Flynn Case Update – Reviewing Missouri U.S. Attorney Provides Exculpatory Evidence Under Seal…


A very interesting development that could prove to be quite important.  Today Michael Flynn’s counsel received a letter from the DOJ notifying his defense the Missouri U.S. Attorney, who was brought in to review all of the evidence in the case, has delivered new evidence and information on the case filed under seal.  Here’s the letter:

Further reporting from Sean Davis at the Federalist gives some background on the sealed evidence that indicates the provided information is exculpatory.  According to Davis’s sources the internal investigative documents “will reflect poorly on the FBI.”

[…]  The new documents, which were filed under seal by the Department of Justice Friday, allegedly include exonerating evidence about Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations with foreign diplomats as Trump’s top incoming foreign policy adviser and is currently attempting to withdraw his plea, as well as evidence of malfeasance by the FBI during its investigation of Flynn.

According to the FBI official who spoke to The Federalist, FBI general counsel Dana Boente led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure of the new materials. Boente, who briefly served as acting Attorney General after Trump became president, personally signed off on one of the federal spy warrants against former Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.

The new documents, which were filed under a protective order by DOJ on Friday, will reflect poorly on the FBI, the official told The Federalist. It is not clear when, or even if, those documents will be unsealed and made available to the public for review. (read more)

It is very interesting that Davis’ source specifically cites FBI general counsel Dana Boente as a bad actor in this ongoing saga.  Apparently Boente tried to block the release of the information helpful to Michael Flynn and his defense team.  This is particularly important because it aligns with our own research and analysis.

Early on CTH identified Dana Boente as part of the problem.  Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse. Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey. Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media (MSNBC), essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI…

But hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years and were doing so under the supervision of… wait for it…. yep, Dana Boente.

Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐@SidneyPowell1

The government just provided the defense with remarkable new & long withheld BRADY evidence. Letter below just filed. Stay tuned.@realDonaldTrump @Techno_Fog @seanmdav @seanhannity @ProfMJCleveland @BarbaraRedgate @JosephJFlynn1 @lofly727 @GoJackFlynn

View image on Twitter
6,535 people are talking about this

Here’s the backstory on Dana Boente as a key player in the Spygate cover-up, as we presented the information over a year ago.  [NOTE: feeling confident that Boente was one of the key corrupt actors, I noted originally to bookmark that post]:

If you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.

Boente took over for former chief legal counsel James Baker, after the discoveries around Baker and McCabe could no longer be hidden. After being removed from responsibility eventually Baker resigned and went to work with the Lawfare group.  Boente’s job at FBI was/is to bury information, block congressional inquiry, and protect the crew. Boente, along with Christopher Wray, is still there.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, June 23, 2019, Devin Nunes said “someone at the FBI” appears to have been “determined to hide” then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s notes from both the FISA court and Congress.  Our research identified that “someone” as Dana Boente and crew in 2018.

Throughout 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and through today, across both administrations, the corrupt group within the FBI in DC were/are protecting themselves.

The FBI redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The FBI removed Page and Strzok texts and emails. The FBI hid texts and emails from Lisa Page to Andrew McCabe. The FBI kept documents from congress. The FBI has leaked false information to media to cover their tracks; and yes the Trump FBI and GOPe politicians have participated writ large, many still do.

The corrupt FBI under Comey, McCabe and Baker is being protected and facilitated by the corrupt FBI under Christopher Wray, David Bowditch (San Bernadino infamy) and Dana Boente. It’s one long continuum of exactly the same behavior.  Remember, 50 FBI ‘agents’ on Mueller’s team?  Etc….  This DC network is ideologically aligned, operating on their own self-interests, and facilitated by a compliant media.

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division. It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

The DOJ-NSD is where FISA warrants come from.  The weaponized and highly politicized officials within the DOJ-NSD were using the auspices of FARA violations (foreign agent registration act) to gain FISA court authorized surveillance on politicians all over Washington DC.  Combined with the NSA database extractions, by federal contractors authorized by the FBI, it’s a massive web of political surveillance.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord. After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th. The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline.

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries. Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD. Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017. [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election. This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools. [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente. [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG] Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question: If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?

The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

See the issue?

How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA?

See the issue now?

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

  • U.S. Attorney for EDVA
  • Acting Deputy AG.
  • Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation. [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed. Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

On May 9th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey is fired.

