Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker appears with Lou Dobbs to discuss ongoing issues in/around the DOJ and FBI.

Matt Whitaker notes the corrupt members of the FBI/DOJ who have left the institution; but stops short of criticizing current FBI Director Chris Wray. Whitaker expresses strong support and respect for John Ratcliffe’s nomination to ODNI.

Whitaker positions himself as an advocate for transparency, but is careful not to be critical of those in the DOJ and FBI who are working diligently against releasing documents that would actually bring about transparency.  The implied message is that declassification of material will ultimately force transparency…. [but he doesn’t say it].

…Every minute spent outraged at what Comey, McCabe or Muller did yesterday, is one minute less that Bill Barr is being held accountable for what he is not doing today…

Jumpin’ ju-ju bones, there’s big news in here.  Actual Bombshells! For real Tick Tocks and much much more….

Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker appeared on Fox News to discuss the replacement of Dan Coats with John Ratcliffe as head of the ODNI, and the current status of AG Bill Barr’s ongoing reviews into prior DOJ and FBI (mis)conduct.

Whitaker posits the placement of Ratcliffe as looking at the aggregate intelligence apparatus and seeing if there “are systemic issues and failures for how the investigations were kicked-off”; and the engagements with other countries (FBI and CIA).

Additionally Whitaker summarizes U.S. Attorney John Durham as focused on the origin of the intelligence operation against candidate Trump and “prosecuting anyone that needs to be prosecuted“.  [By the way, that seems to confirm Durham as an official “investigation”, not a “review”.]

Then comes the BOMBSHELL…. (@01:26 below) while seemingly not realizing what he just said, Whitaker outlines U.S. Attorney John Huber as reviewing “anything related to Comey’s memos and the like.”  Boom… There it is.

THAT finally explains why the DOJ is fighting the release of the David Archey declarations in the FOIA lawsuit by CNN.  [Listen carefully at 01:26 of the interview]

.

Until that obscure comment, likely a slip that not many would catch, there has been no valid explanation by the DOJ about any investigation of the Comey memos, which would also encompass the “Archey Declarations”.

If U.S. Attorney John Huber is indeed looking at those Comey memos, that would explain why the DOJ is fighting the release of the Archey Declarations in the DC Circuit Court with Judge James E Boasberg.  Now it makes sense.  That little obscure comment by Whitaker is a big effen’ deal.

Oddly, and, well, conspicuously, the DOJ has never said they were investigating the Comey Memos as an argument in their legal position in the FOIA case. That specific -albeit innocuous- statement by Whitaker (interview above) is the first indication therein.

It sounds like the DOJ is keeping that investigation of Comey’s Memo content hidden, but Whitaker just let it slip.

With that new information; and if it is a fact that U.S. Attorney John Huber is investigating James Comey; CTH will now reverse our position on the release of the Archey Declarations and support their non-release.

In our opinion the content of the diary by former FBI Director James Comey, as outlined in what has formally been called “The Comey Memos”, is devastating to the FBI.

How do we know? Because the DOJ/FBI is fighting like hell to keep even descriptions of the memo(s) content from becoming public.  Now it appears that diary is being reviewed by U.S. Attorney John Huber.

THAT MEANS…. FBI Director James Comey is under investigation.

BACKSTORY – 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.

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.

On July 5th, the U.S. Department of Justice -under Attorney General Bill Barr- while waiting until the last minute (28 days since court order), filed a motion [full pdf below] to block the release of the Archey Declarations, despite the June 7th judicial order.

On July 19th, CNN filed a motion against the FBI and DOJ to force the release of the Archey Declarations (full pdf below), and enforce the order.

On July 25th, the DOJ filed a response requesting more time to reply. The DOJ is currently asking for more time, a delay until August 2nd, to file a response to a supportive motion from CNN that would force the DOJ to release the “Archey Declarations” [detailed explanations of what’s inside the Comey Memos].

The DOJ wants these declarations hidden.  Now we know why.

Here’s the last motion from CNN which demands the DOJ and FBI to comply with the prior ruling of June 7th, (embed pdf below – cloud pdf link here):

.

The DOJ is requested more time, August 2nd, 2019, to respond to the CNN motion.

CNN wants the June 7th ruling enforced and the Archey Declarations, which describe the content of the Comey memos, released.

David Archey was the FBI lead agent on Robert Mueller’s team. Archey replaced Peter Strzok when Strzok was removed. Yes, Archey’s declarations might possibly describe material evidence the DOJ are using in ongoing matters. However, THIS IS IMPORTANT– the DOJ and FBI have never made that assertion in their court arguments.

Despite the original media FOIA lawsuit coming from CNN -vs- DOJ, there is no-one in the MSM covering this story. Here is the July 5th DOJ filing:

.

Here’s the background on the June 7th, 2019, ruling as we shared at the time:

Judge Boasberg was deciding what could be publicly released, meaning current redactions removed, based on two connected events: (#1) The content of the Comey Memos; and (#2) the declarations of lead FBI agent for Robert Mueller’s special counsel, David Archey, in describing those memos. CNN had filed a lawsuit to gain full access.

