already moving on Paul Manafort. Quickly, the investigative team needs Rosenstein to narrow the investigation. The last thing the Special Counsel team needed, was an open door to investigate corrupt officials within their own ideological ranks. Lord knows where that would end-up.
Now, before getting to #3 (why the redacted memo from Mueller last night), and retaining the bigger picture, take a look at a few aspects that need to fall into place within this timeline.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was was interviewed about his media leaks in May 2017. He denied. Notice what comes next… “a couple of months later” he was interviewed by IG Horowitz. And he again denied. Now think! That conversation would be around July of 2017. What happened right after/amid this period? Answer: Horowitz gained the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages.
•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.
•August 2017: After Horowitz gets the proof McCabe was lying – McCabe follows up on the two denials saying “he may have allowed FBI officials to speak with the newspaper”.
•August 2017: FBI re-interviews McCabe based on new admissions.
•November 29th 2017: One day before SC Mueller indicts Michael Flynn, IG Horowitz interviews McCabe again. Apparently this time McCabe admitted to constructing the leak.
Apply Occam’s razor.
Lisa Page is likely also questioned about the Wall Street Journal article and she told the truth. However, now her story conflicts with Andrew McCabe. So to prove her side of the story, Lisa Page provides the text messages July 20th, 2017 to investigators. That’s where the “Page was already disenfranchised with the SC Mueller assignment” and the “removed earlier” aspect comes from.
Andrew McCabe lied in May and July 2017. Lisa Page likely gave a statement that conflicted with McCabe and used the text messages to back up her side. That’s how IG Horowitz gained the original access to the Page/Strzok messages. The rest is history.
The ‘good guys’ inside the investigative FBI unit have a motive to be angry.
♦Think about it…. McCabe admits to lying to the FBI on November 29th, 2017. On November 30th, Michael Flynn is forced to sign a sketchy guilty plea for *presumably* lying to the FBI. On December 1st the media pushes the Flynn lying guilty plea. On December 2nd *some entity* within the process hits back against the corrupt insiders (around McCabe) and begins blasting out information about Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr… That’s where most people began to take notice.
Additionally, think about the time-frame knowing IG Horowitz informed SC Mueller about Strzok and Page and the potential criminal conduct outlined within their text messages.
In between the time McCabe lied to the FBI (May ’17), and then lied to Horowitz (July ’17), and then attempted to clean up his lie (Aug ’17), and then McCabe’s November 29th re-interview with Horowitz…. Prosecutor John Huber was brought on board.
There’s obviously a history of White Hats and Black Hats inside the DOJ and FBI while the entire operation against Trump was taking place. There’s White Hats -vs- Black Hats playing out inside the intelligence apparatus (Rogers -vs- Clapper/Brennan). In 2017 there’s White Hats and Black Hats inside dueling investigative units (Horowitz -vs- Mueller). And with Huber added there’s now White Hats -vs- Black Hats as prosecutors.
So lets look at a few interpersonal and organizational dynamics for examples. [Forgive my plain-speak]. Taking some cues from inside the text messages already reviewed:
♦DOJ Attorney assigned to the FBI effort, Lisa Page, was willing to go along with the plans in 2015/2016 because she’s ideologically aligned with the political objectives to aid Hillary Clinton. However, after the election she ain’t stupid. By late spring she can see the writing on the wall… the intended outcome ain’t working. Nervous already, with McCabe lying about the media leaks in July, she’s had enough… she shoots down “Andy’s” lies and exits.
♦FBI Asst. Director in charge of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, was already likely not comfy with the entire scheme, and his #2 Deputy FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok was too far out-of-bounds. Priestap likely never agreed to ‘Phase-3’. He’s also rich with a well-off spouse and too much to lose.
♦FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker did his earnest best to support the operation through Phase #1, Phase #2 and helped set up Phase #3… but after he found out congress was going to subpoena him, the next day something happened and FBI Director Christopher Wray removed him. The ‘something’ was likely Baker realizing Phase-3 wasn’t working, and began working toward self preservation.
♦FBI Agent Peter Strzok is just all around FUBAR. He’s busted all over the place… ‘where do I sign’? Halp.