On May 10th, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe opens a criminal ‘obstruction of justice investigation’ of President Trump to parallel/compliment the ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and administration.

On/Around May 11th, 2017, Mary McCord departs. Dana Boente now becomes the Asst. Attorney General and head of the DOJ National Security Divison. Simultaneously retaining role as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.

On May 16th, 2017, Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to meet President Trump. On May 17th, Rosenstein appoints the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. On May 18th, 2017, Scott Schools authorizes Robert Mueller:

And we’re off to the Trump-Russia-Collusion-Obstruction races…

With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. By now everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.] All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.

Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible people who didn’t participate in one form or another.

Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when he actually left the DOJ-NSD or the EDVA role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announces Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker). As Mueller is using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators, Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.

As we recently discovered, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey. Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed. The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:

As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein. There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false. So Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.

Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office (March 4, 2019). This field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.

The April 11th, 2019, recently released Julian Assange indictment stems from the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The investigation took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Why the delay? Here’s where it gets interesting….

This FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looks like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report is dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story:

(Bloomberg) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimesduring the 2016 election.

The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance. (more)

The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview. There’s the FBI motive to shut Assange down.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike.  Almost all independent research into this DNC hack claim also challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers.

Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse. Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey. Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media, essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI… but hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years.

Seriously?

There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch or Boente. Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger community from the Trump disruption.

In the end it all comes back to the same series of questions. Who was recommending to President Trump that he retain and promote DOJ and FBI officials who were part of the anti-Trump Russia collusion-conspiracy program?

People who knew the DC system and were vulnerable to DC peer influence. People who would take counsel and advice on who was needed and where.  People in positions of influence with President Trump.  People who could intentionally, or unwittingly, steer these placements from a position of advisement close to the President.

Appointing Rod Rosenstein as DAG was one of those key placements.

Appointing DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu was another.

From Rosenstein we get: Mueller, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente.

Meanwhile Jessie Liu quashed cases against: Awan bros, James Wolfe, Greg Craig and Andrew McCabe.

The Russia Conspiracy Collusion is built on a foundation of purposeful lies.  The DC network within the FBI and DOJ are at risk if those lies are exposed.

One of the cornerstone lies is that the Russians hacked the DNC servers…. that entirely false claim was manufactured in the heart of the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.   The central claim is based on a secret evaluation by political operatives, and pushed by an intelligence apparatus that needs the Russian Conspiracy to hide their schemes.

It’s all FUBAR !!

Bring it all down !!

White House Coronavirus Task Force Briefing – 5:00pm ET Livestream…


Unfortunately, with President Trump effectively communicating the latest information on the federal efforts to mitigate COVID-19, more corporate U.S. resistance media have decided not to carry the live broadcasts from the White House task force briefings.

Today at 5:00pm ET the White House will hold a beating for the media and share the latest mitigation efforts against the coronavirus. [Livestream Links Below]

White House Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – CSPAN Livestream Link

.

.

Report: U.S. Attorney John Durham Expanded Team in Recent Weeks…


A Washington Examiner report on a recent expansion of John Durham’s team, to include U.S. Attorney Anthony Scarpelli, may reconcile recent earlier reports by John Solomon of “clear evidence” showing Durham is narrowing in on some key DOJ and FBI figures.

According to the Examiner Scarpelli was brought over in part based on his work on Violent Crimes and the Narcotics Trafficking Section of the DOJ.  In that capacity Anthony Scarpelli would hold a Top Secret/SCI clearance (he does); which becomes a valuable necessity for the specifics of the type of investigation ongoing.

WASHINGTON – […] Amid the pandemic, Durham and a team of prosecutors and investigators have continued their work, even requesting witness information after the country largely shut down in March because of coronavirus restrictions, according to people briefed on the investigation. Leading up to the lockdown, Durham’s team had spent many days a month reviewing classified intelligence inside a special facility for reviewing classified documents known as a SCIF.

In recent weeks Durham has added to his team of investigators who operate in Connecticut and Washington, DC, including FBI agents and the chief of the violent crimes and narcotics section in the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, Anthony Scarpelli, people familiar with the probe said.

[…] Durham’s scrutiny of the Russia intelligence is “like a proctologist,” one source told CNN.  But it’s unknown what Durham’s findings or his end goals may be.

