Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:

Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.

CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s likely Durham will cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.

Scope: This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Despite the abject nuttery, there is good news here.  Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing current Democrat Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a secret Russian agent:

“[Tulsi Gabbard is] the favorite of the Russians, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” (link)

The insufferable Mrs. Clinton re-initiated her vast Russian conspiracy theory during an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.  Yes, THAT David Plouffe.

However, Clinton nuttery aside, this level of political quackery -as expressed- is not all bad news.  Clinton’s tendency to make herself stupid and small is a strong indicator: (A) she’s not stable; (B) she’s not viable; and (C) she knows she could never re-enter the race.

Great job by Senator Rand Paul. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to bring the anti-Trump House resolution to the floor.  However, because the procedure for a single senator to bring vote to the Senate Chamber requires unanimous consent, the maneuver can also be blocked by a single senator.

Today, Rand Paul stood up and would not allow Chuck Schumer to advance a Senate vote on the House resolution condemning Trump.

(Washington DC) […] Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to get consent Thursday to bring up the resolution, arguing that “we’re in real trouble.”

“The most important thing we can do right now is send President Trump a message that Congress, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans, demand he reverse course,” Schumer said.
The resolution passed the House on Wednesday by a wide margin in 354-60 vote. All 60 votes against the resolution came from Republicans.

Under Senate rules any one senator can try to set up a vote on a bill. But because that requires unanimous consent, any one senator can block it.

Paul, a libertarian-leaning GOP senator, objected to Schumer’s request for a vote, arguing that he was trying to sidestep the Constitution.

“He should come to the floor and say that we are ready to declare war. We are ready to authorize force, and we are going to stick our troops in the middle of this messy, messy, five-sided civil war where we would be ostensibly opposed to the Turkish government that has made an incursion,” Paul argued. (read more)

Earlier today Nancy Pelosi was questioned about why the House was not voting to pass the USMCA trade agreement.  Speaker Pelosi immediately fell back upon her talking point: “we are working toward yes.”   This is complete hogwash.  There are no discussions. Pelosi is doing what Pelosi does best, politicizing anything positive for the U.S. economy in a concerted effort to undermine Trump in 2020.

Here’s what is going on.

Nancy Pelosi and her far-left ideologues entered an agreement with their Canadian liberal allies and Justin Trudeau to stall the USMCA passage.

Trudeau’s government ideologues agreed not to call the USMCA up for a vote in the Canadian parliament.

Speaker Pelosi is waiting to see if Trudeau can win re-election.  If Canada re-elects Trudeau on October 21st, Pelosi will announce the labor provisions are not strong enough within the USMCA deal; discussions with the Trump administration are not resolving the issues; the U.S. workers are not protected enough, and she is tabling any vote.

Speaker Pelosi will then wait until after the 2020 election.  The purpose is political.

Ratification of the USMCA would be a boost for the U.S, and North American, economy.  More growth in the economy is politically adverse to her interests.  Part of the 2020 Democrat strategy is to stall the U.S. economy, stoke a recession narrative, and hopefully weaken President Trump’s re-election bid.  That’s the plan.

For Canada’s part of the scheme, Justin Trudeau -if successfully reelected- will announce that Canada is waiting for the U.S to work out the USMCA labor disagreements.  This is the quid-pro-quo between liberals in the democrat party and liberals in Canada.

However, if Trudeau loses the election then Pelosi loses her partner in the plan.  As a consequence Canadian ratification of the USMCA will be certain, and it will be outside the control of U.S. Democrats…

So, if Trudeau loses the election Nancy Pelosi will bring the USMCA to a vote timed with the impeachment vote.  This plan allows democrats to try and dilute the political nature of the impeachment scheme by referencing the Trump administration USMCA vote as an example of Democrats not being political.   This is how they scheme.

If it does not benefit Democrats, it simply is not done.

Yes, this is what Democrats spend 100% of their time doing… This is how they roll.  24/7/365 constant planning and political strategy sessions to best exploit and shape events to their narrative.  Here’s the talking points if Trudeau loses on Oct 21st:

…’See, we’re not politically motivated, we’re giving the same president we are impeaching a win; because this trade deal is in the best interest of America.  Just like the impeachment of this corrupt president is in the best interest of America’….

This is why it is so frustrating trying to communicate with and work with Republicans.