♦Comey’s former Chief-of-Staff James Rybicki knew his goose was cooked as soon as he saw the Page/Strzok text messages surfacing in December 2017. But his loyalty to his former boss, and the actual physical risk to life and limb precluded his ability to help. He quit.
FBI Communications Director Michael Kortan was caught within the media leaks and also inside the spin machine from the Clinton investigation the ‘small group’ intentionally sunk and he sold as valid. Kortan decides to give the team the last help he can and releases an unauthorized FBI media statement in January, slamming the Nunes memo and undermining the official FBI position. It was his parting shot to attempt cover for the remaining crew. A few days later he was resigned by Director Wray.
On the Main Justice side:
♦DOJ-NSD Deputy Bruce Ohr was in too deep. Demoted twice in between a series of twelve, yes twelve, FBI investigative interviews… Obviously Bruce knew too much, and the collaboration/connection with his wife Nellie and Fusion GPS just put a massive target on his back. Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr connect the activity from the DOJ (national security division) and FBI (counterintelligence division) together with Fusion GPS (Nellie’s 2016 employer, Glenn Simpson) and Christopher Steele (the recipient of the unwashed intelligence product).
Nellie and Bruce didn’t exactly have an option… no doubt that’s why all the FBI investigative interviews from Horowitz and Huber. Tick.Tock on the IG report.
♦DOJ-NSD Deputy AAG David Laufman sat in on the Clinton investigations and was part of the collaborative effort to construct the fraudulent FISA application. In his former position, Laufman would have been involved and hold knowledge of the FISA “Title-1” surveillance program initiated on target Carter Page and the “incidental” Trump campaign officials. Laufman would also have close contact with former Asst. Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr; husband of Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr. Laufman quit in February, 2018.
♦DOJ-NSD Principle Deputy Asst. Attorney General Mary McCord replaced John Carlin in October 2016 and assisted Sally Yates in Phase-3 along with the Flynn scheme. Mary McCord accompanied Yates to the White House. Three things happened right before McCord resigned at the DOJ-NSD in April 2017. First, Sally Yates was fired. Second, the #2 re-authorization of the Page surveillance warrant occurred; and Third, IG Michael Horowitz gained oversight over the DOJ-NSD.
Sally Yates had blocked OIG oversight over the DOJ-NSD for the previous years. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was 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. In April 2017 all of that changed.
Not coincidentally the first White Hat arrives at the DOJ-NSD leadership ranks when Dana Boenteshows up, also in April 2017, from his prior position as U.S. AG for the Eastern District of Virginia. Boente acted as interim Attorney General after Yates was removed. Boente left Main Justice in October 2017 and in January joined Christopher Wray at the FBI as Chief Legal Counsel to replace the removed James Baker.
OK, so that’s a long and rather exhaustive summary of the key inside-players without going directly into the White House (Obama), CIA (Brennan) and ODNI (Clapper) roles.
Why is this pertinent to Robert Mueller and the August 2nd, 2017 request to Rod Rosenstein for a clarification/narrowing of investigative authority?
Because Mueller’s team, the small group of political officials and lawyers, know all of these people inside the DOJ apparatus. These are their peers, their comrades in ideology… this is their crew and social circle. The last thing their legal endeavors need is to be put in a position of intel or information about their brethren.
And for Team-Leader Robert Mueller, against the back-drop of this information; and with IG Horowitz giving him details about Page/Strzok messages; there’s a strong motive to ask for a signed letter from Rosenstein prior to continuing to investigate the President of the United States knowing President Donald Trump was also a target of this plan – and these details were going to surface at some point.
Lastly, and specifically about Rod Rosenstein, perhaps at a certain point in the spring and early summer 2017 he might have thought there was a substantive way for the assembly to carry out their plan. Perhaps he even believed the popular leftist narrative and thought there might be something to these ‘Trump-Russia-Collusion’ claims. Perhaps that’s why he directed the Muller investigative mandate in May 2017 to the exclusivity of President Donald Trump with no mention of any other campaign (Hillary Clinton) contact with Russian entities.