He could bring charges or issue a report, as Barr suggested in a recent interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where he also called the FBI’s Russia investigation “one of the greatest travesties in American history.”(more / CNN)

Some cautious optimism?

Here’s how AG Bill Barr described recent events to Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Now Mr. Attorney General, I want to close with a couple of specific issues. The investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham into the circumstances surrounding the surveillance of President Trump’s campaign, transition, and early administration, does that investigation remain on track undisturbed by the virus?

WB: Yes.

HH: There are guidelines concerning the announcement of indictments or the closing of the investigations prior to the election. When is that deadline for U.S. Attorney Durham? And do you think he will make it either to disclose indictments or to disclose that the investigation is over?

WB: As far as I’m aware, none of the key people that, whose actions are being reviewed at this point by Durham, are running for president.

HH: But would not the announcement of indictments after a time certain have an impact on an election of the sort that the U.S. Attorney’s manual recommends against?

WB: Well, what is the sort that the attorney manual recommends against?

HH: As I recall, this came up with Director Comey making his announcement, and the concerns in 2016 that he had acted improvidently during the run up to the election. I don’t recall what the exact timing is.

WB: Yeah, well, that was directly as to a candidate.

HH: And so it would not matter, in your view, if there is an investigation, and the day before the election, someone is indicted?

WB: Well, you know, I think in its core, the idea is you don’t go after candidates. You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same, you know, within a certain number of days before an election. But you know, as I say, I don’t think any of the people whose actions are under review by Durham fall into that category.

HH: That’s big news to me. I had assumed that they would be in the category of people that could not be indicted given the obvious connection to President Trump, but I’ll take the news and I’ll put it away. Let me ask you about Senator Grassley. A couple of weeks ago, he tweeted, and this is a direct quote, “We are learning FBI flubs on Carter Page spying case are just tip of iceberg. IG audited 29 other spying applications on Americans and found problems with every one of them, in caps. Constitutional rights are at stake when FBI fails to justify use of spying tools. Reforms needed to protect civil liberties.” Is Senator Grassley correct, Mr. Attorney General?

WB: Yes, well, I think as I have said, I think that the failure to follow the guidelines and the requirements in preparing FISA applications, you know, is very disturbing, especially coming as recently as it has. And you know, we shouldn’t proceed with FISA unless we have safeguards and ensure that the law is being scrupulously followed by the FBI.

HH: Are you shocked by what you have found to date or have been briefed by U.S. Attorney Durham to date about?

WB: I wouldn’t use the word shocked, right? You know, I’m very troubled by it, but you know, I think the reason that we have this investigation is because there are a lot of things that are unexplained. And I think we’re getting deeply into the situation, and we’ll be able to sort out exactly what happened.

HH: I’m not going to ask you, because you wouldn’t answer whether there will be indictments or not. But when do you expect that the public will know a definitive assessment of where the U.S. Attorney Durham is going?

WB: As soon as we feel we have something that we are confident in to tell the people about.

HH: Is that imminent?

WB: No, it’s not imminent. But I’m not sure what imminent means. I’m not sure what imminent means, but it’s not imminent.

(read more)

Advertisements

John Solomon Stands By His Claim: John Durham Indictments Coming Soon…


John Solomon appears on Fox Business News with Lou Dobbs to discuss his latest articleabout HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff blocking release of congressional transcripts.

Additionally, Solomon again says he believes “clear evidence” exists to show that U.S. Attorney John Durham is going to indict people in/around the DOJ/FBI/CIA surveillance operation against Donald Trump….. and there will be more declassified material being released soon.

[STORY HERE]

Meanwhile, Sundance be like…

Devin Nunes Responds to the Insufferably Political SSCI Report Justifying a Political Intelligence Community Assessment…


Lou Dobbs knows what is going on here… you can hear it and see it in his lead-in to the interview with Devin Nunes.  Unfortunately, Devin Nunes doesn’t want to call the baby ugly. Here we are, once again stuck in this stupid place where DC pretends the previous CIA, FBI and DOJ officials were not political; while we roll our eyes at them because we know the truth; and we know that they know the truth; but their pretense is supported by a willfully blind media.

Enough Already – A Legally Conflicted Senate Intel Committee Presents Another Defense of Intelligence Corruption…


Foolishness and betrayal of our country have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise. The intelligence apparatus was weaponized against our candidate by those who controlled the levers of government. That said, today’s SSCI defense of political corruption is infuriating.

