Methinks Mr. Atkinson doth protest too much.  Prior to the current “whistle-blower complaint” the Intelligence Community Inspector General did not accept Urgent Concern whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge.  However, the ICIG revised the protocol in August 2019 to accept a CIA complaint against President Donald Trump.

Today the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, presented a four-page justification explaining why the IC changed the Urgent Concern rules to allow the CIA to target President Trump with anonymous complaints based on hearsay:

.

The IGIC revision was made at the same time HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff was tweeting in August about President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and holding back funding pending assistance with political opponents.  Note the Date: (link)

President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019. (link)  The CIA operative “whistle-blower” letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on August 12th (link).   Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for Urgent Concern “whistle-blowers” was modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the construct of the complaint.

The coordinated effort obviously ties back-in Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael K Atkinson.

The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ‘hearsay‘.

Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

.

[Irony Reminder: The DOJ-NSD was purposefully under no IG oversight. 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.]

Put another way, Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. 2016:

Immediately after the Carter Page FISA warrant is approved, in the period where DOJ-NSD head John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave but not yet left, inside those specific two weeks, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law. The NSD specifically inform the court they are aware of contractors who have been using FISA 702(16)(17) database search queries to extract information on political candidates.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has looked into the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page. Additionally, U.S. Attorney John Durham is said to be looking at the intelligence communities’ use of systems for spying and surveillance.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.

Atkinson’s conflict-of-self-interest, and/or possible blackmail upon him by deep state actors who most certainly know his compromise, likely influenced his approach to this whistleblower complaint. That would explain why the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel so strongly rebuked Atkinson’s interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.

In the Justice Department’s OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement. [See Here] I would say Atkinson’s decision is directly related to his own risk exposure:

.

Within a heavy propaganda report from the New York Times there are also details about the Intelligence Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent (emphasis mine):

[…] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared to be credible and identified two layers of concern.

The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump’s comments to Mr. Zelensky “could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws,” Mr. Atkinson wrote, according to the Justice Department memo. (read more)

Does the “foreign campaign contribution” angle sound familiar? It should, because that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya. More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused “campaign contribution” narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.

The “Schiff Dossier”, aka “whistle-blower” complaint was a constructed effort of allied members within congress and the intelligence apparatus to renew the impeachment effort. The intelligence team, including the ICIG, changed the whistleblower form to allow the CIA to insert the Schiff Dossier, written by Lawfare.

The Soft-Coup effort continues…

Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham must be right over the target.  The Washington Post (via allies in Lawfare) is quick to the typeset to assist the collective effort.  However, there’s good news therein.  Obviously WaPo and The Times (via journolist-type cooperation) divided up the narrative angles.

Based on the severity of “small group” risk exposure, it must be assumed the halls of Main Justice in Washington DC are filled with corrupt allies for the administrative state.

One only needs to read a few paragraphs to see the corrupt Lawfare Main Justice “sources” (ie. embeds still operating) are urgently leaking details of the Durham/Barr investigation. (emphasis mine):

(Washington Post) Attorney General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the matter.

[…] The direct involvement of the nation’s top law enforcement official shows the priority Barr places on the investigation being conducted by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who has been assigned the sensitive task of reviewing U.S. intelligence work surrounding the 2016 election and its aftermath.

[…]  The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government. Current and formerintelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.

Barr has already made overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week the attorney general traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian government officials and Barr asked the Italians to assist Durham, according to one person familiar with the matter. It was not Barr’s first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials, the person said. The Trump administration has made similar requests of Australia, these people said.

[…] David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who was involved in the early stages of the Russia probe, said it was “fairly unorthodox for the attorney general personally to be flying around the world as a point person to further evidence-gathering for a specific Justice Department investigation,” and especially so in Barr’s case.

“Even if one questions, as a threshold matter, the propriety of conducting a re-investigation of the Justice Department’s own prior investigation of Russia’s interference, the appointment of John Durham — a seasoned, nonpartisan prosecutor — provided some reason to believe that it would be handled in a professional, nonpartisan manner,” Laufman said. “But if the attorney general is essentially running this investigation, that entire premise is out the window.”  (read more)

Remember, David Laufmann is a member of the “small group”, the Lawfare Alliance and “beach friend.”  Laufmann sat-in on the FBI Hillary Clinton interview, likely so he could report back to the Lawfare unit on the substance.  David Laufmann also represented former FBI official Monica McLean, who was Christine Blasey-Ford’s best friend, and the person who helped Ford construct her letter to assist the group effort against Kavanaugh.

I would strongly suggest going back and READING THIS about the nuance within the teams: Team Obama and Team Clinton.  Each team has unique interests and exposure within the former operations against candidate Donald Trump. Team Obama was more of an assisting co-conspiracy role; and Team Clinton was more of a direct conspiracy role. Team Clinton has direct legal exposure. Team Obama has indirect legal exposure.

