Andrew McCabe Files Federal Civil Lawsuit Against DOJ and FBI – Claims Trump Carried Out “Unconstitutional Plan” Against Him…


Today former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe files a federal civil lawsuit (full pdf below) claiming wrongful termination by the DOJ and FBI.  Exactly the same parameters are used by McCabe as were asserted by FBI Agent Peter Strzok in a very similar lawsuitearlier this week…. Only McCabe claims a conspiracy carried out by President Trump.

Again, as with the earlier Strzok lawsuit, both are not going through the process within the Department of Labor for a wrongful termination complaint.  Instead both are using federal courts in an effort to construct a narrative of sorts.

The motive here is 100% political obfuscation, and the same Lawfare team is involved in the construct.

Both Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are claiming their first amendment (speech) and fifth amendment (due process) rights were violated.  Both have filed civil suits under the same pretext.  However, McCabe’s Lawfare lawyers construct an argument that goes one step further.

According to Andrew McCabe, President Donald Trump constructed a master conspiracy of influence upon the DOJ and FBI; thereby usurping the powers of the constitution in a sketchy legal theory they cannot define.  Thus the McCabe lawyers define the action by President Trump under “legal nullity” – An operation that theoretically is, or might be, of some legal significance, but in fact lacks any identity or distinct structure of its own.

These Lawfare ideologues are nuts.

Seriously, think about the reality that these people were in charge of some of the most important institutions within our government, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.   Don’t rush into the weeds before contemplating his.

These ideologues, purely political partisan ideologues, were running the DOJ and FBI.

These ideologues are so entrenched within the echo-chamber of their network, family, friends and political allies, they cannot even see the scale of ridiculousness they are operating in.  And they just didn’t get there…. they’ve been in this bubble for years; while simultaneously making decisions that impact the lives of every American.

These are not normal-thinking people.  These are radical leftists, with a perspective of educated activism and organizing at the core of their self identity and effort. These are Marxist views, outlooks and engagements with the world around them; demanding conformity and manipulating the law to achieve an ideological goal.

Read these highlighted paragraphs and think about this carefully.  You don’t have to be a lawyer to see stupid:

The people assisting Andrew McCabe with this nuttery are not stable people.  These are the same “small group” operators with the exact same mindset as we highlighted yesterday when a former FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence is saying publicly that President Trump is signalling coded-messages of “heil Hitler” by having flags lowered until dusk tonight.

People carrying this outlook; hanging out in the same circles; holding the same discussions at work and in their social circle; disconnected from any sense of accountability or responsibility.  Completely isolated from the inherent normalcy found within right or wrong.  Everything is grey; everyone gets a trophy; intent defines responsibility; and anyone who challenges their world-view must be removed or eliminated.

This mindset is deep inside the operating institutions of the United States government, the FBI, DOJ and State Department.  It’s jaw-dropping to think about, REALLY.

Here’s the lawsuit:

.

Remember, this lawsuit is being brought by the same guy who was fired for this:

(IG Report McCabe)

Per the Inspector General report into the behavior of Andrew McCabe, he is a compulsive liar.

Trey Gowdy Discusses Peter Strzok’s Political Lawsuit…


Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News to discuss the latest nonsense from former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.

Roosterhead brings up a good point that Strzok left out Robert Mueller in his civil lawsuit against the DOJ and FBI.  Hmmm?….

Explosive Interview – Maria Bartiromo Drops Big News With Trey Gowdy….


Whooo doggies, Maria Bartiromo outdid herself this morning with an interview segment just packed with information, insight and discussion into the DOJ and FBI corruption and DNI Ratcliffe’s nomination. (h/t Michael Sheridan)  This is a MUST WATCH:

After the first segment on the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Ms. Bartiromo segued into a discussion of George Papadopoulos and the secret informant transcripts; from recordings that were part of the FBI sting operation using U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper; and are now being held in evidence by U.S. Attorney John Durham and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [Background] Keep in mind Gowdy has seen these transcripts.

According to Bartiromo those transcripts include FBI wire-taps of Halper attempting to get Papadopulos to accept assistance from Russia (delivering Clinton emails), and George Papadopoulos absolutely refusing to accept any engagement therein.  Confirming that outline, Gowdy notes there are more recordings (and transcripts) of a similar nature, where the FBI was attempting to bait other Trump campaign officials.