To understand what is taking place within the Mark Warner and Richard Burr report it is worthwhile revisiting the 2014 House Intelligence report by Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger which was presented in defense of severe corruption in/around Benghazi.

The HPSCI report from Rogers-Ruppersberger was a cover-up operation intended to defend their own interests and involvement in the CIA/State Dept. operation in Libya. Only after the 2014 report was it discovered that republican Mike Roger’s wife was actually connected to the illegal arms sales in Libya.  Therein was the motive and conflict.

Similarly, today’s Senate Intelligence report from Mark Warner and Richard Burr, defending the construct of the ICA, is itself intended to cover their own involvement in the CIA/FBI corruption against candidate, and President, Donald Trump.  The evidence of their complicit activity is within the story of SSCI security Director James Wolfe, and how the DOJ covered-up the FISA leak in order to cover-up institutional SSCI corruption.

You can read today’s SSCI report HERE – With PDF HERE –  In essence the report attempts to validate the Obama administration’s intelligence effort surrounding the Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA [Authors: John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper and to a lesser extent NSA Director Mike Rogers], and support the conclusions of Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.

It’s all nonsense.  The ICA is a political document constructed in January 2017 to assist the cover-up operation surrounding the surveillance of Donald Trump, and push forth a narrative that Russia interfered in the election.  The ICA is a lie for political intents.

However, there’s a bigger issue here…. A much bigger issue that explains how and why this continued cover-up is being maintained.

If you are familiar with the James Wolfe story you know that in 2018 the DOJ under Rod Rosenstein purposefully made the decision to hide the leaking of the Carter Page FISA application in March 2017 because any prosecution for leaking classified intelligence would have also captured the Senate Intelligence Committee and their participation.

In the summer of 2018 Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was in charge and the Mueller investigation was ongoing. That was when the DOJ made a decision not to prosecute Wolfe for leaking classified information. Later in the year DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on a plea deal where Wolfe plead guilty to only a single count of lying to the FBI.

If the DOJ had pursued the case against Wolfe for leaking the FISA application, everything would have been different.  The American electorate would have seen evidence of what was taking place in the background effort to remove President Trump. We would be in an entirely different place today if that prosecution or trial had taken place.

Three 2018 events revealed the Wolfe issue:

EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.

EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced.  An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.

EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story.  On July 21st, 2018, the DOJ/FBI declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

♦ Later on December 14th 2018 a fourth albeit buried public release confirmed everything.  The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked by Wolfe:

HINDSIGHT – What we didn’t know at the time, simultaneous to the decision-making regarding Wolfe, was another (a second) DOJ cover-up effort was taking place surrounding the origin of the Russia-collusion fraud.

Amid a series of documents recently released by the Senate Judiciary Committee [SEE HERE] there is a rather alarming letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court in July 2018 that also points toward an institutional cover-up.   [Link to Letter]

The letter was sent by the DOJ-NSD to the FISA Court on July 12, 2018.  The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application.   The 2018 DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.  The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation. Why?

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

Institutional preservation.

All of the activities by corrupt actors are merged within the need to save the institutions of government from sunlight upon the extent of the corruption within them.  That is why the DOJ made the decision to bury the SSCI leak of the FISA application in June/July of 2018. That is also why the same DOJ, at the same time, made the decision to mislead the FISA court about the credibility of the evidence within the FISA application.

Robert Mueller’s special counsel was ongoing when all of these corrupt DOJ/FBI decisions were taking place.  These are decisions being made by the DOJ and FBI to cover-up massive institutional corruption while President Trump was in office; and while the intent of that corruption was to remove President Trump from office.

Allow me to frustratingly re-fucking-empasize…  These decisions are in 2018.

Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG; Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente was FBI chief-legal-counsel.. this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers.

Wray, Bowditch, Boente and Demers are still employed, still working, and still participating as corruption managers.  They may not be adding to the corruption, but the fact remains they are doing nothing to address the scale and severity of the corrupt activity that was taking place.

Knowing this, why wouldn’t corrupt participants SSCI Chairman Richard Burr and vice-chair Mark Warner exploit the priorities of the DOJ for their own preservation?

Bill Barr wants to preserve the institutions.  Burr and Warner can hide behind the shield of that priority.  That’s why they can write this ridiculously false and slanted defense of the 2017 intelligence community assessment and carry no fear of exposure for doing it.

