An article today about Carter Page suing the DOJ in an effort to review the inspector general report on the FISA manipulation prior to publication provides an opportunity to review the insignificance of Carter Page.   First the Carter Page perspective:

(Via Epoch Times) The former Trump-campaign associate who was wiretapped by the FBI, sued the Department of Justice on Oct. 21, demanding that the government provide him with an opportunity to review, before it is made public, the forthcoming inspector general’s report on potential surveillance abuses in his case. (read more)

What Carter Page apparently doesn’t recognize is his insignificance in the overall DOJ and FBI purpose behind the FISA that carries his name. Page was never exploited by the FISA Title-1 warrant -as granted by the FISA court- for the same reason Page was never investigated by the FBI or Mueller team, he was irrelevant.

Carter Page was a means to an end; the end goal was to get the Steele Dossier into the FBI as an official investigative work product. Perhaps a little review of the three-year research detail will help us better prepare for the IG report.

The “Steele Dossier” was important to the FBI because the content within it is the material they needed to present as justification for an ongoing investigation… that ultimately was handed to Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller; and the investigation of the material therein was later authorized by Rod Rosenstein in his August 2017 expanded scope memo.

The dossier is what’s important. Carter Page never was.

Additionally, George Papadopoulos is not mentioned within the Dossier because the CIA operation to enjoin Papadopoulos as a bolster for the Russian collusion-conspiracy came after the script of the dossier was constructed. The CIA operation against Papadopoulos was external to the FBI operation using the Dossier.

Papadopoulos connection only comes as a matter of incidental relationship to the FBI’s FISA application which mentioned both Page and Papadopoulos. In essence the FISA application merged two fundamentally different elements: (1) The Steele Dossier; and (2) The CIA operation against Papadopoulos. However, the merging was only purposeful as to the original goal of getting the Dossier into the FBI as official investigative material.

Most of the material in the dossier came from Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson and his contracted CIA researcher Nellie Ohr. The dossier is essentially a script creating the impression of Russia collusion-conspiracy by associating research and networks around people. The script was evolved to surround presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The Simpson and Ohr dossier included historic research on people they could cloud as connected to Russian interests. Simpson’s research was historic and included Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.

Nellie Ohr’s contribution was to take Simpson’s historic research claims and modernize them with new research material centered to frame candidate Trump. Nellie Ohr added Carter Page and Donald Trump while doing research on Trump’s family and connections. [*note Nellie Ohr admits this in testimony]

They took the old script (Simpson) and new material to enhance the older script (Ohr), Fusion-GPS and then contracted Christopher Steele to provide the appearance of legitimate western intelligence. Essentially changing political opposition research into intelligence material.

Steele’s contract was to take the Simpson/Ohr dossier, research it, add his own elements based on his experience, and then launder it back to the FBI to give the impression of an official intelligence concern.

Understanding this aspect is critical, because it was always the Dossier that was important. The Dossier frames a narrative that says Russia was interfering in U.S. politics and the named characters within it, Manafort, Flynn, Page and Trump were participants.

The Dossier always held primary importance.

The Dossier underpins the Russian interference narrative and the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Without the Dossier, the primary material to create the impression of Russia within the 2016 election doesn’t exist.

To give the Dossier Intelligence Community teeth so it can grip the narrative, the dossier was used as FISA evidence. It is my my belief, bolstered by reporting, there were preceding FISA applications containing material from the dossier rejected by the FISA court.

The FBI team and supportive DOJ-NSD officials who were behind the Carter Page FISA application were successful in bringing the dossier to legitimacy. Once that goal was attained, the dossier was then pushed hard into the media bloodstream to bolster the narrative of Russian interference, collusion and conspiracy; which was the purpose of the dossier.

In addition to the Russia-Collusion/Conspiracy within the dossier, CIA Director John Brennan and ODNI James Clapper manufactured supportive material. On December 29th, 2016, the Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was pushed.  The JAR is essentially a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking efforts.