Additionally, Bartiromo confirms that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to meet with DNI nominee John Ratcliffe after his nomination; and exactly as we suspected it was the lack of support from the SSCI and McConnell that led to his nomination withdrawal. Stunning interview.

Also, the point brought up by Trey Gowdy contrasting the experience of John Ratcliffe and Senator Kamala Harris is exceptionally acute. Both Ratcliffe and Harris were State Prosecutors; Ratcliffe for Texas and Harris for California. Both Ratcliffe and Harris sit on the same committees – one House and one Senate… Yet Ratcliffe was accused of being unqualified for the job of ODNI, while Harris is claimed -by those same voices- to be qualified for President.

An excellent rebuttal point by Gowdy.

A stunning admission earlier this year by The New York Times described how the FBI enlisted a female agent to work the “operation” in the U.K. during August-September 2016 posing as an aide for U.S. intelligence asset/FBI informant Stefan Halper.

Halper was an FBI operative and Cambridge professor who set up meetings with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos. The female agent used a fake name, Azra Turk, and presented herself as an assistant to Stefan Halper; however, she was actually an undercover intelligence operative of the FBI.

NYT […] The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.

The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it“Spygate.”

Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper. The move was a sign that the bureau wanted in place a trained investigator for a layer of oversight, as well as someone who could gather information for or serve as a credible witness in any potential prosecution that emerged from the case.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment, as did a lawyer for Mr. Halper, Robert D. Luskin. Last year, Bill Priestap, then the bureau’s top counterintelligence agent who was deeply involved in the Russia inquiry, told Congress during a closed-door hearing that there was no F.B.I. conspiracy against Mr. Trump or his campaign.

Obviously the group (CIA, DOJ and FBI) who constructed the political surveillance and spy operations are trying to present their side of the story, prior to investigation by AG Bill Barr and the soon-to-be-released IG report.

The London operation yielded no fruitful information, but F.B.I. officials have called the bureau’s activities in the months before the election both legal and carefully considered under extraordinary circumstances.

They are now under scrutiny as part of an investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general. He could make the results public in May or June, Attorney General William P. Barr has said. Some of the findings are likely to be classified.

It is unclear whether Mr. Horowitz will find fault with the F.B.I.’s decision to have Ms. Turk, whose real name is not publicly known, meet with Mr. Papadopoulos.

Mr. Horowitz has focused among other things on the activities of Mr. Halper, who accompanied Ms. Turk in one of her meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos and also met with him and other campaign aides separately. The bureau might also have seen Ms. Turk’s role as essential for protecting Mr. Halper’s identity as an informant if prosecutors ever needed court testimony about their activities.

Notice how the leaker of this information to the New York Times appears to have direct knowledge of exactly what IG Horowitz has investigated. This leaked story is coming from within the still employed corrupt elements of the FBI.

[…] This account was described in interviews with people familiar with the F.B.I. activities of Mr. Halper, Ms. Turk and the inspector general’s investigation. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the subjects of a continuing inquiry.

As part of Mr. Horowitz’s investigation, his office has examined Mr. Halper’s past work as an F.B.I. informant and asked witnesses about whether agents had adequate control of Mr. Halper’s activities, people familiar with the inquiry have said.

While in London in 2016, Ms. Turk exchanged emails with Mr. Papadopoulos, saying meeting him had been the “highlight of my trip,” according to messages provided by Mr. Papadopoulos. “I am excited about what the future holds for us :),” she wrote.

Notice how The New York Times is intentionally conflating the timing and sequencing of events in this article.

[…] One of the agents involved in the Russia inquiry, a seasoned counterintelligence investigator out of New York, turned to Mr. Halper, whom he viewed as a reliable and trusted informant. They had a longstanding relationship; the agent had even spoken at an intelligence seminar that Mr. Halper taught at the University of Cambridge, discussing his work investigating a Russian espionage ring known as the illegals.

