Attorney General William Barr delivered stunning, albeit obviously honest, remarks during congressional testimony today in response to Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen about his intent to review prior intelligence activities in targeting the Trump campaign.

Before getting to the video and transcript, it is important to note how this line of questioning surfaces.  The professional political apparatus, primarily Democrats – but also Republicans, who participated in the ‘soft coup’ effort are attempting to gauge the landscape of their risk by identifying AG Barr’s intention.  This line of questioning is NOT organic or random; it is deeply purposeful and scripted. You can smell the fear.

Shaheen is being asked by allies within the Administrative state, including interests no longer holding political office, to do advanced query…. this is political reconnaissance intended to give corrupt officials and media allies the background to: (a) scale their risk; and (b) plan their defense narrative.  They are nervous now. Very nervous.

Here’s the important transcript, (all emphasis mine):

Senator Shaheen: News just broke, today, that you have a special team looking into why the FBI opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee: who is on that team; why you felt the need to form that kind of a team; and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation?

AG William Barr: Yeah, I, uh, as I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And, uh, alot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of this has been investigated, and is being investigated, by the office of the inspector general at the department.  But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.

Shaheen:  Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?

Barr: Well, for the same reason we are worried about foreign influence in elections we want to make sure that, uh, during an election, I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.

The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government; and there were a lot of rules put in place to ensure there was an adequate basis for, before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance.  I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that; and I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but the intelligence agencies more broadly.

Shaheen: So your not, your not suggesting though that spying occurred?

Barr: I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think there’s that spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.

LONG PAUSE OF SILENCE

Shaheen: Wow, let me, uh…

Barr: But the question is: whether it was predicated. Adequately predicated. And I’m not suggested that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.

I think it’s my obligation, congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened; we have a lot of rules about that.

And, I want to say that I’ve said I’m reviewing this, I am going to, I haven’t set up a team yet but I do have, I have in mind having some colleagues help me pulling this information all together, and let me know if there’s some areas that should be looked at.

And I also want to make clear this is not launching an investigation of the FBI.  Frankly, to the extent that there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon; and so I don’t like to hear attacks about the FBI, because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization, and I think that Chris Wray is a great partner for me and I’m very pleased that he’s there as the director.

And if it becomes necessary to look over some former official activities, I expect that I’ll be relying heavily on Chris, and work closely with him in looking at that information. But, that’s what I’m doing, I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused; I think that’s one of the principle roles of the attorney general.

Georgia Congressman Doug Collins releases transcripts of day #2 testimony from former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker (full pdf below).  Baker was the legal advisor to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe during the investigation candidate Donald Trump; a key FBI small group insider during the soft-coup construct.

Something is coming… something delicious.  How can we tell?  Well, whenever a bombshell is about to drop on the corrupt Intelligence Community, the New York Times does a quick narrative dump to get out ahead of the story.

All the way down, buried deep, in a NYT story about Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s FISA investigation and AG Barr’s review of DOJ and FBI activity… they drop the following two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

[…] The inspector general is also scrutinizing another early source of information for the Russia investigation, the people said: Mr. Horowitz’s investigators have been asking questions about the role of Stefan A. Halper, another F.B.I. informant, and his prior work for the bureau.

Agents involved in the Russia investigation asked Mr. Halper, an American academic who teaches in Britain, to gather information on Mr. Page and George Papadopoulos, another former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. (read more)

Oh?  NYT now saying FBI agents asked help from intelligence asset Stefan Halper to go gather information on Carter Page and George Papadopoulos?

Six months ago the New York Times was calling people ‘conspiracy theorists’ for pointing out how the CIA and FBI were using overseas intelligence officials to run up against the Trump campaign.  Now they just drop it in their column as ‘meh‘, all casual like…. running spies into political campaigns, well, it happens all the time… or something.  Obviously they are shaping and dumping their narratives and quietly trying walking away.

The bigger question the Times avoids is: “FBI Agents involved in the Russia investigation asked Mr. Halper to gather information on Page & Papadopulos” predicated on what?

What’s the underlying evidence that would inspire the FBI to request Stefan Halper to spy on American citizens connected to the Trump campaign?  What’s the reason?