As a group they are the worlds worst strategists; most often, intentionally so.  The right side of the UniParty prefers to be the party in controlled-opposition because Wall Street pays them better for their votes, and their constituents are oblivious to the construct.

It’s a big club….

According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.   As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) can only send out request letters.  The compliance is discretionary based on the ideology of the recipient.

It is likely, highly likely, Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes to proceed with a full House  impeachment authorization; so Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings have to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme.  So far the media is complying.

(Via Politico)  Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders will hold off on a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.

[…] Trump, White House official and Republicans on Capitol Hill have seized on the absence of such an vote as an unacceptable break with House precedent and have vowed to resist what they describe as an illegitimate probe.

[…] Pelosi and other top Democrats could not come to an agreement among themselves during discussions on Monday over whether to move forward with the vote, which would have been a dramatic escalation of their impeachment battle with Trump.

House Democratic leaders quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office lead the outreach effort, and the issue was discussed at a closed-door leadership meeting.

[…] The idea has been met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the agenda, according to multiple aides.  (read more)

Inside an otherwise innocuous court filing (full pdf below), General Mike Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, files a motion to compel (MTC) in an effort to gain discovery of the content from two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud.   [Hat Tip Techno Fog]

Apparently, according to the information within the filing, the DOJ has somehow gained custody of two cell phones belonging to Mr. Mifsud:

(Source Link)

The filing notes that “western intelligence” likely tasked Mr. Mifsud against General Flynn as early as 2014 in order to set up “connections with certain Russians” for later use against him.  Essentially, an intelligence entrapment scheme.

Unfortunately the filing only identifies the cell phones along with the request for production of the content therein.  However, the fact the DOJ has two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud opens up a whole bunch of questions:

#1)  How did the US Dept of Justice gain custody of Mr. Mifsud’s cell phones?

#2) Were these Blackberry cell phones issued by U.S. intelligence? (unknown agency)

#3) Why has the U.S. DOJ taken custody of those cell phones?

#4) If #2 is yes, wouldn’t that automatically destroy the “Mifsud as a Russian intelligence asset” narrative?

#5) [Less important] How the heck did Sidney Powell find out about them?

Something is certainly happening here. The cell phone models are from 2011 and 2014.

With U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr traveling to Italy to listen to the taped deposition of Joseph Mifsud last month….. and now the discovery that the DOJ has his cell phones from a period of keen interest in the Russia collusion-conspiracy framework….  It would appear Mr. Mifsud might just be the Maltese Fulcrum.

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff has changed the proceedings from “interviews” to “depositions” in an effort to block republicans from discussing witness testimony.  While the minority is blocked from discussing the democrats are leaking to the New York Times and DC media. This is part of the political strategy to frame the impeachment narrative.

During an interview on Capitol Hill today Representatives Mark Meadows, Lee Zeldin and Jim Jordan outline how the Democrats now want to drop any discussion or use of the whistleblower.  Jordan righteously outlines to an antagonistic media how the ‘whistleblower’ has a right to protection, but no right to anonymity.

.

Meanwhile today Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent is participating in a closed-door deposition with House Intel, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight & Reform Committees.

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan reacts to Hunter Biden’s interview, and then outlines how Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff have structured the ‘impeachment inquiry’ to hide testimony that supports the administration and leak testimony to frame a narrative.

Maria Bartiromo had initially reported the IG report on the Carter Page FISA situation was going to be released around the end of this week.  Ms. Bartiromo is now reporting a delay:

It’s the “classifications being made” part that raises concern.  President Trump granted Attorney General Bill Barr with declassification authority on May 23rd, 2019, so that any classification issues could be minimized and maximum transparency afforded.

WHITE HOUSE: (MAY 23rd) “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.

The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” (read more)

Memorandum for Agency Guidance below:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

SUBJECT: Agency Cooperation with Attorney General’s Review of Intelligence Activities Relating to the 2016 Presidential Campaigns

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

♦Section 1. Agency Cooperation.

The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The heads of elements of the intelligence community, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.

♦Sec. 2. Declassification and Downgrading.

With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum. Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department. This authority is not delegable and applies notwithstanding any other authorization or limitation set forth in Executive Order 13526.

♦Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) The authority in this memorandum shall terminate upon a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, unless expressly extended by the President.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e) The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP