There are two sets of documents that outline a very specific picture.  Robert Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey made sworn declarations to the court, without knowledge of FBI “whistleblower” information provided to DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

There is a distinct conflict within the IG report on James Comey (and memos) [Available Here] and the David Archey declarations [Available Here].  However, beyond the conflict there’s an even more alarming picture of how Robert Mueller was deployed, when all the information is overlaid in a timeline.   A very clear picture emerges; very clear.

In June 2017 CNN (and other media) filed a FOIA suit to gain the Comey memos.  As the lawsuit progressed through a lengthy battle -where the Mueller team did not want to turn over those memos- Mueller’s lead FBI agent, David Archey, made sworn declarations to the court.  Those statements became known as the “Archey Declarations”.  Inside those declarations agent Archey provided a specific outline of the FBI and the memos.

Note the date – Agent Archey states the “investigative team” came into full possession of the Comey memos: “on or by May 12th, 2017,”…

[Page #3 of Exhibit A – Archey Declarations]

The “investigative team” would be Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and then James Baker as lead counsel for the group.  The “Director’s staff” would be James Rybicki, who is identified by Archey as having “maintained” possession of the memos.

So this “small group”, particularly James Rybicki, is the center of the team.  This team is also confirmed by the IG Horowitz report. This team had the memos on May 12th, 2017.

Now we move into the aspect where the motives and ideology become clear when we look at the IG custodial record of the memos, as outlined by the Supervisory Special Agent in charge of Comey’s documents within the IG report, compared to the Archey declarations.

The FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in charge of Comey’s document retrieval is the “whistleblower” who eventually went to the IG.  I’ll explain why and how below; and to make understanding easier we shall use “SSA Whistleblower” to describe him.

♦On May 10th, the Comey memos were not in Comey’s office [per IG report].  At the time of the search and review of Comey’s office there were no hard copies found by SSA Whistleblower.

Now, keep in mind “by May 12th” James Rybicki had all the Comey memos in his possession, per Mueller team FBI Agent David Archey.

♦On May 12th, SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house along with James Rybicki and Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch.

During this May 12th visit James Comey never told SSA Whistleblower he had the memos in his personal safe.  James Rybicki was also present for this retrieval visit and also never told SSA Whistleblower that he was holding the memos in his FBI HQ office.

♦On May 15th, three days later, James Rybicki then tells SSA Whistleblower he knows the location of the Comey memos; and Rybicki informs SSA Whistleblower he has additional relevant material.

From the IG Report: “Rybicki told the SSA that he did not tell anyone about the Memos during the May 10 inventory because he understood that process to only include Comey’s office.”   Very sketchy.

At this point SSA Whistleblower had to suspect something sketchy was happening.  Keep in mind the following day May 16th, 2017, Comey sent memo content to his friend Daniel Richman with instructions to leak to the New York Times. [Article published 5:00pm 5/16/17]

If Rybicki didn’t inform SSA Whistleblower on May 15 about the Comey memos, then SSA Whistleblower would have found out from leaked media reports the next day May 16.

If Rybicki didn’t tell SSA Whistleblower about the memos on May 15, then it would have looked like the ‘small group’ was hiding and leaking the memos.  An intellectually honest review of the timing, and considering Rybicki had indeed been hiding the memos, leads to the conclusion Rybicki knew the NYT leak was coming; Rybicki was coordinating with James Comey; and Rybicki/Comey were trying to avoid team scrutiny. [Further evidence of this surfaces in the Mueller contact timeline.]

By May 16th, 2017, SSA Whistleblower, had to see the sketchy nature of how this was unfolding.   As a result this scenario from the IG report now makes sense:

If we overlay the FBI “small group” contact with Robert Mueller an even more clear picture emerges.

“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election and throughout the transition period and into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time-period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence.  Then Comey was fired….

♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST.  Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.

♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am. [See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video]

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.

♦Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines.  McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation.

Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, The New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director.   The “Loyalty” article [link].  The IG report shows: “[Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.

♦Friday May 12th –  Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing.  Referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.  This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:

May 12th, is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence.  However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.

♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]

♦Sunday May 14th –  Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys.  Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.

♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.

♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman”

On this same day Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office between President Trump, VP Pence, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein.    While they were meeting in the oval office, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks to Richman):

Also during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).

Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:

Interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 5/16/17 meeting between, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe. 

This meeting at Main Justice appears to be happening in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller.  This meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar taking notes.

Why is the Tuesday May 16th, 2017, date of additional importance?

♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

What is clear from a review of all the related and released information is the FBI small group (McCabe, Page, Strzok, Rybicki, Baker) were hiding the ongoing FBI investigation from other FBI officials (including the SSA Whistleblower), inside the department after Comey was fired.

McCabe launched a “criminal investigation” (obstruction) May 10th, and Rosenstein was in immediate contact with Robert Mueller about being a special counsel after conversations with the FBI small group. The small group were then releasing information to their media allies, and hiding the releases from FBI agents outside the small group; until they no longer needed to do so (May 15).

On May 15th, it appears the SSA was finally notified of the Comey memos because the small group already knew Robert Mueller was going to be appointed.

Comey, his lawyers and Lawfare allies, together with the small group, coordinated to leak and publish the NYT article (May 16th) the day Mueller was interviewing President Trump in the oval office. They knew Mueller was going to be appointed the following day, May 17th.  The NYT leak was cover and ammunition for Rod Rosenstein to fulfill his role.

This is the Special Counsel as the insurance policy deployed.

Everything was a set up by the small group; exclusively executed by the small group; kept hidden from other FBI agents and officials; and Mueller’s visit with President Trump was part of that investigative effort.

This overall conspiracy/plan is why the SSA turned to the Inspector General and requested Whistleblower protection.  This is also why IG Horowitz was motivated to carve out the Comey memos in his report.  KEY POINT – OIG Michael Horowitz has outlined the Special Counsel appointment as fraudulently predicated.

Because FBI Agent David Archey was not part of the original team (he did not join until August 2017); and because Archey had no idea a whistleblower had gone to the FBI when he wrote his declarations; David Archey wrote about the FBI investigative team having all of the copies of the memos on May 12th, 2017.

FBI Agent David Archey was unaware the ‘small group‘ had kept the Comey memos hidden from the FBI SSA Whistleblower until May 15th, 2017; so he inadvertently exposed their assembled disposition prior to the small group admissions to the SSA.

Lastly….

♦June 1st, 2017 – After the “small group” had successfully deployed Robert Mueller, then this same team sat down to classify the material that might have exposed their efforts to set up the special counsel appointment.

Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell appears for an interview to discuss her latest filing in the Flynn DC case that outlines how the DOJ has withheld key trial documents.

.

Powell’s Court Filing is Available Here

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, appeared on Fox News tonight responding to the defensive support of James Comey by John Brennan and James Clapper.

As Rep Nunes outlines the misconduct by the former FBI Director, Nunes also notes the framework for his criminal referrals to the DOJ; two of them involve referrals for criminal conspiracy.

There was a scheduled joint status filing due today between DOJ prosecutors and the Mike Flynn defense team led by Sidney Powell.

As Mr. Flynn’s cooperation has ended in all other aspects related to the former special counsel, there are apparently many issues still to be resolved prior to Flynn’s sentencing.

In a filing today (full pdf below) Flynn’s defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, notes two significant issues: (1) Ms. Powell is being denied a security clearance she needs to review all of the documents in the case; and (2) the DOJ is refusing to provide the original FBI notes from their interview of Michael Flynn on January 24th, 2017.

(Source – Page #2 pdf link)

(source – Page #3 pdf link)

Both issues are concerning, ESPECIALLY when you consider this is yet another case under the direct responsibility of U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu. [Same U.S. attorney who let the Awan Brothers escape justice; same U.S. attorney who let James Wolfe avoid prosecution for leaking FISA; same U.S. attorney who ran out clock on McCabe grand jury and punted McCabe prosecution decision back to Main Justice; etc.]