[That section tells the possibilities of who the FBI agent might be. [TWE] George J. Ennis, Jr. (ASAC NY Counterintelligence), Alan E. Kohler Jr. (SSA, NY Counterintelligence) and Stephen M. Somma (SA, NY Counterintelligence) attended the intelligence seminar by Stefan Halper in 2011 (LINK). Alan Kohler, FBI representative at the United States Embassy in London, returned to the seminar in May 2014 (LINKGeorge Ennis was named the Special Agent In Charge of the Administrative Division at the New York Field Office on April 1, 2015, having had a background in counterterrorism and counterintelligence. (LINK)]

Mr. Halper had the right résumé for the task. He was a foreign policy expert who had worked for the Pentagon. He had been gathering information for the F.B.I. for about two decades and had good contacts in Chinese and Russian government circles that he could use to arrange meetings with high-ranking officials, according to a person briefed on Mr. Halper’s relationship with the F.B.I.

The F.B.I. instructed Mr. Halper to set up a meeting in London with Mr. Papadopoulos but gave him few details about the broader investigation, a person familiar with the episode said.

His job was to figure out the extent of any contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russia. Mr. Halper used his position as a respected academic to introduce himself to both Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Page, whom he also met with several times. He arranged a meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in London to discuss a Mediterranean natural gas project, offering $3,000 for his time and a policy paper.

[…] The F.B.I. also decided to send Ms. Turk to take part in the operation, people familiar with it said, and to pose as Mr. Halper’s assistant. For the F.B.I., placing such a sensitive undertaking in the hands of a trusted government investigator was essential.

British intelligence officials were also notified about the operation, the people familiar with the operation said, but it was unclear whether they provided assistance. A spokeswoman for the British government declined to comment.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that British intelligence spied on his campaign, an accusation the British government has vigorously denied. Last month, the president quoted on Twitter an accusation that the British had spied on his campaign and added: “WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!”

When Mr. Papadopoulos arrived in London on Sept. 15, he received a text message from Ms. Turk. She invited him for drinks.

In his book, “Deep State Target,” Mr. Papadopoulos described her as attractive and said she almost immediately began questioning him about whether the Trump campaign was working with Russia, he wrote.

Mr. Papadopoulos was baffled. “There is no way this is a Cambridge professor’s research assistant,” he recalled thinking, according to his book.

The day after meeting Ms. Turk, Mr. Papadopoulos met briefly with Mr. Halper at a private London club, and Ms. Turk joined them. The two men agreed to meet again, arranging a drink at the Sofitel hotel in London’s posh West End.

Notice how Ms. Turk is the primary focus of the interaction.

Turk emailed Papadopoulos; Turk text’d Papadopoulos; Turk met him for drinks etc. However, Halper only “met briefly” with Papadopoulos with Turk present. FBI agent Turk is the working operative here, agent Halper is simply the inconsequential cover.

During that conversation, Mr. Halper immediately asked about hacked emails and whether Russia was helping the campaign, according to Mr. Papadopoulos’s book. Angry over the accusatory questions, Mr. Papadopoulos ended the meeting.

The F.B.I. failed to glean any information of value from the encounters, and Ms. Turk returned to the United States.

Mr. Halper continued to work with the F.B.I. and later met with Mr. Page repeatedly in the Washington area. The two had coincidentally run into each other in July as well at Cambridge, according to people familiar with the episode.

At the urging of Mr. Page, he met another campaign aide, Sam Clovis, Mr. Trump’s campaign co-chairman, to discuss foreign policy. (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 weeks of apoplectic pearl-clutching over AG Barr’s use of the word “spy”; the New York Times now outlines spying directly?

Make sure you go back and re-read the House testimony transcript of how Papadopoulos describes this interaction with Turk and Halper (embed below). Start around page 101

George Papadopoulos@GeorgePapa19

I agree with everything in this superb article except “Azra Turk” clearly was not FBI. She was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel. She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with https://twitter.com/MarkMazzettiNYT/status/1123997367756296192 

Mark Mazzetti@MarkMazzettiNYT

NEW: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share 

3,359 people are talking about this

George Papadopoulos@GeorgePapa19

I think the meeting between the President and the U.K. PM will be even more interesting now. The day there was a CIA op against me in London, Halper/Turk, the #2 at the U.K. ministry of foreign affairs invited me to the offices to continue to spy on me and probe me more.