However, by August 2017 with full information coming from IG Horowitz about the likelihood of criminal conduct by FBI and DOJ officials; at the time Rosenstein wrote the more carefully detailed outline; he had to know the investigation into Trump was heading no-where.
Overnight last night Special Counsel Robert Mueller released an attachment as part of a responsive court pleading. The attachment was a previously unknown letter from Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller outlining the specific authority of his investigative appointment. The letter from Rosenstein to Mueller is dated August 2nd, 2017.
The revelation of the content within the letter, in conjunction with the specific date of transmission to Robert Mueller, substantively changes my review of Rod Rosenstein’s 2017 motives and intents surrounding his authorization of the Special Counsel appointment.
Before getting to the Rosenstein letter to Mueller, it is important to review the origin of a specific fact that will be a key component in the next post. To establish an important and needed time-frame. See Page 18, Item #3, second paragraph of Interim Congressional Report:
“The FBI’s conduct in relation to supplying the text messages between Strzok and Page only heightens concern about actions and intentions at the highest echelons of the FBI. The DOJ OIG obtained the initial batch of text messages on July 20, 2017.“
Inspector General Horowitz gained the Page/Strzok text messages on July 20th, 2017.
It was Friday December 1st, 2017, when the media first hit the headlines announcing the guilty plea for former National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn. It was less than 24 hours later, Saturday December 2nd, when ‘a group’ within the DOJ hit back with announcements revealing the political bias of FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Despite the transparency of timing the media ignored the relationship between the two events. However, people who were following the granular details -within the intelligence community conflict- accepted the IG releases would be used as fuel for congressional review and inquiry….. and that’s exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, the focus was so intense on what later became ‘dueling memos’ no-one paused to look at the granules against the bigger picture. Despite the media story pointing out Strzok and Page were removed from duties on the Special Counsel (Mueller) team in July and August 2017, no-one questioned what was happening between July/August 2017 and the December 2nd media release announcing their dispatch.
If anyone in January had begun cross referencing the Nunes, Goodlatte, Grassley discoveries and their volumes of investigative interviews; against the backdrop of the IG information to Mueller in July ’17; they would have possibly connected the dots that outlined the appearance of a criminal review – and a transparent need for an authorized DOJ entity to construct rules for cooperation within the ongoing IG investigation.
We now know Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DAG Rod Rosenstein assigned federal prosecutor John W. Huber to that task. However, even without knowing his name, we always knew the existence of the parallel prosecutor because the fingerprints of his tasks were evident.
The IG couldn’t simultaneously report on his discovery of criminal conduct and yet construct the parameters for cooperation and compliance with his investigation. IG Horowitz doesn’t have that authority, that’s a federal prosecutors job.
So if people within the FBI and DOJ were cooperating with an internal investigation that was discovering criminal conduct, someone from within the DOJ had to be cutting the deals. Jeff Sessions told us yesterday that person is John Huber.
As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures shared:
“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”
If you stand back and look at all activity from July 2017 through March 2018 you can get a good feel for who is inside the “small group”, who is cooperating and who is not.
♦COOPERATING GROUP – FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI/DOJ lawyer Lisa Page, DOJ Attorney Bruce Ohr, DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas; FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker and Asst. FBI Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, are all still employed within the system. Strzok, Page, Ohr, and Baker have been removed from responsibilities, but there are still there. Bill Priestap is still in responsibility and still there.
♦NOT COOPERATING GROUP – FBI Communications Director Mike Kortan (quit), DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General David Laufman (quit), DOJAG Loretta Lynch AAG Sally Yates, -NSD Asst Attorney General Mary McCord (quit), FBI Director James Comey (fired), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe (fired), FBI Director Chief-of-staff James Rybicki (quit).
AG Sessions, while responding to an irrelevant congressional request for a special counsel, told us yesterday that Huber is in charge of a “team” of prosecutors. Yet some weird and seemingly illogical reason, many people don’t seem to understand that.
There’s already a team of prosecutors reviewing all the evidence of criminality collected by Inspector General Horowitz. FULLSTOP.
There’s no need for a special counsel. Jonathan Turley understands this.