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.

Carter Page was irrelevant. He was a means to an end; nothing more.

In January 2017, using the cover-story and hook of President-elect Trump being briefed on the Dossier, CNN and Buzzfeed published the dossier… Again bolstering the Russia narrative the dossier was established to create.

However, after publication of the dossier, the specific details within it started to collapse. Michael Cohen was never in Prague; Alfabank wasn’t communicating with Trump via Trump Tower servers etc. By late February and early March 2017 in the background of the assault on the presidency, the dossier was weakening. Additionally, there was a real possibility Christopher Steele was going to be questioned about the content, civil lawsuits were filed etc.

If Christopher Steele told the world the provenance of the dossier, the shit would hit the proverbial fan for those who were constructing the Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative.

In February/March 2017 if Steele said the dossier was political opposition research from Fusion-GPS, Glenn Simpson and Nellie Ohr, provided to him for validation, things would be very ugly. This risk was made worse by the reality of the dossier’s credibility being enhanced through official use underpinning a FISA application.

Against this backdrop, on March 17th, 2017, the Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, requested the FISA application from ODNI Dan Coats.

Upon “read and return” delivery, Warner instructed SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the content. Wolfe sent 82 pictures of the 83-page report to his media narrative engineer Ali Watkins, a reporter at Buzzfeed.

After Watkins gained peer accolades for her reporting on the FISA application; and after peers recognized that Watkins had a valuable source (wolfe); the young journalist became a valuable commodity.  On May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. The New York Times hired Ali Watkins.

Without question the most important part of Ms. Watkins resume was her ownership of the FISA application. Also unquestionably, the legal offices of the New York Times would want to tread very carefully; after all, this is a highly classified document leaked illegally and the “leak ramifications” are almost beyond imagining.

The New York Times filed a FOIA request with the DOJ for a copy of the FISA application. On its face this FOIA was/is absurd. Yes, the material within the FISA was a matter of strong public interest, but expecting the DOJ, FBI or U.S. Director of National Intelligence to release one of the most closely guarded national security documents was silly.

A FISA application? C’mon man, this would be the easiest FOIA request for the intelligence apparatus to dismiss in the history of FOIA requests.

So why did the New York Times file such a futile FOIA request? Simple, it was a legal CYA. They already had the FISA application from newly hired Ali Watkins and they were going to exploit all of the content therein within their narrative engineering processes.

Bit by bit, narrative block-by-block, by deploying the familiar “according to officials with understanding of the material” etc., the Times’ reporting would weaken the IC secrecy firewall around the FISA and provide fuel for the ongoing Mueller probe…. and that’s what they did.

Then something odd happened that still sits as one of the biggest mysteries that no-one ever contemplates….

On July 21st, 2018,… on a Saturday… after President Trump spent four days getting hammered for meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki Finland…. the easily dismissed New York Times FOIA request was granted… the Carter Page FISA was released.

.

July 17th, 2018, Tweets from James Comey (former FBI), John Brennan (former CIA), Sally Yates (former DOJ), and statement from Ash Carter (former DoD).

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the latest developments within the Michael Flynn case.   As McCarthy points out, if Judge Sullivan doesn’t accept the defense position of gross misconduct by the prosecution; and if Sullivan does not dismiss the case; Flynn could end up on a worse position than the prior plea agreement.

Additionally McCarthy discusses the potential risks present for John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey; and then goes in to his perspective on the impeachment inquiry.

After filing an explosive response motion to compel Brady material, outlining a conspiracy to frame her client, defense attorney Sidney Powell appears on Fox Business with Lou Dobbs to discuss the stunning material within her presentation to the court.

There’s a clear set of battle lines now evident amid the ongoing political and legal dynamic:  Nadler, Pelosi, Lawfare and the Deep State media -VS- Durham, Barr, Trump and the MAGA movement.