1,273 people are talking about this

(Papadopoulos Testimony to House Committee start around page 101)

.

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 recently 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.

Rod Rosenstein Contacted Mueller About Special Counsel 14 Hours After Comey Fired…


During the congressional testimony of Robert Mueller, Representative Andy Biggs noted evidence of a phone call between Mueller and Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am.

Listen carefully at the 2:26 point of the video.

.

♦James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. That means Rosenstein first contacted Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.

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

♦The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”

McCabe responded: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”

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]

Despite claiming he never revealed his memo content until May 16th, in hindsight this New York Times article on May 11th is the first article that seems to be based on Comey leaking his memo content to the media.

♦That New York Times article drew this response on Friday May 12th from President Trump:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

79K people are talking about this

Again referencing McCabe’s own admissions, also on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, 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 – Friday May 12th – evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein.

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

♦Sunday May 14th, TBD

♦After the weekend, 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 Tuesday May 16th, 2017, 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):

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 PageRod 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?

QUESTION:

Why didn’t anyone ever ask Tashina “Tash” Guahar about the “wear a wire” comments?

♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017:  The next day, May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin 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.

According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group.  Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.

This investigative ‘small group’ are the people inside Main Justice (DOJ) and FBI headquarters who redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages; removed messages and communication antithetical to their goals; kept key documents and information away from congress; stalled any effort to expose the unlawful aspects of “SpyGate’ and the fraudulent foundation behind the Carter Page FISA application; and undermined any adverse discoveries in the leak investigations (James Wolfe) writ large.

This investigative small group didn’t change when Mueller arrived, they just retooled the focus of their effort based on new leadership and new objectives. Those who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy case of 2016, evolved into creating the Trump obstructing justice case of 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Everything Mueller and Rosenstein were doing in late 2017 and throughout 2018 was intended to drag-out the Russia conspiracy narrative as long as possible, even though there was no actual Trump-Russia investigation taking place.

It was always the “obstruction” investigation that could lead to the desired result by Mueller’s team of taking down President Trump through evidence that would help Pelosi and Nadler achieve impeachment .  The “obstruction case” was the entirety of the case they were trying to make from May 2017 through to March 2019.

**Working on a more detailed timeline, more will follow.

Devin Nunes Discusses IG Criminal Referral and DOJ Position on James Comey…


House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to discuss the ongoing investigative situation with James Comey.

Representative Nunes highlights the difference between Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Durham; noting there is a possibility the investigative review of Mr. Durham touches on a great deal more than IG Horowitz.  WATCH:

Here’s the opening statement by Tucker Carlson toward James Comey.

Advertisements

DOJ Files Motion to Block Court Order Forcing Release of “Archey Declarations” (Comey Memos)…


The DOJ has filed a response motion requesting a reversal of a prior court order that would have forced unredacted release of the “David Archey Delcarations“; detailed descriptions of the James Comey memos.  [Detailed Backstory]

In their latest filing (full pdf below) the DOJ and FBI are falling back on the familiar “sources and methods” justification to block DC Circuit Court Judge Boasberg’s earlier ruling.

[Backstory for those unfamilar] In the background of what was The Mueller Investigation, there was a FOIA case where the FBI was fighting to stop the release of the Comey memos.  Within that courtroom fight Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.

The FOIA fight shifted; and the plaintiff, CNN, argued for public release of the content of the FBI agent’s descriptions, now known as the “Archey Declarations”.

After a lengthy back-and-forth legal contest, on June 7th Judge James E Boasberg agreed to allow the FBI to keep the Comey memo content hidden, but instructed the DOJ/FBI to release the content of the Archey Declarations.  The DOJ is seeking to reverse that order.

Here’s the latest filing:

.

Additionally, with new information CTH must correct an earlier report.

The United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release.  The DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.

We previously anticipated Jody Hunt being involved with this current case; the DOJ and FBI attempt to block release of the memos and declarations.   However, we have recently been informed that Jody Hunt was recused from the case by DOJ lawyers during the time when the Mueller investigation was ongoing.

According to the latest information we can gather, DOJ Asst. Attorney James Burnham has replaced Jody Hunt for all oversight issues in this current court battle.