The failure of the DOJ to produce the original FBI notes (FD-302) is directly tied to the efforts of the “small group” to frame and entrap Michael Flynn.

Within the case….  Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and the official filing of those interview notes (FD-302) three weeks later on February 15th, 2017, and then again on May 31st, 2017.

To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)

However, what the special counsel prosecutor appeared to be obfuscating to the court; and attempting to hide from the judge; was a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview.   That deliberagion was likely about how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.

In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. It seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.

But we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th,… then entered into the official record on February 15th.

The interview report was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the 2018 cover letter from the Special Counsel was  misleading.  The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the “Draft Document/Deliberative Material” header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content.

This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the many reasons why Rod Rosenstein apologists and the ‘trust the plan’ crew should be collectively slapped across the face with a cold fish.  I digress.

Here’s the filing from today: Hat/Tip Techno-Fog

.

Byron York appears for an interview to discuss how FBI Director James Comey worked with his group of intelligence investigators on the January 6th operation against President-elect Trump.

.

Additionally, Representative Doug Collins is interviewed by Brett Baier. Acccording to Collins, the inspector general’s report on fired FBI Director James Comey’s conduct is just one part of things that are still left to come.

.

Having just completed a first review of the IG Report on James Comey, with numerous highlights for further overlay and research, here’s my thoughts upon initial review.

First, there is absolutely no doubt James Comey used his memos akin to FD-302 investigative reports from an FBI agent. Meaning, from beginning-to-end he considered himself an investigative agent against the President-elect and then President Trump.

Note: His recording of his encounter with the target, President-elect Trump should be “treated like FISA derived information in a counterintelligence investigation.”  During this January 6th operation, Comey was the active FBI agent gathering evidence for later use.  The collected intelligence would be shared with the team via memo #1.

Remember the Lisa Page Texts from the same date?

The FBI redacted almost all of that text because it outlines the distribution of the evidence Comey was collecting.   Comey’s memos were essentially FD-302 reports, and the officials within the DOJ and FBI didn’t want that exposed.  Lisa Page text was heavily redacted because it would have shown the January 6th encounter was an operation against Trump.

Every encounter, and every aspect of every action within that encounter, was conducted in what Comey perceived as an official investigative capacity.

President Trump was the target of Comey’s operations and he wrote his memos as investigative notes therein. Example: Comey ran the January 6th, 2017, operation:

So the “small group”: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, Priestap, Rybicki, et al, were running a counterintelligence operation against the incoming administration.

There are parts of the IG report highlighting a stunning amount of self-interest.

Example:  Who made the decision(s) about what “was” or what “was not” classified?  Or, put another way: who was making the internal decisions about Comey’s exposure to legal risk for sharing his investigative notes (memos) outside the department?

The answer is the same “small group” who were carrying out the operation:

James Baker, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, James Rybicki and Lisa Page were determining what parts of James Comey’s investigative notes needed to be classified.

The corrupt FBI was in position to police itself.   This is not a conflict of interest, it is better described as a profound conflict of self-interest.

The information the ‘small group‘ wanted to use to frame the target would be visible, not classified; however, any material that would outline the construct of their corruption in targeting the target would be hidden, classified.  You can’t make this stuff up folks.

The “small group” WAS the sources and methods they were protecting.

Everything needed to understand that level of corruption is outlined in the way the IG report discusses the handling of James Comey’s investigative notes (ie. memos).  AND the fact that James Comey kept them hidden, yes hidden.  Read this stuff!

First, “no hard copies of any of the memos were found in Comey’s FBI office.”:

So, if the memos were not held in Director James Comey’s official FBI office, the next logical question is where were they?