It’s all FUBAR.

What we can see from all DOJ operations is an intentional effort by Main Justice not to expose the epicenter of a multi-branch effort against the White House.  Senator Burr and Warner are hiding behind that ongoing DOJ intent.

The decisions in the Wolfe case are critical. That’s the fork in the road. If the Wolfe prosecution had continued it would have undoubtedly surfaced that key government officials and politicians were working together (executive and legislative).

The ramifications of the Wolfe case were/are stunning. Had the prosecution continued it’s very likely a seditious conspiracy would have surfaced.

♦ I often field a question: If you know this; if all of this information is in the public sphere; then why didn’t any member of the media cover it?

Here’s the answer: They can’t…. At least they cannot cover it and still retain all of the claims they had been making since March 2017 when journalist Ali Watkins gained a fully non-redacted copy of the Carter Page FISA application and first renewal.

Politico, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post are all implicated in the James Wolfe leak to Ali Watkins. They had the FISA information since March 2017, yet those media outlets were disingenuously falsifying their reporting on the actual content of the FISA application despite their actual knowledge.

Remember all of the media denials about what Devin Nunes wrote in the “Nunes memo”? Remember the media proclaiming the Steele Dossier was not part of the FISA application?

How was the media fifteen months later (July 2018) going to report on the Wolfe leak to Watkins without admitting they had been manufacturing stories about its content for the past year-and-a-half?

It was in the media’s interest NOT to cover, or dig into, the Wolfe story.

Additionally, from both the DOJ and Media perspective, coverage of the Wolfe leak would prove the senate intel committee (SSCI) was, at a minimum, a participating entity in the coup effort. That same SSCI is responsible for oversight over the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD, ODNI, DNI, and all intelligence agencies.

Worse yet, all officers within those agencies require confirmation from the SSCI (including Chair and Vice-Chair); and any discussion of the Wolfe leak would highlight the motive for ongoing corruption within the SSCI in blocking those nominations (see John Ratcliffe).

Stunning ramifications.

There was a clear 2018 fork in the road and the DOJ took the path toward a cover-up; which, considering what the DOJ was simultaneously doing with Mueller, and the EDVA regarding Assange, and the lies to the FISA court, is not entirely surprising.

Was that decision wrong? Oh hell yes, it was corrupt as heck. .

Were the decisions done with forethought to coverup gross abuses of government? Yes.

Where the DOJ is today in 2020 is directly connected to the decisions the DOJ made in 2017 and 2018 to protect themselves and internally corrupt actors from discovery.

It is often said: “the coverup is always worse than the crime.” This is never more true than with these examples, because where we are today… now miles down the path of consequence from those corrupt decisions… is seemingly disconnected from the ability of any institutional recovery. That’s now the issue for Bill Barr.

The challenge for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. And then finding a way to protect the institutions of the DOJ and FBI while getting people to stop demanding action to address the corruption within them.

AG Bill Barr has to keep feeding the purveyors of investigative hope-porn as a method to keep the pitchforks at bay, while simultaneously trying to figure out how he can preserve the institutions. Remember, the DC system operates on an entirely different legal principle when it comes to internal investigations within the bubble.

As a result we get AG Barr saying “if John Durham can find evidence of criminal conduct”; where “criminal” in DC is defined around a DC-exclusive legal theory of “intent” that doesn’t apply anywhere else in the country.  [examples: see Hillary Clinton; or see IG Horowitz saying he couldn’t find intent.]

Think about the argument:  Are we debating what lies behind redactions on current DOJ documents from the AG Bill Barr agency; and simultaneously believing that AG Bill Barr is going to deliver some form of justice from inside the institution of the DOJ?

The Bill Barr Dept. of Justice is currently engaged in an ongoing effort to cover/redact  details that are embarrassing to the institutions; but the same Bill Barr Dept. of Justice is going to prosecute those who embarrassed the institutions?…

FUBAR!

RESOURCES:

The corrupt Benghazi report.

More surfaces on the Benghazi report.

The Backstory on the Wolfe Cover-up.

Footnote #350 Shows Bill Barr’s problem.

The declassification showing the 2018 DOJ and FBI cover-up

Understanding The Russian Disinformation Defense – As Predicted in 2018…


Various mainstream media reports have discussed the latest declassification releases by saying the releases show the Steele Dossier was infected with “Russian Disinformation”.