Playing directly into this dynamic today Obama appointed Judge Beryl Howell has ruled (full pdf below) an impeachment by unilateral decree is constitutionally valid; and as an outcome House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler can have access to some of the Mueller grand jury material that was used as evidence in the “Mueller-Weissmann Report”.

It’s important to note Judge Howell granted access to only that grand jury material that was used in the Mueller Report, not a blanket authority to gain all witness testimony or grand jury material writ large.  However, having said that, the most troubling part of the decision is the background construct of the Weissmann team’s original objective.

From the outset; from the moment they started; from day number one; Weissmann, Lawfare and crew (Mueller was a special counsel figurehead only) always intended for the grand jury material to be handed to Chairman Jerry Nadler for the specific purposes of writing articles of impeachment.   This is absolutely critical to remember.

The originating goal was to use the special counsel investigation to assemble evidence of obstruction. Then to frame the assembly of all evidence toward the future goal of writing articles of impeachment.  This was the sole purpose of their coordination with Lawfare.

Every innuendo; every context of inquiry; every person, document and nuance; was intentionally brought before a grand jury with the forethought that it would eventually reach Nadler and the newly hired Lawfare staff to write the articles of impeachment.

The lengthy plan was proceeding swimmingly until AG Bill Barr was nominated and Rosenstein’s facilitation of the Lawfare crew was stopped.

Additionally Judge Beryl Howell was the judge overseeing Weissmann and Mueller’s Grand Jury proceedings, and she’s friends with Weissmann.  So it doesn’t come as a surprise to see her making somewhat bizarre statements about impeachment and of course today’s ruling.

All of the material in the grand jury file is there for a specific reason.  No evidence that refutes the obstruction case was ever presented.  This was a careful assembly, planned with forethought, toward a very specific purpose.  That’s why Chairman Nadler and his hired Lawfare contractors were so adamant about gaining access to it.  Nadler already knows what is there.

Andrew Weissman built the illusion of obstruction into the Mueller investigation; but Weissmann could not produce a final report specifically claiming obstruction took place because his collection was not based in material fact.  Weissman and crew built the illusion of obstruction blended with some radical legal theories.

That’s the material Nadler-Lawfare want now.

All of that said, it’s likely the DOJ will appeal Judge Howell’s precedent setting ruling to the DC appellate court.  The timing would normally be quite lengthy for the process; however, there is a decent likelihood the House Judiciary Committee will ask for fast track decisions due to the nature of their case.

WASHINGTON DC – […]  In her ruling, Howell ordered the DOJ to provide by Oct. 30 “[a]ll portions of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election that were redacted pursuant to” grand jury restrictions.

The order also requires the Justice Department to provide “any underlying transcripts or exhibits referenced in the portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted” pursuant to those restrictions.

“The court’s thoughtful ruling recognizes that our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution and thoroughly rejects the spurious White House claims to the contrary,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the DOJ is “reviewing the decision.”

Democrats have contended that they need Mueller’s grand jury transcripts in order to determine whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump for conduct revealed in the course of Mueller’s investigation.  (read more)

Here’s The Ruling:

.

Ms. Maria Butina, a young Russian idealist who was caught up in the 2016 election frenzy and the vast Russian conspiracies, had strong connections to high powered Russian oligarchs.

Today she was released from federal prison and immediately deported back to Russia.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Convicted Russian agent Maria Butina was released from a Florida prison on Friday after serving most of her 18-month sentence for conspiring to influence U.S. conservative activists and infiltrate a powerful gun rights group, and taken into custody by immigration officials to be deported to her native country. (read more)

Ms. Butina pleaded guilty in December 2018 to one count of conspiring to act as a foreign agent and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.  However, the under-reported backstory to the 31-year-old Russian is actually connected to the 2016 election and FBI efforts to weaponize Ms. Butina as a FISA-enabling virus.

Originally the purpose of Butina coming to the U.S. in 2016, as explained by Patrick Byrne, was for her to engage with influential Americans for political contacts that could provide geopolitical value to the oligarchs.

Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was seen as important to Ms. Butina due to his connections to the emerging financial structures of crypto-currency and block-chain. Mr. Byrne is a libertarian who believes in small government, and is somewhat of a disruptor in the business world. Ms. Butina wanted to introduce Byrne to her friends in Russia.

Alternative currency options to the U.S. dollar has been an ongoing effort of Russian interests for a while. Russia considers global trade attached to the dollar as geopolitical problem; and they have been working for years on alternative currencies for trade (and their own wealth) that can avoid U.S. sanctions and the reach of the U.S. treasury.

As a Russian national with specific Russian interests that are not in alignment with U.S. national interests, Maria Butina was defined by the U.S. intelligence community as an ‘agent of a foreign power’. Her status meant unrestricted monitoring by the U.S. intelligence community was entirely legal.  However, because of this ‘foreign agent’ status Ms. Butina was also a valuable 2016 FISA virus to infect anyone the U.S. intelligence apparatus would wish to target domestically for surveillance.

“Political Espionage” – During the 2016 election season, Butina’s useful purpose appeared to be the reason the FBI in Washington DC enlisted Patrick Byrne as a handler, giving Butina specific instructions and introductions to Republican presidential candidates.

Once those candidates were contacted the FBI’s background surveillance transferred to the republican politicians, including persons in/around the Trump orbit.  Mr. Byrne stated several times that FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and persons working on his behalf, was the FBI official directing the engagements.

Byrne claims he was asked to participate in an FBI intelligence operation and to introduce, and/or facilitate the introduction of, Ms. Butina to the campaigns of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

In December of 2015 Mr. Byrne said he became suspicious of the FBI motives because he warned FBI officials of the potential that his efforts, his reputation and those who trust him, may result in Butina gaining entry into campaign confidences. The FBI agents told Mr. Byrne that was exactly the intent.

People high up in the FBI wanted Ms. Butina to gain deep access into the Trump campaign. Mr. Byrne became suspicious of a corrupt political motive, but didn’t say anything at the time.

In/around Feb or March 2016 Byrne was told to focus Ms. Butina’s attention to the campaign of Donald Trump and to diminish any attention toward Rubio or Cruz.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”.  Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].

This FBI contact structure highlights an arms-length operation; perhaps intentionally constructed to create plausible deniability for those above the directly instructing agents.

In essence, these rank-and-file FBI agents were asking Patrick Byrne to be a civilian handler of a Russian national, and instructing him to carry out a covert counterintelligence operation. The FBI agents were apologetic about asking a civilian to take on such a role.

Conducting FISA-702(16)(17) database searches and electronic surveillance on U.S. persons who would meet with Butina would be justifiable and legal.

Extended contact with any U.S. person could lead to a Title-1 surveillance warrant through the FISA court, similar to what happened with Carter Page.  However, even without the FISA warrant, 702 searches would be valid just from brief contact.

As we have shown FISA-702 (“16” to-from) and (“17” about) queries were off the charts during the time-frame of November 2015 through May 2016.  Per the FISA auditconducted by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, after the flags noted by the database compliance officer, 85% of the search returns were unauthorized and unmasked.

The time-frames here are too coincidental to be accidental. [Judge Collyer Report]  This was the same period when DC-based FBI officials were telling Patrick Byrne who they wanted him to introduce Ms. Butina to.

From the operational description of Mr. Patrick Byrne it would appear Ms. Butina was used by the FBI to “dirty-up” political targets, opening them up for surveillance.

The FBI/NSA database can be used in real time, or in historic mapping, to monitor people simply by entering their cell phone number and filtering the geolocation.   Additionally, texts, call logs, emails, personal data and sensitive electronic communication can all be reviewed by FBI officials using this database.

What Patrick Byrne ended up describing as “political espionage” was an illicit and intentional use of an FBI counterintelligence operation to monitor the political campaign of the opposing party.