Well, when Special Agents went to James Comey’s house, he still kept them hidden and never informed the agents:

If Mr. Altruism, James Comey, was simply fulfilling the duty of a concerned and dedicated FBI Director, why not tell the FBI agents -picking up FBI records- that he had copies of FBI investigative notes in his “personal safe” while they were there?

What honorable justification exists for keeping them hidden from valid investigators?

Obviously me, you and God are not the only ones able to see the sketchy nature of this construct.  In fact, an internal FBI whistleblower came forward soon after that search of Comey’s home to request official “whistleblower status protection” from the IG.

Think logically…. What would prompt someone inside the FBI; who at some point gained access to the Comey memos; to request ‘whistleblower protected status’?

Doesn’t the “whistleblower request” indicate the requesting FBI official saw something nefarious in the way this was all going down?

Who was that ‘whistleblower’?

Well, first, Captain Obvious would tell you it has to be someone who actually gained possession of those memos right?…. this is not a big group.  Second, you only need to read a few more pages of the IG report to see who it was:

The “whistleblower” was the Supervisory Special Agent described in page 38 as above.

The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.  [“Drawer safes” are silly FBI legal terms for fancy locked drawers]  Also note…

“Reception area“?  “May 15th“?

Well, (#1) apparently no-one wanted to be the one holding the hot potato of investigative evidence (Comey memos); that ownership would outline them as participatory members in carrying out the targeting of then President Trump.  Oh, yeah, those investigative notes were not in “the office of the FBI Director” on May 10th, when you were here searching the last time,… for some mysterious reason.. they, uh,… well, they were discovered…  in the “reception area“… yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket!   Right under the four month old copy of People Magazine, n’ stuff.

….ARE YOU FRIGGIN’ KIDDING ME WITH THIS?

…AND (#2) the very next morning, GUESS what happened?…

Now we see why the FBI Supervisory Special Agent in charge in charge of inventorying Comey records asked the IG for official “whistleblower status.”

The SSA agent was surrounded by sketchy warning flares right there in the FBI executive suites.

Of course the SSA gave the Inspector General the seven memos, asked for whistleblower protection, and likely told the IG the way they were produced stinks to high heaven.   Good grief.

And the media can’t see this?

And the IG can’t simply call the baby ugly on this?

And U.S. Attorney Bill Barr can’t clearly see this?

And we can?

…C’mon Man!

.

Hubris (/ ˈ h juː b r ɪ s /, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence, often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.

There appears to be a concerted media, and allies (think Lawfare), strategy to focus attention to the DOJ decision *not* to prosecute James Comey.  This generates outrage, which has a tendency to create useful backlash.  Mr. Comey also appears to be fueling this.

Remember, it has been clear that part of the “small group” defense is to use outrage as part of their strategy.  Focus on the actual conduct… that’s where corrupt intent is evident.

The issue(s) surround President Obama and high-ranking Obama intelligence officials, notably: John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper and Sally Yates intentionally lying and/or misrepresenting issues to president-elect Donald Trump and the transition team in/around the transition period and shortly after the January 20, 2017, inauguration.

Some of the misinformation stems from intelligence officials telling direct lies (ex. telling President-elect, and President Trump he was not under investigation). Other aspects were lies of omission surrounding the Steele Dossier during the January 6th, 2017, intelligence briefing session with the President-elect in Trump Tower.

In essence, there were many misleading and false statements, with varying scales of severity, during the period from November 9th, 2016, through mid-May 2017 when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

(FBI Declarations about Comey Memos)

The FBI, DOJ, ODNI, CIA and intelligence officials were intentionally not being direct and honest with President Trump and key members of his new administration. Obviously their lack of honesty was a serious issue, and in some cases had serious ramifications.

The expressed finding by Robert Mueller’s two-year probe of ‘no Trump-Russia collusion, no Trump-Russia conspiracy, and no Trump-Russia obstruction’ has led to some hindsight reviews where anger surfaces about the now visible deception.  However, there is a trap laid here and Democrats are hoping outraged voices will walk straight into it. Some are already getting very close.