The framework of this “Russia disinformation” defense narrative is completely and utterly false.  The fabrications within the Steele Dossier assembly of lies, came almost exclusively from operatives in and outside government associated with the Clinton campaign; and a dedicated group of  purposeful allies in the intelligence community; who were attempting to weaponize intelligence, even false intelligence for similar political purposes.

However, that said, in 2018 CTH outlined this exact defense and why they would deploy it. Below I am re-posting a research outline from August 2018; and what you will find in the conclusion of the outline is this:

By doubling down on the Russian Collusion narrative the conspirators created a ‘catch-22’ defense. They could/can claim Deripaska was/is giving disinformation in his version of events to support the interests of Russia and sewing chaos in America etc. And any Republican who would give Deripaska a platform to tell what happened in 2016 would be doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. See how that works?

The soft coup team protects themselves by impugning the motive of Deripaska, and diminishing his credibility under the auspices of Russian disinformation.

Sound familar?  Let’s revisit the 2018 entire outline and see how predictable this was.

~ Originally Written 2018 ~

Adam Waldman is the lawyer/lobbyist for Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire who appears to be a key background player in the 2016 DOJ/FBI scheme against presidential candidate Donald Trump. Additionally, Mr. Waldman represents the U.S. interests of Christopher Steele, a contract employee of Deripaska and author of the Clinton-Steele Dossier that was used by the DOJ/FBI during their counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Because of his centrality, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley recently requested testimony from Mr. Adam Waldman, surrounding his contacts and engagements -with Deripaska, and by extension the DOJ/FBI- throughout the 2016/2017 operation to undermine and remove President Donald Trump.

In a response letter released August 18, 2018 (full pdf below) lawyers representing Mr. Waldman told Senator Chuck Grassley their client was “out of the country and not expected to return for several weeks.” SEE BELOW:

However, internet researcher/investigator almostjingo noticed that Mr. Waldman’s wife Barbara Sturm posted an instagram picture today of them dining with friends in New York last night, August 22, 2018:

(Link) Barbara Sturm second from left, husband Adam Waldman far right.

Whoopsie, apparently the letter from Mr. Waldman’s lawyers was intentionally false and simply an effort to avoid giving testimony to congress. Adam Waldman cannot be “out of the country for several weeks” and simultaneously having dinner in New York last night.

Here’s the full attorney letter:

.

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska is a key figure at the epicenter of the DOJ and FBI activity that was taking place in 2016. Through his affiliates, lawyers and associates, Deripaska is directly connected to dossier author Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS, and the collaborative FBI efforts of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok.

Adam Waldman (left) and Oleg Deripaska (right)

In the early 2016 text messages and email conversations between DOJ Official Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele, the interests of Oleg Deripaska are a centerpiece of a quid-pro-quo where Deripaska gains a travel VISA and possible exemption from the Magnitsky Act in exchange for cooperation with the FBI effort against Donald Trump.

Adam Waldman was also the person in contact with corrupt Senate Intelligence Committee vice-chairman Mark Warner early in 2017 when the ‘insurance policy’ was deployed against newly elected President Donald Trump. As discovered in text messages, Waldman was the liaison, the person providing plausible deniability, between Senator Warner, Christopher Steele and Oleg Deripaska.

(Link to All Text Messages)

As many people are now aware, the SSCI is the most corrupt committee apparatus within congress; and as noted in the text messages, Adam Waldman only wanted to work with the Senate Intelligence Committee on his endeavors.

Within the Adam Waldman text messages to Senator Mark Warner, Waldman also notes the relationship between his client Christopher Steele and former Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein staffer, Daniel Jones.

Lawyer and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represents central figures: Oleg Deripaska, Christopher Steele and also Julian Assange. However, the connection between Waldman, Steele and Daniel Jones becomes additionally important.

You might remember that Daniel Jones raised $50 million to continue funding the Fusion-GPS investigation *AFTER* the 2016 election. It is likely part (perhaps most/all) of the money came from Oleg Deripaska, via his lawyer lobbyist Adam Waldman.

These are the types of questions that need to be answered. Hence, Senator Chuck Grassley requesting Mr. Waldman to appear and give testimony. However, it is the uncomfortable issues behind these questions that were apparently so concerning they led Waldman’s own lawyers to lie about his whereabouts.