The issue at hand is tangentially related to the current Inspector General carve-out report, through the aspect of the Comey Memos.  We are currently anticipating a report from the OIG related to former FBI Director James Comey, his writing of the memos, and the leaking of some of those memos to the media via his friend Daniel Richman.  {LINK}

No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written.  [We may get that answer in the IG report.]  There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).

However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.

The Comey memos are not just about his contact with Donald Trump as a candidate, president-elect or president.   The media keeps downplaying the memos as a few notes taken by the former FBI director, but all of the background information suggest assembled writing is something more akin to a personal diary.

My strongly researched suspicion is that James Comey kept detailed private notes of what was happening during the operation(s) against Donald Trump and his campaign team, both during the campaign and after the election when President Trump took office.  Just take a look at how David Archey described the content and you can see those notes, now called memos, were in addition to FD 302 reports being filed by FBI officials.

Why James Comey would keep detailed notes beyond what was being officially recorded in the FBI 302 reports is likely a question to be answered within the pending inspector general report.   There’s a lot of sketchy non-transparent stuff going on amid all of this….

This is what the DOJ and FBI are working to stop from being released to the public:

 

Deep State Center Holds – John Ratcliffe Nomination Withdrawn…


The epicenter of the deepest defensive mechanism of the Deep State is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  The SSCI is the bunker, the intelligence manipulation operations headquarters. The SSCI is where the political nuclear weapons (black files and IC gathered political surveillance research) are housed.  As a direct consequence the SSCI is the most corrupt and manipulative committee in all of congress.

President Trump has withdrawn the nomination of John Ratcliffe because both wings of the most corrupt deep state apparatus had formed a hardened defense in the SSCI:

Let me be perfectly clear.  The issue is the SSCI.

The weaponized issues of corrupt DC endeavors are always associated with the SSCI.   It is also not coincidental that ODNI Dan Coats was Senator Dan Coats…. and where was his tenured membership prior to becoming Director of National Intelligence?   Yup, the SSCI.

It always comes back to the SSCI.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence houses the entrenched Decepticons and Democrats who participate in oversight of the intelligence community, including their black arts.   It was through this committee where much of the opposition intelligence about candidate Donald Trump was relayed and shared.

Donald Trump was an outside candidate; a disruption in the global way of things.  He questioned NATO, he challenged “globalism”, he challenged the perpetual war machine.  In essence he was a risk.  Hence the SSCI aligned against candidate Trump and continued that opposition into the “insurance policy” phase to remove President Trump.

The pre-election operations of the SSCI is why the 2016 Vice-Chairman of the committee, Dianne Feinstein, abdicated her position as soon as Trump won the election.  She knew eventually the SSCI would be in direct confrontation with President Trump; and Feinstein knew what actions they had taken.  She didn’t want to stick around for the bloodbath.

Remember: “The SSCI is working closely with special counsel Robert Mueller”.  Remember: “The DOJ and FBI must not work with administration investigators”.

Enter Senator Mark Warner to take Feinstein’s place.   Yes, the same Vice-Chairman Warner who was caught conducting covert “rather not have a paper trail” communication with dossier author Christopher Steele through liaison/lawyer Adam Waldman:

The institution of the SSCI was/is a participant along with the FBI and DOJ soft coup plotters inside the “small group”.   The committee members were actively engaged and supportive of the agenda to remove President Trump.

That’s why all of the “small group” officials, those who participated in Spygate etc., always wanted to appear in front of the SSCI committee (Burr and Warner), and not in front of the House committee when it was chaired by Devin Nunes.

The SSCI participated in the small group corruption.

That’s why SSCI security officer James Wolfe threatened to subpoena the entire committee when he was caught in a sting operation leaking the Carter Page FISA warrant.  Wolfe was only carrying out the instructions of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.   That’s why the DOJ dropped the charges against him for leaking classified information, and buried his actions behind a singular charge of lying to investigators.

The SSCI is the center of intelligence corruption.