♦ Team Obama consists of: John Brennan, Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, James Rybicki, Loretta Lynch, John Carlin, Samantha Power and all former White House officials.

♦ Team Clinton consists of: ¹Andrew McCabe, ¹Sally Yates, ¹James Baker, ²Mary McCord, ¹Dana Boente, ²David Laufmann, ¹Mike Kortan, ¹Peter Strzok, ¹Lisa Page, ¹Nellie Ohr, ¹Bruce Ohr, ²John Podesta and essentially all of the former DOJ/FBI small group who are also currently operating within the ³Mueller operation and ³Lawfare (Benjamin Wittes) community.

NOTE: Team Clinton has three sub-sets: ¹direct involvement; ²indirect involvement; and ³cover-up.

We saw an outcome of the “team dynamic” when McCabe’s lawyers said Team Obama would defend him in court and Team Obama said: ‘the hell we will‘. [Go Deep]

Back to Barr – Obviously it’s good news to hear that both Durham and Barr went together to Italy (Mifsud questioning?). No doubt due to the issues at hand, Durham needs the additional clout with the sensitive exposure of foreign government involvement.

Also it’s obvious the ‘resistance’ groups, writ large, have allies in Main Justice keeping close tabs on Durham and Barr.  These leaks to WaPo and Times indicate spies embedded in Main Justice are feeding information to their media allies.

Now, having said all that there’s an angle that must be emphasized.  With all that is at stake; and given the known involvement of the CIA in constructing recent events around the “whistleblower” narrative; and considering the history of The Washington Post as an outlet to promote the agenda of the CIA; there’s a possibility these articles are constructed to stop the public from pressuring AG Bill Barr.

Regardless of what AG Bill Barr is doing or not doing, those who demand a full accounting for the corruption and weaponization we know to exist must keep demanding accountability.  Those who constructed the coup effort against President Trump will not relent in their effort to see him removed.  Impeachment is their best defense.

It is becoming clear the principals connected to the 2016 weaponization of the intelligence apparatus, DOJ and FBI are increasingly concerned about U.S. Attorney John Durham and Attorney General Bill Barr looking at the origins of “Spygate” and the Trump-Russia narrative.  Lawfare and their media outlets are leading their defensive-based offensive.

Remember, Stefan Halper (U.K.), Joseph Mifsud (Italy) and Alexander Downer (Australia) all played a key part in helping CIA Director John Brennan assemble his two-page Electronic Communication (EC) that initiated the FBI to start “Crossfire Hurricane.”

All of the Obama-era officials (specifically those who weaponized government in 2016 to target their political opposition) are using the “IC anonymous whistleblower” approach in an attempt to paint any current inquiry as Trump weaponizing the investigation of their coup effort.  Any effort by President Trump to expose the 2016 misconduct is now spun to be President Trump weaponizing his office to target his political opposition.

The latest visible example of the corrupt team anxiety surfaces via a counter-narrative in a New York Times article claiming President Trump asked Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to assist AG Bill Barr and his 2016 review.

WASHINGTON — President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call.

The White House restricted access to the call’s transcript to a small group of the president’s aides, one of the officials said, an unusual decision that is similar to the handling of a July call with the Ukrainian president that is at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump.

Like that call, the discussion with Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia shows the extent to which Mr. Trump sees the attorney general as a critical partner in his goal to show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt and partisan origins, and the extent that Mr. Trump sees the Justice Department inquiry as a potential way to gain leverage over America’s closest allies.

[…] President Trump initiated the discussion in recent weeks with Mr. Morrison explicitly for the purpose of requesting Australia’s help in the Justice Department review of the Russia investigation, according to the two people with knowledge of the discussion. Mr. Barr requested that Mr. Trump speak to Mr. Morrison, one of the people said.

[…] Mr. Barr flew to Italy last week and met with Italian government officials on Friday. The Justice Department spokeswoman would not say whether he discussed the election inquiry in those meetings, but former Justice Department officials said that Mr. Barr would need to ask foreign countries for cooperation in turning over documents pertaining to the 2016 election.

[…] The Justice Department said last week that it is exploring the extent to which other countries, including Ukraine, “played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign.” At the very least, Mr. Barr has made it clear that he sees his work treading into sensitive territory: how the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the United States’ closest allies share information with American officials. (read more)

It’s obvious the people who ran these spy operations into the Trump campaign are nervous now. After years of denying spying; and after months of apoplectic pearl-clutching over AG Barr’s use of the word “spy”; even the New York Times finally had to admit in early August there was direct spying happening.

It must be first noted that Devin Nunes outlined the two-page “Electronic Communication” or “EC” from CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey was not from official intelligence channels. Meaning the intelligence used to originate Crossfire Hurricane did not come through officials Five-Eyes intelligence communication.