It appears a little hypocritical for Mr. Waldman to be evading questioning considering it was Waldman who contacted journalist John Solomon earlier in the year to present a story conducive to his client Oleg Deripaska. He was full of information in May, 2018, but when facing questioning about that information in August – he disappears.

Waldman’s current triangulation is part of the reason for our earlier emphasis/warning on the construct of the May 2018 Solomon article. After all, everyone involved in the ‘soft coup attempt’ is desperate to safeguard their own interests.

Adam Waldman was representing Oleg Deripaska’s interests in the U.S. to politicians and officials. In May of 2018, John Solomon was contacted by Adam Waldman with a storyabout how the FBI contacted Deripaska for help in their Trump Russia investigation in September of 2016.

Keep in mind, this is Waldman contacting Solomon with a story.

Waldman told Solomon a story about how his client Oleg Deripaska was approached by the FBI in September of 2016 and asked for help with information about Paul Manafort and by extension Donald Trump. Within the backstory for the FBI and Deripaska was a prior connection between Robert Mueller and Deripaska in 2009.

Again, as you read the recap, remember this is Waldman contacting Solomon. Article Link Here – and my summary below:

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help. This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

This story, as told from the perspective of Adam Waldman -Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist- is important because it highlights a connection between Robert Mueller and Oleg Deripaska; a connection Mueller and the DOJ/FBI never revealed on their own.

I wrote about the ramifications of the Solomon Story HERE. Again, hopefully most will review; because there’s a larger story now visible with the new communication between Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr.

It is likely that Oleg’s 2016 entry into the U.S. was facilitated as part of a quid-pro-quo; either agreed in advance, or, more likely, planned by the DOJ/FBI for later use in their 2016 Trump operation; as evidenced in the September 2016 FBI request. Regardless of the planning aspect, billionaire Deripaska is connected to Chris Steele, a source for Chris Steele, and likely even the employer of Chris Steele.

The FBI used Oleg Deripaska (source), and Oleg Deripaska used the FBI (visa).

Here’s where it gets interesting….

In that May article John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked. Who blocked his testimony?

In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska. However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Mark Warner for feedback.

Oleg Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress. Now, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, via Vice-Chair Senator Mark Warner. Oh yes, THAT Senator Mark Warner again.

Now, think about this…. Yes, with Oleg Deripaska in the picture there was indeed Russian meddling in the 2016 election; only, it wasn’t the type of meddling currently being sold. The FBI/DOJ were using Russian Deripaska to frame their Russian conspiracy narrative. It is almost a certainty that Deripaska was one of Chris Steele’s sources for the dossier.

Now, put yourself in Deripaska’s shoes and think about what happens AFTER candidate Donald Trump surprisingly wins the election.

All of a sudden Deripaska the asset becomes a risk to the corrupt Scheme Team (DOJ/FBI et al); especially as the DOJ/FBI then execute the “insurance policy” effort against Donald Trump…. and eventually enlist Robert Mueller.

It is entirely possible for a Russian to be blackmailing someone, but it ain’t Trump vulnerable to blackmail; it’s the conspiracy crew within the DOJ and FBI. Deripaska now has blackmail material on Comey, McCabe and crew.

After the 2017 (first year) failure of the “insurance policy” it now seems more likely President Trump will outlive the soft coup. In May 2018, Oleg tells Waldman to call John Solomon and tell him the story from a perspective favorable to Deripaska.

As the story is told, in 2017 Oleg was more than willing to testify to congress… likely laughing the entire time… but the corrupt participants within congress damned sure couldn’t let Deripaska testify. Enter corrupt SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner:

Um, we’ve got a problem here Mark…

The Russians (Deripaska) really do have leverage and blackmail… but it ain’t over Trump. Oleg has blackmail on Comey, McCabe and conspiracy crew. Oleg Deripaska must be kept away from congress and away from exposing the scheme.

Guess who else must be controlled and/or kept away from congress?

Julian Assange.

Assange has evidence the Russians didn’t hack the DNC.

Between Deripaska’s first-hand knowledge of the DOJ/FBI work on both the Dossier and the DOJ/FBI intention for his use as a witness; and Julian Assange’s first-hand knowledge of who actually took the DNC email communication;… well, the entire Russian narrative could explode in their faces.