These contacts took place prior to July 31st, 2016, when Crossfire Hurricane began; so they are not part of the ‘official‘ FBI investigation… because these requests would have come before the investigation began… so what gives?

What’s the predicate for such a request?

The FBI has a “Brennan” problem.  CIA Director John Brennan organized foreign intelligence assets to run against the Trump campaign March through July 2016 to help construct Brennan’s “EC” memo that he gave to James Comey to initiate the official start of the FBI counterintelligence operation.

As soon as The New York Times mentions the name Professor Joseph Mifsud in the same way as Professor Stefan Halper the gig is up.

Attorney General William Barr was questioned today by republican lawmaker Robert Aderholt about potentially fraudulent DOJ and FBI submissions to the FISA court – to gain a Title-One surveillance warrant against U.S. Person Carter Page.

In a deliberate response AG Barr stated: “The Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russia investigation. I expect that will be complete in probably May or June, I am told.  More generally, I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”

.

The response would indicate AG Barr is taking personal interest in the events behind the July 31st, 2016, origination of the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation. Additionally, this approach indicates AG Barr’s review is going much further than Inspector General Horowitz; taking the review all the way to the origin of the intelligence community operation.

UPDATE: Bloomberg Reports: Attorney General William Barr has assembled a team to review controversial counterintelligence decisions made by Justice Department and FBI officials, including actions taken during the probe of the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, according to a person familiar with the matter.

This indicates that Barr is looking into allegations that Republican lawmakers have been pursuing for more than a year — that the investigation into President Donald Trump and possible collusion with Russia was tainted at the start by anti-Trump bias in the FBI and Justice Department.

“I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016,” Barr told a House panel on Tuesday.

Barr’s inquiry is separate from a long-running investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general, said the person, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The FBI declined to comment. Barr said he expected the inspector general’s work to be completed by May or June.

The issue came up as Barr testified before a Democratic-controlled House Appropriations subcommittee. Most of the questioning concerned demands for Barr to give lawmakers Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full report and the evidence behind it. But the issue is sure to get more attention when Barr appears Wednesday before the panel’s GOP-led Senate counterpart.  (read more)

Here’s the full exchange:

.

Attorney General General William Barr told lawmakers today the public can expect to have the redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference “within a week.”  AG Barr noted his team is working with the special counsel to provide “explanatory notes” describing the basis for each redaction.  WATCH:

Full congressional hearing below:

Representative Doug Collins has released the transcript from former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker during his first day of testimony to congress on October 3rd, 2018. (full pdf below)

Baker was part of the FBI small group who claimed to be somewhat skeptical of the manner in which the FBI investigation was taking place. James Baker told Congress during his testimony the investigation was “highly unusual.”

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/405636514/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-hSbU5u4s2gbRLNvuY77m

A late day submission to DC Circuit Court in a FOIA case previously discussed, reveals the content of Mueller’s probe & use of multiple, previously unknown, James Comey memos. Additionally, within the filing we discover how Comey documented multiple events, meetings and information surrounding the FBI investigation of Donald Trump.

The documents surface as part of the FOIA case [Backstory Here] where DC Court Judge James E. Boasberg -an Obama appointee and also a FISA judge- asked the FBI to file an opinion about the release of Comey memos to the public.  There are two issues: (1) can the memos be released? and (2) can prior sealed FBI filings, arguing to keep the memos hidden, be released?

In a very revealing filing last night (full pdf below) the lead FBI investigator for the Mueller special counsel, David W. Archey, informs the court that with the ending of the special counsel some of the memo material can be released, such as their existence; however, Archey also states much of the memo content and sealed background material from the FBI must continue to remain sealed and redacted.

The FBI will file a further declaration on or before April 15, 2019, to explain why the remaining redactions to the Third Archey Declaration continue to be necessary. (page 2)

Within the filing we discover the lead FBI agent was David W. Archey (background here). Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when the special counsel took over the counterintelligence investigation from Special Agent Peter Strzok. According to ABC: “Agent David Archey is described by colleagues as a utility man of sorts within the FBI”. However, until now his exact role was not known.