It is nonsensical to demand a Special Counsel when there has been a team of federal prosecutors reviewing the evidence for over six months. The outcome of their collective effort goes directly to federal indictments; there is simply no need for a special counsel.
Remember, the IG is looking at gross misconduct of official DOJ and FBI policy and practices. The prosecutor is looking at criminal misconduct from within those offices. The IG releases findings to the public, the prosecutor does not – until the courtroom. There is an overlap within the parallel of the IG and Prosecutor, but both have entirely different objectives.
There’s also evidence of an existing Grand Jury.
There are two types of federal grand juries: Under 18 US Code Sec. 3321 SEE HERE And Special Grand Juries under 18 US Code Sec 3331 SEE HERE
If you review Code Sec 3331 for special grand juries you’ll see that the criminal activity has to be “in the district”, and that special grand juries don’t have to be impaneled new. Existing ones can be used for new/different purposes. Section 158 of the US Attorneys manual is pretty much based on 3331: SEE HERE
The location of the grand jury is directly connected to the criminality behind the FBI and DOJ conduct. The location of the criminality determines the location of the Grand Jury.
Within the current IG Horowitz/Prosecutor Huber investigation there is a lot of varied criminality…. however there is one location where many of the criminal actions overlap…. that’s the location of the currently seated Grand Jury.
It is important anyone interested in the FBI and DOJ investigation take the time to digest the details within Attorney General Jeff Sessions notification letter to congress outlining his previous appointment of U.S Attorney John Huber to parallel Inspector General Michael Horowitz as a prosecutor.
Do not trust the pundit filtration of content, take the time to read it yourself.
Absorbing the DOJ has a long-standing criminal investigation will likely create anxiety for those committed to an irrational intolerance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions; but the substance remains evident regardless of sentiment.
The Bigger Picture – If we accept the historic context for DOJ official communication stemming from the IG investigation, it would appear the notification letter is timed with the conclusion of investigative evidence collection. As such, the timing is safe for the DOJ to reveal the name of the prosecutor many previously refused to believe existed.
There was already an appointed person, a prosecutor, from “outside of Washington”, in place prior to the recent request for a Special Counsel by Goodlatte and Gowdy. That was exactly what an objective analysis of the events previously outlined – and we previously noted.
Attorney Jeff Sessions previously outlined the existence of an outside prosecutor who has been in place for quite a while, exactly as we thought. All the evidence of this was/is clear if you follow the granular details closely. Here’s how we figure it out; and also the reason why no-one in Washington DC -including congress and the president- was previously aware, until today.
…”to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee sent to us” – HERE is an Example. And here is a response:
♦#1) The DOJ Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) has an obligation to notify his superiors when he/she discovers illegal activity, or conduct that is likely unlawful, while conducting an internal investigation. The IG cannot sit on knowledge or evidence of likely criminal conduct, just because he/she is conducting an investigation. This is the same reason why IG Horowitz had to inform Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July of 2017 of the potentially unlawful conduct of members on his team (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok).
♦#2) The same people under investigation within the IG purview (FBI and DOJ officials) are transparently cooperating with the Inspector General. That cooperation, in combination with a likelihood of unlawful conduct, would require a DOJ official (prosecutor) to be assigned to negotiate and outline the DOJ legal terms of investigative compliance. The person negotiating the terms for cooperation would NOT be the Inspector General; because of the potential for criminal charges related to the investigated individuals, it would be the job of a DOJ career prosecutor to comply with legal needs.
♦#3) Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr and Bill Priestap have quotes inside the HPSCI memos. Those quotes come from investigative interviews; no congressional committee has interviewed those persons. Those would be a few of the people in #2 above; and their testimony to Horowitz and a DOJ Prosecutor, would make them witnesses in a criminal investigation. That explains why they have not given interviews to congressional committees. The DOJ needs to keep the integrity of their testimony inside the investigative unit. (ie. in the control of the DOJ official from outside Washington that Jeff Sessions notes).