Earlier this morning former ‘small group’ coup participant Rod Rosenstein sent a message to the SSCI to hold firm on not accepting anyone except Deep State Sue Gordon to replace Dan Coats.  In essence the message is don’t allow John Ratcliffe as DNI.  Notice how Rosenstein tags Richard Burr (and Graham)…

Knowing the SSCI has black files on their political opposition; gathered through years of surveillance using databases and monitoring; and knowing those files also extend to the immediate families of targeted politicians, Rosenstein’s signal in combination with the messages from Comey, Brennan and company, was crystal clear.

There was no path for John Ratcliffe to get through Senate confirmation when the Deep State interests are aligned against him.

(via NYT) On Thursday, Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, who is the committee’s vice chairman, said the law was “pretty clear” that the acting role goes to the deputy when the director of national intelligence leaves. “This is something that’s very bipartisan,” Mr. Warner said. “Every member of the intelligence committee has enormous respect for Sue Gordon.”

[…] There appears little chance that the Senate, which is currently gone for its summer recess, will swiftly confirm Mr. Ratcliffe, in light of thebipartisan skepticism about his qualifications and questions about the honesty of his résumé. (NYT Link)

This is the way of the swamp.

Moments Away – Inspector General Report on James Comey To Be Released Any Day…


Now that we know the Department of Justice Inspector General is about to release a report on former FBI Director James Comey; and now that we know the OIG Principal Review Phase was already initiated; we can start to monitor the IG Website for the release.

NOTE: This is NOT the IG report on DOJ and FBI conduct about IG FISA abuses. This is a carve-out report, specific to James Comey and his leaked memos.

It appears the pending IG report will cover the conduct of James Comey and how he handled a series of memos he produced; contemporaneous accounts written by Comey covering events he documented outside of normal FBI protocol.

As part of the process, the inspector general report has been given to James Comey in advance.  According to John Solomon reporting, Comey lawyers Patrick Fitzgerald and Daniel Richman, along with spokesperson Keith Urbahn are all participating in his review of the report content.  This is called the “Principal Review Phase”.

In the example of the 2018 IG report on Andrew McCabe, the OIG gave McCabe’s team a week during the principal review phase, and then published the report two days after the responses were submitted. [McCabe Report Reviewed] We don’t know how long James Comey has had the report, but my hunch is several days.

If the IG sticks to the same general feedback timeline as the McCabe report, we could see a final IG report very soon; perhaps even as early as tomorrow (Friday August 2nd); which would line-up with the DOJ request for additional time in the Comey Memo/Archey Declaration FOIA case in the DC Circuit (Judge James Boasberg) also due Aug 2nd, and possibly delayed due to the background of the Comey IG report being released.

Regardless of connection to the FOIA case, the IG report on James Comey is going to become public very soon.

The inspector general along with the OIG referencer, may (not required) include the responses from Comey’s team as part of their final report.  If Horowitz does include Comey’s responses, likely responses from Comey’s legal team, Horowitz will almost certainly include rebuttals to those responses in his final report.

The report itself is likely quite damning as pre-release reporting by John Solomon outlines the IG sent criminal referrals to the DOJ (John Huber) as part of the overall review.

The DOJ has reportedly declined prosecution on the referral; however, there may be extrajudicial reasons why that declination has taken place. [ex. if the DOJ wants to declassify and release the memos, as part of a larger investigative release.]

Now, it’s important to remember…. No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written.  [We may get that answer in the IG report.]  There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).

However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.

It is also worth remembering that James Comey leaked his memos to Daniel Richman so that Richman could act as a go-between to pass the information along to the New York Times.  Richman was not only Comey’s friend, it was later discovered that Richman was an unpaid FBI employee given special access by James Comey.

Fox News Catherine Herridge detailed how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.

(VIA FOX) […] The professor, Daniel Richman, confirmed the special status in response to an inquiry from Fox News, while referring other questions, including on the scope of his work, to the FBI.

“I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay),” Richman wrote in an email.

Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for leaking memos documenting his private discussions with President Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material.

Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding.  (read more)

A few paragraphs later in the article about Richman you might pay particular attention to this: “Richman’s portfolio included the use of encrypted communications by terror suspects.”

How did Daniel Richman review “encrypted communication”?  Well, likely through access to the FBI/NSA database.  The same database outlined by FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer:

It seems too coincidental to be disconnected. [Backstory]

When considering who were the FBI contractors, with special program access to the NSA database, conducting unauthorized searches and extracting results… there’s a specific type of contractor described by FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer.  One who was able to work around the security protocols: [Page 21] “systems …. that do not interface with NSA’s query audit system“.