When we reviewed the documents released by the Australian government, there was a disparity between the dates of George Papadopoulos meeting Australia’s High Commissioner Alexander Downer. The Weissmann report seemed to put the meeting as May 6th, 2016, but Papadopoulos and Downer (Australian docs) put the London meeting on May 10th.

Here’s the excerpt from Special Counsel Weissmann/Mueller report that describes the events. Note Weissmann assigns a meeting date of May 6th, 2016:

[Page #89, Muller Report]

The paragraphs and the footnote direct the reader to assume a meeting between Papadopoulos and Downer on May 6th, and later the communication from Downer on July 26th, as the impetus for Crossfire Hurricane. However, there’s some strategic conflation in the presentation because Downer and Papadopoulos didn’t meet until May 10th.

Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller carefully word the paragraphs because they don’t want the background of the May 6th, 2016, event attached to western intelligence.

Sneaky.

When Weissmann/Mueller write: “On May 6th, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government“… they are not writing about Alexander Downer.

They are writing about an aide to Downer, Erika Thompson.

As noted in Papadopoulos’ book:

After meeting with Downer’s aide, Erika Thompson on May 6th, she sets up a meeting between George Papadopoulos and her boss for May 10th. The meeting is put on the official schedule for the Australian Ambassador to the U.K:

[Note in the meeting schedule the dates/times are listed in both Australian and U.K. time zones.] On May 10th, 2016, Ms Erika Thompson and Mr. Alexander Downer then meet with George Papadopoulos.

After the meeting, Ambassador Downer reports back to the Australian government on his conversation with Papadopoulos. [As noted in the recent document release]:

The details of the conversation, and how Alexander Downer viewed the information from Papadopoulos is heavily redacted. Essentially, he writes out what the Trump foreign policy seems to be from the perspective of George Papadopoulos. This would be typical for any government to assemble the views and perspectives of a potential presidential nominee.

Additionally, Downer was a major supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton; but in general terms, any personal bias is irrelevant for the purposes of outlining information from the Trump campaign that might be useful later on in understanding how the relationship between Australia and the U.S. might evolve.

As noted in the Weissmann/Mueller report, it is from this May 10th, 2016, meeting where later communication from Ambassador Downer, July 26th, 2016, is referenced as the origin of Crossfire Hurricane. However, here’s where it gets interesting. Notice how Mueller presents the May 6th conversation as confirmation of the information from Joseph Mifsud, and not May 10th.

Weissmann and Mueller are saying the information: “that the Trump campaign had received information from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton”, came from Erika Thompson on May 6th, 2016.

Weissmann/Mueller are NOT saying that information came from Alexander Downer, despite the connection to the footnote that now appears to be intentionally conflating the origin of their claim. They are “technically” saying the information came from Erika Thompson.

This makes sense, because Downer has denied that Papadopoulos ever brought up anything about Clinton “dirt”, or Clinton emails with him in the May 10th meeting.

Now the origin of this set-up takes on a new understanding.

Remember, a large portion of the CIA’s foreign agents work overseas as members of various U.S. embassies. The U.S. State Department is the cover for a lot of CIA work; reference the “Benghazi Consulate” etc.

Rather than keep writing “U.S. intelligence officers”, and/or “U.S. intelligence assets”, let us just use the word “spies” to make things more honest and easier to understand.

Also consider “unofficial channels” as useful to a set-up; and “official channels” as part of a needed legitimacy for this operation.

George Papadopoulos was contacted by two members of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),Terrence Dudley and Greg Baker, working out of the U.S. embassy in London. Two American spies working in London put Papadopoulos in contact with their ally/counterpart in the Australian Embassy, Erika Thompson. [ie. ‘unofficial channels’]

Erika Thompson takes it from there… and sets up the meeting with Alexander Downer which will later be used to take an ‘unofficial channel’ and turn it into an ‘official channel’.

Now, which one did the CIA/FBI use: “unofficial” or “official”? For the answer look at what Weissmann and Mueller say in their report.

The May 6th, 2016, Erika Thompson’s unofficial channel is cited for the quotation as to what Papadopoulos was claimed to have said…. as Papadopoulos is referencing information from Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, another unofficial channel.

See how that set-up was played?

And then there’s this:

The FBI Director of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, just happened to be in London on the exact same dates the ‘unofficial’ operation was happening… Now things really come into focus.

Remember, this is all happening in May, long before the official launch of the “official” FBI counterintelligence operation known as Crossfire Hurricane, July 31st, 2016.

What happens two days after Crossfire Hurricane is launched? …back to London: On August 2, 2016, Special Agent Peter Strzok and another agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation met with Alexander Downer in London to discuss his conversation with Papadopoulos further. Strzok then received reading materials, which he texted about to Lisa Page.

