In a May 2nd interview with Fox News Catherine Herridge, President Trump was questioned about the pending declassification of documents.

The president replied: “I’m going to be allowing declassification pretty soon, I’m going to be doing it very soon, far more than you would have even thought.” Herridge asked: “May, June, July?” to which the president responded: “No, soon. I mean whenever they need it. Whenever they need it I’ll be doing it. But I will be declassifying it. Everything.”

Considering “whenever they need it”…. Many of the most consequential releases centering around ‘Spygate’ have happened when the President is outside of Washington DC.

In the next few days President Trump and First Lady Melania will be traveling to Japan for a state visit (May 25 – 28th); and then on to the U.K (June 3rd – 5th) for another state visit, finishing the trip in Shannon Ireland June 5th.  [Memorial Day is May 27th.]

.

It is most likely President Trump reference of “they” within “whenever they need it” would be a reference to the political network of Mark Meadows, Doug Collins etc.

Considering the schedule and time zones:

Saturday  May 25 – Travel
Sunday    May 26 – Japan
Monday   May 27 – Japan / Memorial Day
Tuesday   May 28 – Japan/travel
Wednesday May 29 – ?
Thursday May 30 – ?
Friday      May 31 – ?
Saturday  Jun 01 – ?
Sunday    Jun 02 – Travel
Monday  Jun 03 – U.K
Tuesday  Jun 04 – U.K
Wednesday Jun 05 – U.K/Ireland
Thursday Jun 06 – Travel

There is not big window between the State visit to Japan and the State Visit to the U.K.

While anything is possible…. diplomatically speaking, it would say a great deal about the overall opinion of the administration toward the U.K. if President Trump declassified documents prior to the British state visit considering U.K. involvement might very well be outlined within them.

Interesting timeline…

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.

Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:

Pictured Above:  Ms. Sally Moyer

A review of the transcript clarifies a few aspects:

First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the internal inspector general report which outlined their activity.

In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth.  Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:

Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.

The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the source material is just accurately cited and attributed.

Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion.

The merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim.

Consequence – (1) If this approach, and legal outlook, is factually accurate and acceptable, then no FISA abuse is possible from an Inspector General review. (2) The people making the determination of legal acceptability for the IG, are the same people writing the FISA applications being reviewed by the IG.

FUBAR.

It’s circular.

If this legal analysis is accurate, they all get away.

Bill Whittle summarizes a decade of corruption and presents it against current events.  Mr. Whittle doesn’t use the term “Cold Anger” specifically, but the resounding sentiment he outlines, a combination of anger, frustration and resolve, is exactly that.

Often videos are inaccurately described as “must watch”, but this one is accurate:

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Doug Collins, points out how Jerry Nadler wants the “theater but doesn’t want the truth”.  Specifically highlighting how the Democrats in congress conspicuously don’t want to present Robert Mueller for testimony.

.

Jerry Nadler has not demanded testimony from presumed author of the special counsel report, Robert Mueller. It is likely the Judiciary Committee’s lack of interest surrounds the fact they know Mueller was a figurehead with no substantive control over the small group led by Andrew Weissmann. The special counsel probe, with sunlight upon Mueller, would be a risk to Nadler.

Devin Nunes outlines his request to intelligence agencies to prove Joseph Mifsud is a Russian intelligence operative. Apparently the current FBI is avoiding a response.

.

Hell, it’s not difficult to predict where the Mifsud story ends up.  It’s likely to come out that Mifsud was working for British intelligence interests; on or off-the-books; and friendly with dossier author Chris Steele (Orbis etc.).

I hope everyone is ready to do some reading….

Moments ago Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins released the transcriptsof nine key figures from the House investigation into DOJ and FBI political activity.

The transcript release includes testimony from:

• Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – pdf Link Here
• Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch – pdf Link Here
• James Comey former chief-of-staff James Rybicki – pdf Link Here
• Former FBI lawyer, Office of Legal Counsel, Trisha Beth Anderson – pdf Link Here
• Deputy Asst. Attorney General (DOJ-NSD), George Toscas – pdf Link Here
• FBI Deputy Asst. Director, Jonathan Moffa – pdf Link Here
• Former FBI Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch, John Giaclone – pdf Link Here
• FBI Unit Chief, Office of Legal Counsel, Sally Moyer – pdf Link Here
• FBI New York Field Office, Assistant Director in Charge, William F. Sweeney Jr. – pdf Link Here

This could be overwhelming.  So we will post two transcripts per day for full review starting below with the transcript of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

.