(Source pdf)

Following the conclusion of the Mueller probe, David Archey was moved.  Effective March 8, 2019, Archey became head of the Richmond, VA, FBI field office. (link) Due to the corrupt nature of the special counsel, this is somewhat concerning. I digress…

The first three pages of the filing consist of David Archey explaining to the court that some of the material can be released, but other material must be withheld.  He then goes on to reference two prior sealed attachments outlined as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B”.

“Exhibit A” is a filing from the FBI on January 31st, 2018, essentially supporting an earlier “in camera ex parte declaration” requesting continuance of a prior court order to keep the background material sealed from public view.  In essence, the FBI didn’t want the public to know what was/is contained within the Comey memos (including the scale thereof).

“Exhibit B” is where the action is.

This is the original declaration outlining to the court on October 13th, 2017, why the Comey memos must be sealed.  It is inside this exhibit where we discover there are many more memos than previously understood, and the content of those memos is far more exhaustive because James Comey documented the FBI investigation.

In essence Comey created these memos to cover his ass. (pg 13):

FBI Agent Archey then goes on to explain what is inside the memos: It is in this section where we discover that Comey made notes of his meetings and conversations with investigators.

Along with writing notes of the meetings and conversations, apparently Comey also made notes of the sources and methods associated with the investigation.  Why would Comey generate classified information in these notes (sources and methods) unless he was just covering his ass because he knew the investigation itself was a risk…

The content of the memos seems rather exhaustive; it appears Comey is keeping a diary for use in the event this operation went sideways. (page #14, exhibit B)

All of those investigative elements would likely be contained in official FBI files and notes by the investigative agents.  There is no need for a contemporaneous personal account of meeting content unless Comey was constructing memos for his own protection. These memos appear to be motivated by the same mindset that caused Susan Rice to generate her email to self on inauguration day.

In the next section FBI Agent David Archey explains the scale of the memos.  There are obviously far more than previously discussed or disclosed publicly.  Additionally, look carefully at the way the second part is worded.

Archey is saying Comey’s written recollections should be withheld because it might affect the testimony of people familiar with the “memorialized conversations”. (page #15, Exhibit B)

This is an October 2017 filing, Comey was fired May 9th.  FBI Agent Archey is outlining Trump as the target who might adjust his testimony.  Again, more evidence of the special counsel focus being motivated by the obstruction case they were hoping to build. [Reminder, Comey was still FBI director at the time these memos were written]

The next section gets to the heart of why the FBI wants to keep the Comey memos hidden and not released.

In this section Archey outlines how FBI Director James Comey wrote down who the sources were; what code-names were assigned; how those confidential sources engaged with FISA coverage initiated by the FBI; what foreign governments were assisting with their effort; and what the plans were for the investigation.

Again, why memorialize all of this classified information unless the memos were intended as CYA protection for himself?

There’s also really good news in here.  Think about it.  Now we know the entire anti-Trump operation is memorialized in writing.  There is documentary evidence of the entire operation within these memos.  We did not know that before this moment.

Therefore, it looks like President Trump can add the Comey Memos to the pre-existing declassification list.  At any time, President Trump now has a set of documents he knows to exist that his office can ask to be released.  The investigation is over.

If the FBI was running an honest and genuine investigation; what do they have to fear from the release of the Comey Memos now that the investigation is over.

Here’s the full filing:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/405516262/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-gtj781vTQdRUwWLPG0EE

Ranking member of the HPSCI Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to announce a $150 million lawsuit against the McClatchy News Group for their part in a conspiracy to derail and manipulate the Clinton and Russia probes. –Details Here–

“The attacks on Nunes were pre-planned, calculated, orchestrated and undertaken by multiple individuals acting in concert, over a continuous period of time throughout 2018. The full scope of the conspiracy, including the names of all participants and the level of involvement of any agents or instrumentalities of foreign governments, is unknown at this time and will be the subject of discovery in this action.” (more)

It’s always important to remember when Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI he successfully won a lawsuit against Fusion-GPS to gain access to their bank records.

There’s a distinct possibility Devin Nunes knows which reporters and media outlets were paid by Fusion (via Glenn Simpson) for their collaborative efforts. Was McClatchy paid by Fusion-GPS for participation in an organized smear effort? Stay tuned…