I have my suspicions, [backstory] but we would need to see the fully unredacted Collyer FISA report to get the answers.

I digress.

After it was revealed that Richman was an exclusive special government employee of FBI Director Comey; and after it was revealed that Richman was the go-between for the leaked memo distribution; James Comey said Daniel Richman was also his lawyer.

Calling Richman his personal lawyer, conveniently has the benefit of taking Richman away from the reach of the current DOJ investigators via attorney/client privilege.

So we await the IG report on James Comey which could come at any time; and I suspect there will be some good information included within it for those who do research.  The primary question I have is whether the declination to prosecute now means the report will contain the actual memos.

Additionally, knowing this report is soon to be released it will be interesting to see how the DOJ responds to Judge Boasberg tomorrow in the FOIA case that involves the Comey memos.

Stay tuned…

Reconciling John Solomon’s Reporting on Comey…


To say there is broad-based confusion is an understatement.  The recent reporting by John Solomon of The Hill only makes the confusion worse.  Let’s stand back and reconcile two issues (with evidence to support) that are MASSIVELY conflated.

First, go read the full Solomon article.  Notice the entire construct of the article surrounds “The Comey Memos“.  As you will see, this specific topic is important.  Within the Solomon article you will find (emphasis mine):

[…] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey’s conservative critics.

Prosecutors found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because they did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

[…] Patrick Fitzgerald and Daniel Richman, two of Comey’s lawyers, and Keith Urbahn, his spokesman, did not return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.

[…] While they cautioned that the IG’s final report won’t be complete until it gets feedback from Comey’s lawyers in the next few days, it is expected to conclude that the former FBI director improperly took with him memos that were FBI property when he was fired, transmitted classified information via an insecure email account, and shared some of the memos with his private lawyers.  (read more)

It sounds like the OIG report on FISA abuse is in the end-stages.  What is described in the highlighted sentence above would be what is technically called “The Principal Review Phase of the OIG Final Draft”.  That’s where targets are given the opportunity to review an IG report and provide feedback prior to public release.

However…. Note:  This reference is not to the IG report on FISA Abuse.

Full Stop.

Repeat:  This is NOT the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.

This is a carve-out.

John Solomon is conflating two distinct issues…. and there is no effort to explain, because the sourcing is compartmentalized.   Now the comment earlier in the week by Matthew Whitaker makes sense.  Bear with me….

From the outset it was reported and confirmed that U.S. Attorney John Huber was assigned to assist Inspector General Michael Horowitz.  Huber’s job was to stand-by in case the IG carved out a particular concern, discovered during his investigation, that might involve criminal conduct.

Earlier this week Matt Whitaker said: “John Huber is reviewing anything related to Comey’s memos and the like.

Put the two data points together and what you realize is that during the OIG review of potential DOJ and FBI FISA abuse… IG Horowitz investigated the Comey Memo’s and then passed that specific issue along to John Huber for DOJ review.

The IG criminal referral for the James Comey memo leaking was a carve-out sent to U.S. Attorney John Huber.

Back to the Solomon article, only this time I will insert modified clarifying language to highlight what happened:

[…] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey [to John Huber] for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but [John Huber, working for AG Bill Barr] reportedly has decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey’s conservative critics.

John Huber found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

This is a carve-out IG report and referral; with a specific target of James Comey; based on evidence discovered during the larger OIG review of possible FISA abuse.

Now the ‘Principal Review Phase‘ makes sense, because the only principal is James Comey.  Therefore the IG has written a final draft report specific to James Comey and his memos. James Comey and his lawyers are now reviewing that final draft report and will provide feedback.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, together with the OIG referencer, may put the response from Comey in the report along with additional rebuttal from the Inspector General’s office.

That process will generate a final IG report; but the report is only specific to the Comey memo aspect and James Comey’s conduct in handling that memo content.  That IG report on James Comey will be released pretty soon, likely within the next week.

This is not the inspector general report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.  This is an IG report carved out of the larger investigation.