CBS Reporter Scott Pelley led the broadcast of 60-Minutes presentation of the House impeachment of Donald Trump with a stunning claim:

“Tonight, “60 Minutes” has obtained a letter that indicates the government whistleblower who set off the impeachment inquiry of President Trump is under federal protection, because he or she fears for their safety.”

(Video and Transcript)

The claim is quite something.  A CIA operative that needs to be put under federal protection?  Wow. Immediately CNN and the media pounced on the opportunity to promote the “whistleblower” as a victim.

Except, they encountered one problem…. it’s not true.   Scott Pelley made it up.

Even one of the lawyers for the CIA whistleblower, Mark S. Zaid, had to try and clean up CBS’s false narrative:  “60 Minutes completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter.”

(Here’s the Link To The Letter)

Heck, if this is the propaganda within the pre-impeachment coverage, can you even imagine how much false media propaganda is yet to come….

UPDATE:  In a rather remarkable turn-of-events, CBS says they stand by their reporting and their sources…..  However, their sources are the ‘whistleblower’s’ lawyers.  The lawyers, aka the “CBS sources”, say CBS is fake news:

(Link to Tweet)

(Enclosure ↓ )

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins explains to Maria Bartiromo that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has subverted the formal impeachment initiation process in favor of a decree that blocks his republican minority from participating.

Thankfully word is getting out; people are starting to recognize the construct behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s highly political impeachment plan.  [CTH will have more on the plan details soon because key democrats are leaving distinct fingerprints.]

In the first four minutes of this interview Mark Levin outlines how Speaker Pelosi is throwing out customs, traditions, processes and protocols within the House impeachment scheme. This is not a flaw of their plan, this is a key feature.  As CTH has outlined, a concerted group of like-minded ideologues – that also consists of Lawfare allies,  are following a plan developed soon after, if not before, the 2018 mid-term election.

Additionally, Mr. Levin accurately calls-out Fox reporter Ed Henry for promoting the false narrative, containing Democrat talking points, about the Trump-Ukraine phone call.  President Trump also tweeted this full broadcast from this morning. Quite a segment:

.

Levin notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should refuse to accept the articles of impeachment when delivered by the House Impeachment Managers, unless a bipartisan process is followed.  However, Speaker Pelosi (via Lawfare) already has a plan for that angle…. more to follow.

The reason why Nancy Pelosi didn’t hold a Full House vote to initiate an ‘Articles of Impeachment’ inquiry is simple: if she did follow the formal process, the minority party (republicans) would have rights in the process; so too would the executive branch.

By subverting the process, and just arbitrarily decreeing the opening of “an official impeachment inquiry”, Pelosi allows the committees to proceed without any representation by the minority in the investigative process.  This approach, in combination with the 2018 rule changes, is a feature of the impeachment plan – not a flaw.

Against that backdrop, this set of tweets by President Trump have much more meaning:

The House of Representatives cannot construct articles of impeachment through the utilization of anonymous accusations (ie. ‘whistleblower), and hearsay.  These tweets are not just POTUS lashing out; these tweets have a very material purpose…

MORE HERE and more to follow.

The tone-deafness here is so stunning you have to ask yourself if someone in the Biden campaign did this intentionally to destroy the Joe Biden campaign.

Previously Joe Biden demanded the Ukraine government shut down the investigation of his son and fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.  Today Joe Biden duplicates this behavior by demanding American media shut down any discussion about his corrupt Ukrainian influence campaign.

(Demand Letter Sent to U.S. Media Outlets)

Good grief, you just can’t make this stuff up folks…

Remember, in the deep & factional political weeds George Stephanopoulos is ‘team Cinton’.  Team Obama are exposed in the Biden-Ukraine pay-to-play scandal.  The aspect that exposes Team Clinton is the FBI false construct of the vast Russian conspiracy with Crowdstrike, DNC server hacking and the Ukraine dirt-digging participation for 2016.

As a result, Stephanopoulos is more concerned with defending Team Clinton (DNC hack via Crowstrike) than defending Team Obama (Joe Biden selling influence).

Giuliani knows the factional nuance; and as a result he immediately side-steps the part of the Ukraine narrative that Stephanopoulos is prepared to defend (Clinton).  Instead, Giuliani goes to the part of the Ukraine narrative that surrounds Team Obama (via Biden), where Stephanopoulos is less invested.  Smart move.

Rudy Giuliani, having avoided the Clinton trap, then rips the legs out from under the Biden-Ukraine defense and beats Stephanopoulos over the head with the truth hammer.

.

Following these interviews today, Team Biden (aka Team Obama) recognize that Rudy Giuliani has the facts to expose their corruption and begin demanding that media executives stop allowing Giuliani to tell the truth.