♦#4) President Trump is the chief executive over the DOJ and FBI; however, in this odd dynamic he is also the victim within the conspiracy as potentially outlined by the investigation. Therefore, again to protect the integrity of the investigation and witness testimony, the victim would be kept at arms length and not informed of the criminal investigation. That’s why POTUS Trump doesn’t know; and AG Sessions must keep distance from any discussion with the executive due to this separation.
♦#5) Cooperating witness testimony in a criminal investigation also means congress would not know of the details. Congress (Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte) wouldn’t even know a criminal investigation was opened. The prosecutor works parallel with, but separate from, the IG investigation. Congress would know of the IG, but not the prosecutor. This interview by AG Sessions is the first indication congress would have of a DOJ official already looking at the criminal issues.
♦#6) And the most transparent reason why we know there’s a DOJ prosecutor already on the case is because Jeff Sessions just said there was.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions – Federal Prosecutor John W. Huber
Here’s the U.S. Code explaining the power of the Inspector General – SEE HERE
Additionally on February 27th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below). During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions if the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.
Attorney General Sessions affirmed the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI was indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]
.
This February 27th mention by AG Jeff Sessions WAS NOT NEWS.
That’s why yesterday’s admission by IG Horowitz in this regard was NOT a surprise. It was happening all along.
The February statement by Jeff Sessions was exactly what those who have followed closely will note had seemed to be the direction of the IG investigation since mid-year 2017.
As AG Sessions affirmed, repeatedly, IG Horowitz was NOT limited in scope. Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse. If he found an issue, he had the authority to follow it.
Add this fact to General Sessions’ answers about the appointment of a DOJ official from outside Washington on March 8th, 2018, and you could clearly see the IG and appointed prosecutor have been working together for quite some time.
How long?
Likely since the time when IG Horowitz first informed the AG (Sessions) and DAG (Rosenstein) that he may have discovered significant evidence of unlawful conduct within the DOJ and FBI. That would be around July/August 2017, when IG Horowitz was bound by duty to inform DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That notification led to the removal of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.
Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.
The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.
On January 8th, Bruce Ohr was demoted for the second time. [AND DOJ officials scheduled Bruce Ohr to be available to Devin Nunes on January 17th]
On January 9th, the DOJ provided the unredacted DOJ/FBI documents requested to Chairman Nunes; the documents the DOJ produced surrounded the Clinton-Steele Dossier and the FISA Title-1 application. The documents were assigned to a SCIF in the basement of the House. Those documents become the basis for Chairman Nunes to outline his memo; essentially a declassification request to the White House written by Trey Gowdy.
As a result of the agreement between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes, one member from each side of the HPSCI aisle (one Democrat and one Republican) was permitted to review the original FISA application documents which included the Clinton-Steele dossier use therein.
Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff were the two Intel committee members who reviewed. (Remember, this is January 9th, 2018) [Only Gowdy, Schiff, Ratcliffe and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte reviewed the original FISA documents]
A week later, January 16th, 2018, Chairman Nunes postponed the witness interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr scheduled for the next day, January 17th.
Instead, on January 18th, 2018, the HPSCI voted to allow all members of the House to review the Nunes-Gowdy Memo created after the DOJ provided the documents (January 9th). [January 18th THROUGH February 2nd was #ReleaseTheMemo]
Now remember, throughout this time none of those prior agreed-upon FIVE witnesses (Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, Ohr) have been interviewed. Everyone’s attention shifted from witness testimony to the Memo; and as Democrat Eric Swalwell stated, no witness was interviewed. Period. [<- key point].
So to summarize so far: during January all the DOJ documents arrived, the HPSCI (Nunes) memo was written, released, declassified and released to the public on February 2nd, 2018 – but no witnesses testified. [Nunes Memo – Link]
So the question becomes:
How does the exact testimony (including quotes) of Bruce Ohr, and Bill Priestap become part of the Nunes Memo if neither Bruce Ohr or Bill Priestap was ever interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee?
Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?
It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]
See where this was going? The investigative unit of the IG is providing congress with transcripts of testimony from IG investigators (DOJ and FBI employees within the OIG); with the review, control and approval of the DOJ outside prosecutor. We now know that prosecutor is John Huber.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses, likely with his appointed DOJ prosecutor Huber, and extracted testimony. This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).