Bottom Line: We are soon going to see an IG report exclusively on James Comey.

Does that make sense now?

FOIA Release: FBI Agents Picked Up Comey Memos From His House Day Before Senate Testimony…


A recent FOIA release from Judicial Watch (full pdf below) reveals that two of Mueller’s initial FBI agents, based on dates and redactions – likely Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, visited James Comey on June 7th, 2017, to retrieve a collection of his memos.

[However, a word of caution, one of the memos was titled “last night at 6:30pm” and is being widely misinterpreted to have been written the night before (June 6th, 2017) when that is not accurate.  It is likely that memo relates to the January dinner in the White House with President Trump that held the same sentence.]

(pdf here)

If we ignore the misinterpreted “last night” memo aspect (dinner with potus in January ’17), here’s what we can learn from this FOIA release:

♦First, the memos were picked up while FBI agent’s Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka were lead FBI agents that transferred into the Mueller team.  Therefore it’s likely they were the two who traveled to Comey’s house for this June 7th effort.

♦Second, the memos were picked up June 7th, 2017, the day before James Comey appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8th, 2017 [See Link].

It was during this June 8th SSCI committee testimony where Comey first revealed the scope of his memo keeping.  Keep in mind, all prior research shows SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner were part of the corrupt effort against President Trump.  Their committee was where leaker James Wolfe (sleeping with journalist Ali Watkins) was operational.  The SSCI was part of the aggregate coup effort.

WARNER: I think that’s a very important statement you just made. Then, unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record. Did you feel that you needed to create this written record of these memos, because they might need to be relied on at some future date?

COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations that I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them especially the ones that were substantive. I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the Independence of our investigative function. That’s what made this so difficult is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter and the particular person.

WARNER: I think that is very significant. I think others will probably question that. Now, the chairman and I have requested those memos. It is our hope that the FBI will get this committee access to those memos so again, we can read that contemporaneous rendition so that we’ve got your side of the story. – Transcript Link

Understanding the timeline; and overlaying the ideological intents and purposes; it would make sense that Robert Mueller and the ‘small group’ would want to exploit the memo content (hell, they likely knew all about it as soon as written), and simultaneously keep those memos buried and under their ‘small group’ control.

By taking custody of the memos, the Mueller investigative team would be able to block any outside inquiry.  That’s the motive for the FBI visit to James Comey on June 7th, 2017.  Comey could then talk about the memos the next day while knowing the ‘small group’ would use the “ongoing investigation” to keep them hidden from review.

Senators Mark Warner, Richard Burr and the media would be able to frame discussion of the memos to undermine President Trump, while knowing the memos would be kept out of public review.  With hindsight go back and review the SSCI testimony; this approach appears to have been pre-planned.

Here is the FOIA release on the FBI records:

.

Now lets overlay the Archey Declarations” against the FOIA release.

David Archey was the lead FBI agent who took over the Mueller investigation after FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed.   David Archey came into the small group effort in August of 2017.

After the media sued the DOJ and FBI to get the Comey memos, David Archey described them.  Now we find a disparity.

David Archey gave sworn testimony to DC Circuit Judge Boasberg that the memos were assembled by the FBI “on or by May 12, 2017”.

(pdf source – page #3 of declaration #3)

Obviously if the FBI was picking up memos on June 7th, 2017, the Archey declaration to the court is incorrect.   However, remember, Archey didn’t join the team until August 2017, so his sworn statement in October 2017 has to be based on information from others.

Regardless of how the error was made, a lie – or intentional mistake, the declaration to Judge James Boasberg was obviously inaccurate.

Again, the bottom line is the Comey Memos (of unknown quantity) contain a diary of record keeping by FBI Director James Comey.  Obviously he was writing these memos because he was covering his ass.   The fact that he was keeping these notes at home, and/or he moved the memos to his home after the election, is even more indication that Comey knew the operation against President Trump had the potential to go sideways.

I would strongly advise everyone to be familiar with the Archey Declarations (pdf below) which are descriptions of the Comey memo content.

.

The DOJ has until August 2nd, 2019 (Friday), to file a response to the CNN motion supporting an earlier court order that mandated the release of the Archey Declarations

[Full Backstory].