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self. Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered. Here’s the email:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Corney and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“.

The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]

The President asked Corney to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Corney said he would.

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

As stated, many have looked at this as a “CYA” memo, but that’s not what this is.

This is a justification memo, written by an outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice to document why there have been multiple false and misleading statements given to the incoming President Trump and all of his officials.

This is not a “CYA” memo, this is a justification memo for use AFTER the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative collapsed; if the impeachment effort failed.

The “By The Book” aspect refers to President Obama and Susan Rice being told by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, that President Trump was the subject of an active counterintelligence investigation to determine if he was under the influence of the Russian government.

Even the timing of the memo, written 15 minutes prior to the end of the Obama administration, is ex-post-facto useful as evidence of the author’s intent.

Put aside the nonsense aspect to the origination of the investigation for a moment; that part doesn’t apply here…. Accept their position ‘as if’ it is substantive.

We are talking about Brennan, Comey, Clapper and Yates telling President Obama and NSA Susan Rice that President-elect Trump is under a counterintelligence investigation where the suspicion is that Donald J Trump is an agent of a foreign power.

Under that auspices (fraudulent though it may be) the incoming President is a counterintelligence investigation target. A potentially compromised Russian asset. Under this auspices all of the officials would be permitted to lie and mislead their target, so long as they did so “By The Book.”

That’s their justification for a lengthy series of lies and false statements.

That’s why FBI Director James Comey can lie to the President and tell him he’s not the target of the ongoing Russia investigation. That’s the justification for keeping the accusations inside the Steele Dossier (remember, the Dossier is evidence) from the President-elect. That’s the justification for all of the officials to lie to President Trump, and even mislead the media if needed.

The Susan Rice email is one big Justification Letter; setting the stage for all of the participants to have a plausible reason for lies to anyone and everyone.

Call out John Brennan for telling Harry Reid about the Steele Dossier during his gang-of-eight briefing, but not telling Go8 member Devin Nunes about it. Brennan escapes by saying Nunes was on the Trump transition team; and briefing a conflicted politician on the dossier would have compromised the FBI investigation. See how that works?

Call out James Comey for lying to President-elect Trump during the January 6th Trump Tower meeting…. Comey escapes by saying Trump was a target of the FBI investigation for potential compromise as a Russian asset; informing the target of the evidence against him would have compromised the investigation. See how that works?

Every lie, every omission, every false and/or misleading statement, must first be filtered through the “By The Book” prism of Trump being considered a Russian asset. This is the justification trap democrats are waiting to exploit for maximum damage and diminishment of counter attack.

The “By the Book” justification, where every action could have been taken because Trump might have been an actual Russian operative, is the weapon under the camouflage tarp as the radical left lures-in their political opposition. They shrug their shoulders and say in condescending voice: ‘well, we didn’t know; we had to be prudent‘, etc.

Getting outraged about the Obama administration’s lies, misstatements and fabrications can backfire if you don’t first think about it from their constructed frame-of-reference.

The ‘By-the-Book’ framework is based on a false-premise; but the action, just about any action, taken to mislead (even undermine) the incoming administration is excusable under this carefully crafted justification memo. That’s exactly why Susan Rice wrote it; and each of the participating members knows they can use it, when needed.

The way to get around the legal and political defense inside this justification memo is to ignore the activity of those protected by it and go directly to the origin of how they created that false premise in the first place.

.

….Cold Anger does not take action to spite itself.

The DOJ Office of Inspector General has released and 83-page report on former FBI Director James Comey; outlining the inspector general investigative findings for how Mr. Comey handled sensitive information including personal memos about President Trump.

Report Link Here – Additional pdf Link Here

.

Let’s use this thread to discuss your insights and opinions of the content of the report.

CTH is reading the report, and will provide more analysis later.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Victoria Toensing and former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova discuss the alleged Comey leaks to the media and why the Justice Department decided not to charge him.