Maria Butina likely did have sketchy intentions from a U.S. strategic interest perspective; and monitoring her was perhaps justifiable.  However, specifically directing Butina on where to go and who to meet is another kettle-o-fish entirely.

That aspect is likely why Mueller, Weissmann and the corrupt small group within the DOJ and FBI, originally locked away Maria Butina in strict isolation and solitary confinement.

♦ In a Fox Business interview, Patrick Byrne described being offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet in 2018.  This piqued many curious questions; however, it is worth noting a bribe as described could come in a multitude of forms for a businessman who operates a massive corporation.

In 2018 Mr. Byrne’s company, Overstock, was also under an SEC investigation.

(LINK)

I’m sure it is just a coincidence, but FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happens to be the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. [LINK]

So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018.

I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion.

Huh, imagine that?

Coincidences.

Small world.

[LINK to SEC]

In the last 24 hours multiple media pundits, legal analysts and politicians have asked what intelligence community criminal activity AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham could possibly be looking at.

During his short media appearances Patrick Byrne claims he had spoken to the DOJ on April 5th, 2019, and again on April 30th, 2019. Mr. Byrne stated he told the DOJ all of the information he was aware of during those two interviews covering approximately seven hours of questioning from officials in the Department of Justice.

Maria Butina was removed from harsh isolation in prison on May 9th, ten days after Mr. Byrne delivered his testimony to the DOJ. According to Byrne Ms. Butina was moved to a very different White Collar facility based on his information.

Byrne also highlighted the May 13th DOJ appointment of John Durham to look into the origination of the Russia investigation events. Byrne feels this too was likely, at least in part, a direct result of his two DOJ sessions April 5th and 30th.

Yesterday the media began reporting that U.S. Attorney John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation.  Today Ms. Butina is released from prison and immediately deported back to Russia.

[*DISCLAIMER* – After originally outlining the process and possibilities within an article in August 2019, CTH received a thankful and congratulatory email from Mr. Byrne stating he was surprised we were able to put it all together.]

The reaction from CNN to news that U.S. Attorney John Durham is now conducting a criminal investigation is actually quite funny when contrast against their positions in 2017 and 2018.  Jeffrey Toobin doesn’t have any idea about the background of Joseph Mifsud, and his narration is a jumbled mess of dissonance: “clearly no evidence” he proclaims.

When Weissman and Mueller were traveling the world to investigate Trump-Russia it was an example of prudent and thorough investigative approaches.  However, Durham and Barr doing the same thing is an example of the most horrific investigation imaginable.  When Mueller sent a subpoena it held a seriousness that could not be ignored; however, if Durham sends a subpoena, everyone can just shrug-it-off and “take the fifth”.

Accordingly, Weissmann & Mueller opened investigations, the targets were automatically guilty and should be alarmed.  However, when Durham & Barr open investigations, it means nothing to the targets and not even the possibility of guilt.  Meanwhile, former ODNI James Clapper’s muttering responses are, well, also quite humorous. WATCH

This would appear to be one of the few positive indicators that AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are indeed doing more than bondo.  The New York Times is reporting the Durham “review” has now officially moved into a full “criminal investigation”.  [All emphasis mine]

WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

My initial question was/is: does this mean the *interviews* with John Brennan and James Clapper were predicated on a shift into a criminal investigation?  If yes, is that reality the baseline for the New York Times changing the reporting?

[…]  The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.

It was not clear what potential crime Mr. Durham is investigating, nor when the criminal investigation was prompted. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

[…] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

When Mr. Barr appointed Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, to lead the review, he had only the power to voluntarily question people and examine government files.

[…] Mr. Barr began the administrative review of the Russia investigation in May, saying that he had conversations with intelligence and law enforcement officials that led him to believe that the F.B.I. acted improperly, if not unlawfully.