[Note: the descriptions of the Comey memos by FBI agent David Archey are known as the “Archey Declarations” – Read Here.]

For those who may not be aware, there are so many memos (dozens) when assembled they seem to make up an actual diary of moment-by-moment events, during the FBI investigation of Donald Trump, as documented by FBI Director James Comey.

♦ In the issue of the redactions within the Comey Memos, the judge doesn’t remove them. Some are ordered to be removed, some are approved to stay in place. The Comey memo aspect, and the redaction decision, is basically a splitting of the baby 50/50. It will be interesting, but meh, maybe not too much detail. – CNN ARTICLE

(Pdf Link)

The issues argued by the FBI lawyers to keep the Comey memos hidden surround sources and methods. The judge generally agreed to the potential for compromise, but also outlined several sections of redactions within the Comey memos where that argument doesn’t hold up. [The judge has read the fully unredacted memo content.]

♦ However, on the issue of the Archey Declarations there’s an opportunity for some very interesting information to surface. Here’s an example of currently existing redactionswithin the Archey Declarations:

And stunningly, yes, STUNNINGLY, Judge Boasberg ordered the Archey declarationsto be fully released to the public WITHOUT REDACTIONS. See pages 34 and 35 of the ruling.

That means all those black boxes in the example above will be removed and CNN will be allowed the fully unredacted content of the declarations by FBI Agent David Archey.

CTH remained very interested.

The Comey Memos cut to the heart of the issues Special Counsel Robert Mueller said were outside his purview. The Comey Memos describe the FBI operation and intent during the 2016 election. The Archey Declarations describe the Comey Memos.

The content could be very revealing.

Now that we know U.S. Attorney John Huber is tasked with investigating the Comey Memos, it finally makes sense why the DOJ are fighting to keep the material hidden.

However….. HERE’S ANOTHER BOOM…..  Perhaps, just perhaps, this is part of the declassification material that will be released on Wednesday July 31st, per Joe diGenova.   If you look at the timeline and the court deadlines it makes sense.

Judge Boasberg ruled the Archey Declarations must be released.  The DOJ has requested additional responsive timing until August 2nd.  Perhaps either the unredacted Archey Declarations, or… jumpin ju-ju bones, dare I hope….  the actual unredacted Comey Memos might be what Bill Barr is about to release.

It’s likely Joe diGenova has no idea what the material is; however, perhaps this is what Joe diGenova’s DOJ and FBI sources are alluding to.  It all does make sense.

Your thoughts?

A summary review of the DOJ and FBI insider group; those who were behind the 2016 election effort to block and then remove Donald Trump from office; reveals they are generally unhappy with ODNI Dan Coats being removed.

Former FBI Director James Comey:

Former CIA Director John Brennan:

Former Deputy Attorney General who was in charge of Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein:

Their basic disposition is one of anxiety to see Dan Coats being removed; and considerable concern that Representative John Ratcliffe will replace him.

The Lawfare group, aka legal beach friends, allies of the DOJ/FBI small group and advocates for the position of the seditious coup plotters, are collectively hoping that Coats’ Principal Deputy Director Sue Gordon will replace the director; [See Here]  while referencing 50 U.S. Code §3026 (a)(6)

(6)The Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence shall act for, and exercise the powers of, the Director of National Intelligence during the absence or disability of the Director of National Intelligence or during a vacancy in the position of Director of National Intelligence.

The basic outlook -as conveyed in a multitude of various Lawfare media articles – is that Sue Gordon will be able to use the interim time as ‘acting director’, while allies in congress (both parties) stall any confirmation for Ratcliffe, to mount a rapid ODNI response with burn bags, document shredders and coordinated media leaks.

All of the Lawfare allies, and their media and principal participants in the DOJ/FBI effort, seem focused on installing DNI Deputy Sue Gordon to delay any potential risk to record and document recovery, and/or production.   Together with the Brookings group this is the general direction of the Lawfare pushed media narrative.

Principal Deputy Director Sue Gordon (left), ODNI Director Dan Coats (right)

With all the coup plotters praising Dan Coats, strongly criticizing John Ratcliffe, and simultaneously working to install Sue Gordon, it would appear the administrative state has identified a risk to their interests.

The unity of their narrative is quite telling.

Representative John Ratcliffe tweets a statement after President Trump announces his nomination for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

There has been some speculation that ODNI Dan Coats needed to step aside because he was refusing to comply with the declassification process.  It’s worth waiting to see if that assumption is accurate, or if the speculation is unfounded.  However, there is validity to the speculation based on the structure of how executive declassification is done.

Declassification of intelligence is a process, and each person -within the executive branch- inside the intelligence agency must agree to the process.  Technically President Trump can declassify anything. However, it is also true that technically POTUS doesn’t actually declassify anything.