Let me remind everyone that each of the aforementioned names is still within the system. Unlike Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki or Andrew McCabe, none of the five (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Priestap) have been removed. Peter Strzok is in FBI HR; Lisa Page is doing something; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are holding down chairs somewhere; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence.
It doesn’t go unnoticed the media are transparently not following up on Peter, Lisa, Bruce Jim or Bill. No satellite trucks in front of their houses etc.; no pounding on their doors for comment etc. Nothing.
Further, ask yourself why Inspector General Michael Horowitz (or someone thereabouts) began to advance upon the entire ‘Trump operation’ with releases of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages? Why them? Surely, other collaborative communication was also captured, yet we only heard of Page and Strzok. Why?
Here’s what is becoming transparently obvious. The fab-five are cooperating with the investigative unit of the OIG. All five of them.
The text message release was strategic. It was intended to substantiate the entire enterprise, put the ‘small group on notice’ and flush out the co-conspirators. The downstream exits of Kortan, Laufman, Rybicki, McCabe et al are evidence therein.
Additionally, the OIG (Horowitz) would want to keep the testimony of Page, Strzok, Ohr, Baker and Priestap away from the Democrat politicians, well known leakers, within the House Intelligence Committee (ie. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff) until he was certain their usefulness as witnesses was exhausted.
The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.
The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG (as Jeff Sessions confirmed today) and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part.
[That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; and no-one outside the AG, AAG, and the ‘outside’ prosecutor’s office would know.]
The prior testimony/statements to the IG by the fab-five would explain why AAG Rod Rosenstein was negotiating with Devin Nunes; would explain why Rosenstein was reluctant to allow testimony; and would also explain why Nunes came away from those negotiations with wind in his investigative sails.
The DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) needs to wall-off the politics (Nunes/Congress) from the ongoing criminal investigation (DOJ-OIG-Prosecutor John Huber) to preserve the integrity of his advancing and assembling case (including criminal witness testimony).
As soon as Chairman Nunes recognized something was going on, and after a review of the FISA documents – Nunes dropped his demand for immediate testimony by the fab-five to the HPSCI mid-January. [A record is already established]
As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures recently shared:
“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”
Additionally regarding Bruce and Nellie Ohr:
“The Republican memo states they turned over all their work and testified to someone that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele and Steele was saying he didn’t want Trump in office. They didn’t testify to a Congressional committee, so it had to be the IG.”
The already existing “outside DOJ official” outlined by AG Sessions, John Huber the person who would be constructing the witness agreements with approval of his DOJ bosses, Rosenstein and Sessions. Is this all making sense now?
All of the news and information coming forward, including the lack of follow-up attention by the Democrats regarding the minority HPSCI memo, aligns with a very specific set of facts. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with prosecutor John Huber for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor.
Thereby the Fab-Five have provided the IG investigative team and the DOJ prosecutor Huber with sworn statements and testimony which is highlighted in investigative communication between the DOJ and Chairman Nunes; and we saw snippets surfacing in the Nunes memo. That perspective explains everything seen and not seen.
It is likely the final investigative summary from the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG), Michael Horowitz, is going to be very encompassing. It is also likely to be immediately followed-up by actions, perhaps immediate indictments, from DOJ Prosecutor John Huber who Jeff Sessions brought in from outside Washington.
There is no need for a “Special Counsel” when a DOJ Prosecutor is already working with IG Horowitz. The “outside prosecutor” can begin issuing subpoenas for Grand Jury testimony and statements by the officials no longer within the DOJ/FBI, just as soon as the IG report is finished.
QUESTION: How far back have you tested your Economic Confidence Model?
GP
ANSWER: To the start of recorded history. Each wave has been identified and numbered. It is very remarkable how history conforms cyclically to this frequency.
It has been tested on every culture and empire from Asia to Europe.
Here is a more modern perspective on the various events that took place.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Looking up from the granules, we can see a clear and comprehensive plan to flood the zone with propaganda narratives to distract, dilute and obfuscate.
Centinel2012 