The F.B.I. opened the investigation in late July 2016, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, after receiving information from the Australian government that a Trump campaign adviser had been approached with an offerof stolen emails that could damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

F.B.I. agents discovered the offer shortly after stolen Democratic emails were released, and the events, along with ties between other Trump advisers and Russia, set off fears that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia’s interference.

FBI agents “discovered the offer“?  Interesting use of words within the article by an outlet who sells the position of the DOJ and FBI.  The “offer” was from Joseph Mifsud, who we know is not a Russian intelligence operative, but rather now appears to be a western intelligence operative under the guiding control of the CIA.   The “discovery” part was the report of that activity by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

So what the New York Times is outlining here, is the CIA ran an operation using Mifsud to place information into Papadopoulos, a classic set-up, and the FBI is now claiming they had no idea the CIA was the originating intelligence apparatus for that information. Very interesting…. aligns with the FBI defensive framework from last week.

[…] The F.B.I. did not use information from the C.I.A. in opening the Russia investigation, former American officials said. But agents’ views on Russia’s election interference operation crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey about it.

Well the claim: “The F.B.I. did not use information from the C.I.A. in opening the Russia investigation” is demonstrably false.  The CIA produced an “electronic communication” (EC) to the FBI which officially launched the premise of operation “crossfire hurricane’.  That EC has never been released, though it has been seen by congressional investigators.  So whoever this “former American official” is, is lying.

[…]  The C.I.A. did contribute heavily to the intelligence community’s assessment in early 2017 that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and tried to tip it in Mr. Trump’s favor, and law enforcement officials later used those findings to bolster their application for a wiretap on a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

As we have researched and outlined the CIA was the driving force behind the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and Peter Strzok was one of the primary authors.   Additionally, how could the January 2017 ICA be used to bolster the application for the Carter Page FISA, when the FISA warrant was granted on October 21st, 2016?  Perhaps the New York Times is intentionally trying to conflate the ‘second renewal”?

Mr. Barr is closely managing the Durham investigation, even traveling to Italy to seek help from officials there to run down an unfounded conspiracy that is at the heart of conservatives’ attacks on the Russia investigation — that the Italian government helped set up the Trump campaign adviser who was told in 2016 that the Russians had damaging information that could hurt Clinton’s campaign.

But Italy’s intelligence services told Mr. Barr that they played no such role in the events leading to the Russia investigation, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte of Italy said in a news conference on Wednesday. Mr. Barr has also contacted government officials in Britain and Australia about their roles in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

So the Italian intelligence apparatus played no “official” role; which again would bolster the likelihood the CIA was the driving entity behind Joseph Mifsud.

[…]  Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation.

Mr. Durham has indicated he wants to interview former officials who ran the C.I.A. in 2016 but has yet to question either Mr. Brennan or James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence.

The “tricked” by the CIA angle is a position seemingly outlined in many of the media defense articles on behalf of the FBI.

[…] Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed. It was not clear whether Mr. Durham was scrutinizing other former top intelligence officials. Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the former director of the National Security Agency, declined to say whether he had spoken with Mr. Durham’s investigators.

Mr. Durham also has yet to question many of the former F.B.I. officials involved in opening the Russia investigation.

I’d put that response from Admiral Mike Rogers in the affirmative side of the ledger; and again it’s good news the “small group” has yet to be interviewed.

[…] As Mr. Durham’s investigation moves forward, the Justice Department inspector general is wrapping up his own inquiry into aspects of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the early days of the Russia investigation. Among other things, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is scrutinizing the application for a warrant to wiretap Mr. Page.

Mr. Barr has not said whether Mr. Durham’s investigation grew out of the inspector general’s findings or something that prosecutors unearthed while doing interviews or reviewing documents. But the inspector general’s findings, which are expected to be made public in coming weeks, could contribute to the public’s understanding of why Mr. Durham might want to investigate national security officials’ activities in 2016.