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

Recently, former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.

Specifically -as outlined by Gowdy- the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don’t.

GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?

BRENNAN: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.

.

Video of the exchange [prompted 01:54:28 just hit play]

.

As Victor Davis Hanson writes:

[…] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced?  (read more)

Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political surveillance scandal than any other MSM host.  Bartiromo has followed the events very closely and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal to light.

This morning on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the current issues between Comey and Brennan.  WATCH:

It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury.  However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

(Read ICA via pdf)

Most media have avoided highlighting how Jerry Nadler has not demanded testimony from presumed author of the special counsel report, Robert Mueller.  It is likely the Judiciary Committee’s lack of interest surrounds the fact they know Mueller was a figurehead with no substantive control over the small group led by Andrew Weissmann.  The special counsel probe, with sunlight upon Mueller, would be a risk to Nadler.

AG Bill Barr has no issue with Mueller testifying; likely because he too knows Mueller appearing for testimony without his “small group” handlers could lead to a full collapse of the special counsel/media narrative. Meanwhile, the White House delivers a response to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler following his subpoena for former White House Counsel Don McGahn:

WHITE HOUSE – At the President’s direction, the White House has been completely transparent with the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Special Counsel received more than 1.4 million documents and hours and hours of interviews from White House officials, including more than 30 hours from former Counsel to the President, Don McGahn. The Democrats do not like the conclusion of the Mueller investigation – no collusion, no conspiracy, and no obstruction – and want a wasteful and unnecessary do-over.

The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to try and force Mr. McGahn to testify again. The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly. This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency. (link)

Formal notification letter (source pdf available here):

(source pdf)

Legal guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, below:

.

Mark Meadows is John Solomon’s primary source.  During this interview Mark Meadows discusses transcripts and recordings of George Papadopoulos which were part of the ‘SpyGate’ operation.  The transcripts were first revealed by former congressman Trey Gowdy yesterday.

On June 14th, 2018, the DOJ Inspector General delivered a 568 page report on the DOJ and FBI handling of the Clinton investigation.

Those who reviewed the full report noted the executive summary was entirely disconnected from the body of material. Additionally, beyond the content disconnection, there was transparent coordination from the institutions of the DOJ and FBI which highlighted an unnerving sense of ongoing corrupt intent.

The IG report on FBI Clinton bias was released to the public Thursday June 14th, at approximately 1:00pm EDT.  Within 13 minutes Trey Gowdy released a public statementon the content.  Within 90 minutes the report was downloaded and shared by most media and investigation followers.  Within two hours the FBI announced a national press conference by FBI Director Chris Wray for 5:30pm EDT.  Four short hours after release.

When FBI Director Chris Wray approached the podium to announce the Inspector General had found “no evidence of political basis influencing the investigation”, but he was going to have everyone in the FBI undergo “bias training”, no-one at the press conference had read the full report.  No-one had time.

The 5:30pm presser looked like a strategic political move to capture the oxygen for the 6:00pm EDT nightly news lead and defend the institutions.

As the hours progressed, and more of the actual content of the report was able to be reviewed, it became obvious the ‘executive summary’ was written specifically to dilute the most damaging information.  Additionally, the full IG report was/is a challenging read.

In hindsight, and with full acceptance of a highly political special counsel investigation happening in the background of the FBI and DOJ, it became more obvious corrupt and sketchy officials within both institutions had a vested interest in the report content. The same “small group” is at the epicenter of both reports.

In short, the 2018 IG report of DOJ/FBI conduct during the Clinton investigation was heavy on narrative engineering; contained the fingerprints of institutional participants focused on justification (ie. ‘small group’); and was devoid of accountability for the bigger issues outlined within it.

The question becomes: will the 2019 IG report on DOJ/FBI handling of the FISA application process suffer the same outcome?

For the upcoming report the diminutive influence of Jeff Sessions is gone; the institutional protective influence of Rod Rosenstein is gone; and the corrupt intents of Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller are gone.  Unfortunately, on the FBI side, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente remain; along with the 40 “rank and file” FBI investigators who participated in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 operations.

Will Attorney General Bill Barr be more willing to allow the IG report to shine a light on DOJ/FBI issues and politically manufactured FISA submissions?

If the intent is to build public confidence in both institutions a third IG report without accountability is not likely to advance the goal.  And, as we see with the Papadopoulos entrapment operation and the recent redactions to the Kavalec report, the corrupt ‘rank and file’ are very clearly still present.