Any intelligence action President Trump discusses publicly is automatically declassified.  The President cannot break any law that covers declassification and/or secrecy; when he or she talks about anything.

However, when it comes to documents the process is different.  If the president were to hand documents to the media, with instructions that those documents were heretofore declassified, they are automatically declassified (same as public speech standard), but that is never done [it’s theoretical].

Instead, the Office of the President asks for a document to enter into a declassification review process.  This is the declassification process authority President Trump gave to AG Bill Barr on May 23rd, 2019 by executive order.

WHITE HOUSE: “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.

The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” (read more)

Memorandum for Agency Guidance below:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

SUBJECT: Agency Cooperation with Attorney General’s Review of Intelligence Activities Relating to the 2016 Presidential Campaigns

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

♦Section 1. Agency Cooperation.

The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The heads of elements of the intelligence community, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.

♦Sec. 2. Declassification and Downgrading.

With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum. Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department. This authority is not delegable and applies notwithstanding any other authorization or limitation set forth in Executive Order 13526.

♦Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) The authority in this memorandum shall terminate upon a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, unless expressly extended by the President.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e) The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Officials within that process (CIA, DoS, DIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD, DoE, DoT, DoD, DHS) based on their unique relationship to the interests within the document(s), can approve or refuse to sign-off based on their specific intelligence interests. This is where compartmented intelligence comes into play.

Normally any officer who refuses the request for declassification must justify to the intelligence hub; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, Dan Coats).

Normally the compartmented executive branch intelligence official tells the ODNI (Dan Coats) why they, their unique interests, cannot approve of the declassification request.

The ODNI then informs POTUS why the document is not cleared for declassification.

If he disagrees with the decision of the intelligence official, POTUS then would have to fire, replace and hope the next person in the chain-of-command would sign-off.  In essence, President Trump would have to fire people, and keep firing people, until he gets to a person, inside that specific agency, who will comply.

However, President Trump granted AG Bill Barr with decision-making authority that would override any cabinet officer who might block Barr’s request. 

Subsequently, with Bill Barr holding the executive power to declassify information, why would replacing ODNI Dan Coats be necessary?

There are a few possibilities, but only one pertains to declassification.  ODNI Dan Coats was refusing to comply with the declassification demand by Bill Barr.

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh was touring some of the congressional district of Elijah Cummings in 2018 when she said:

…”What the hell – we should just take all this shit down. Ooh, you can smell the rats”…

h/t Michael Sheridan – WATCH:

On the positive side George Papadopoulos appears to have a solid understanding of the motive behind the $10,000 given to him by intelligence asset Charles Tawil in Israel. Mr. Papadopoulos correctly identifies the purpose of the $10k as a FARA set-up designed by the DOJ-NSD ‘small group’ which evolved into the special counsel team.

h/t Michael Sheridan for the video segment.

.

#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.

[A “laundering” charge applies if the money is illegally obtained. The FARA violation would be the *illegal* aspect making the treasury charges heavier. Note: the use of the airport baggage-check avoids the need for a search warrant (the agents didn’t have one).]

Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (special counsel 951/FARA expert) were  conducting an entrapment scheme that would have ended up with three violations of law: (1) Treasury violation; (2) FARA violation; (3) Money laundering…. All they needed was Papadopoulos to carry the undeclared cash into the U.S.

The key aspect is the FARA violation.  As we have seen in the EDVA case against Flynn’s partner Bijan Rafiekian, the DOJ-NSD bizarre interpretation of FARA laws create a violation from any unregistered purposeful business contact with a foreign entity.

What Weissmann wanted for Papadopoulos was to create the same FARA scenario that previously trapped Manafort, Flynn and Rafiekian.  They intercepted Papadopoulos in Washington DC because it was the customs port of entry.  Papadopoulos was ticketed to Chicago with a transfer flight at Dulles.

However, because Papadopoulos suspected something, and left the money in Greece with his lawyers, upon arrival at the DC airport the sting operation collapsed in reverse.

No money means no treasury violation, no laundering and no evidence of the consultancy agreement; which would have been repurposed in the DOJ filing to mean lobbying for Israel via Mr. Tawil (FARA 951 violation) and Tawil would have become a confidential informant and witness (though Tawil would likely never be used to testilie because the special counsel would force a plea).

That operational collapse is why the FBI agents were “scrambling” at the airport and why they had no pre-existing criminal complaint.  The DOJ couldn’t get a warrant because they couldn’t tell a judge their suspect was traveling with $10k from Israel because the judge would ask how they knew that.

The entrapment’s success was contingent upon the cash as a pre-existing condition; and arriving at a Federal airport means they didn’t need a search warrant.

Note how even if Papadopoulos didn’t have the full $10k, the DOJ-NSD would only have lost the treasury violation…. they could still have used any substantial amount of money to charge the FARA part of the business arrangement by questioning Papadopoulos about where he gained the cash from.  [Full Backstory Here]