Though the inspector general’s report deals with sensitive information, Mr. Horowitz anticipates that little of it will be blacked out when he releases the document publicly, he wrote in a letter sent to lawmakers on Thursday and obtained by The New York Times.  (read full article)

A letter from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz provides both good news and bad news.   The goods news is Horowitz letter says likely no need for a “classified version” which means AG Bill Barr likely declassifying a lot of it.

However, the bad news is on page #2 where Horowitz says the final draft assembly is still ongoing, and the “review phase” has not yet begun.  Which means the report is not likely to be made public before Thanksgiving.

Knowing how carefully the OIG chooses words when describing inter-agency discussions and contacts, a note of caution is also warranted for this part:

Instead of “redactions” and/or the need for a classified version (or appendix), the FBI process for a full release could also be requesting “removals”.

Lastly Horowitz notes the “review”, “accuracy” and “comment” period, which we customarily know as the “Principal Review Phase”, is not “anticipated to be lengthy”.  In general the principal review phase under Horowitz has been around two-to-three weeks.

During that phase the sections of the report that pertain to specific DOJ and FBI officials will be sent to them (w/ a required NDA) for review and their feedback.  The feedback may or may not be included in the final report as published.  If principal feedback is included, the IG will generally provide additional rebuttal evidence.

When the principals get their copies, despite the non-disclosure agreement, they will undoubtedly start leaking to their media allies and lawyers on their behalf will begin the process to undermine any damaging information within the report.

Based on today being October 24th, I wouldn’t look for the final report until after Thanksgiving.

Once the DOJ (Rosenstein and Mueller) made the 2018 intentional decision to cover-up the FISA leak by Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director, James Wolfe, they set themselves upon a path where truthful disclosures would be adverse to their interests.

Think about it….

Think about what would have happened in mid 2018 if the DOJ prosecuted James Wolfe for leaking the FISA application….  Think about what would have been revealed about the role of Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele…  Think about how damaging that would have been to Robert Mueller…  Think about all the ramifications four months prior to the mid-term election.

Remember, Rod Rosenstein authorized the second Scope Memo in August 2017 specifically so Weissmann & Mueller could investigate the claims within the ‘Dossier’.  Think about what would have happened to the institution of the DOJ if they had proceeded with the prosecution of James Wolfe for leaking the FISA application; and all of the connections around the Steele Dossier and the FISA application came into light.

Don’t just do a cursory thinking about it, really think carefully about it.

Think about what would have happened to the SSCI and Mark Warner, if James Wolfe had been prosecuted….  Think about all of the April ’17 through 2018 media reporting on the FISA application; the Jan/Feb ’18 media arguments about the Nunes memo…. Think about every narrative the media was selling about the Steele Dossier and then later the FISA application….. and then think about Wolfe’s prosecution proving the media has the actual FISA application in their hands when they were writing all those false stories about it…

The ramifications of prosecuting Wolfe would have collapsed the entire Russian Collusion-Conspiracy narrative; and destroyed the reputations of the SSCI, the Mueller investigation, the DOJ, the FBI and the media.

Now do you see why they covered it up?

Once the DOJ and FBI leadership made the 2018 decision to cover-up the Wolfe leak of the FISA application, they set themselves on a path of no retreat and no return.

People often ask me why I changed my perspective in July/August 2018 and dropped the outlook of optimism toward accountability.  Well, there ya’ go. I just explained why.

Put on your memory cap and think about the downstream ramifications for prosecuting James Wolfe.  What would have changed?…..  EVERYTHING.

Now, think about the downstream ramifications from covering-up the Wolfe leak of the FISA application.  Think about all the officials who have first-hand knowledge they covered it up…. Think about the political participants that know the DOJ covered it up… Think about the FBI officials who investigated Wolfe, and who know their institutional leadership made the decision to cover-up what they found….

So what exactly will this same DOJ and FBI do in 2019 with an IG report that is specifically focused on the Carter Page FISA application?

Think about it carefully, and please share your thoughts.

[Here’s The Background]