Control is needed.

You can almost hear the corrupt U.S. intelligence officials calling their U.K. GCHQ partners in Britain and yelling at them to do something, anything, and for the love of God, shut down Assange’s access to the internet STAT…. Yeah, funny that.

Now, who moves into position to control Julian Assange?

WikiLeaks

@wikileaks

BREAKING: US Senate Intelligence Committee calls editor @JulianAssange to testify. Letter delivered via US embassy in London. WikiLeaks’ legal team say they are “considering the offer but the conditions must conform to a high ethical standard”. Also: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/19/uk-should-reject-extraditing-julian-assange-us 

View image on Twitter
5,470 people are talking about this

Well, well, well…. Lookie here? Who dat? Apparently the SSCI wants to interviewWikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in a closed session. Signed by none-other than our corrupt-o-crats Richard Burr and Mark Warner. Yeah, funny that.

Lest anyone need a reminder…. “The most corrupt part of congress is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). The SSCI is the center of the deepest part of the Deep State swamp. The SSCI never, ever, E.V.E.R… does anything that does not protect and advance the self-interest of the corrupt Washington DC professional political class.”

Now do we see why the SSCI is the center of protecting the entire fraudulent apparatus?

It’s somewhat humorous to look at this fiasco from the perspective of Oleg Deripaska. He must be having a lot of laughs with his Ruskie friends about these stupid Americans and how the intelligence apparatus of the United States of America is controlled by corrupt politicians trying to save themselves and the corrupt institutions.

The Russians, notorious for sowing discord, are being used as a shield from sunlight upon actions taken by U.S. own intelligence officers: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper etc.

There’s a reason why I keep emphasizing the source of the John Solomon story was Adam Waldman. Think about it from the perspective of the conspiracy group reading how Oleg instructed Waldman to present his story.

With Deripaska telling Solomon how the FBI contacted him; the background of their prior collaborative relationship; and the likelihood of Deripaska giving information to Chris Steele for the dossier; the scheme team really, really, needed to double down on the Russian conspiracy narrative in case Oleg ever did testify to congress.

By doubling down on the Russian Collusion narrative the conspirators created a ‘catch-22’ defense. They could/can claim Deripaska was/is giving disinformation in his version of events to support the interests of Russia and sewing chaos in America etc. And any Republican who would give Deripaska a platform to tell what happened in 2016 would be doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. See how that works?

The soft coup team protects themselves by impugning the motive of Deripaska, and diminishing his credibility under the auspices of Russian disinformation.

Brutally Honest – President Trump Calls Top FBI Coup Plotters: “Human Scum”…


Earlier today President Trump took a question during the coronavirus task force briefing about Roger Stone’s upcoming prison confinement.  During his answer President Trump hinted toward a likely pardon for the individuals unfairly targeted by corrupt FBI and DOJ investigations…. calling the top tier of the former FBI “Human Scum”. WATCH:

Sunday Talks: Devin Nunes Discusses DC Political Games, Wuhan Virus and Spygate…


Devin Nunes appears on Fox News weekend to discuss the ongoing congressional back-and-forth over funding Wuhan Virus economic relief and specifically funding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) within the CARES act.  Nunes also discusses Beijing’s responsibility for the outbreak and their lies.

Additionally, Representative Nunes discusses the latest revelations within the recently declassified footnotes and classified documents. On this subject CTH will provide additional information later; however, one of the overlooked questions surrounds why media, total media (including Solomon and Herridge), have never questioned participants.

Think about it… Over the past three years there has been a great deal of sunlight onto the specifics of the events. We now know the primary participants in the intelligence operations against Donald Trump. However, not a single media outlet has ever attempted to question: FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, James Baker, Joe Pientka, Bill Priestap, Tashina Guahar, James Crowell, Sally Moyer, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Dana Boente or even Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson or Rod Rosenstein…. Why not?

Declassified DOJ Letter to FISA Court Highlights Severe Institutional Corruption – DOJ Blames FBI For Spygate…


Amid a series of documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee [SEE HERE] there is a rather alarming letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court in July 2018 that points toward an institutional cover-up.   [Link to Letter]

Before getting to the substance of the letter, it’s important to put the release in context.  After the FISA Court reviewed the DOJ inspector general report, the FISC ordered the DOJ-NSD to declassify and release documents related to the Carter Page FISA application.

In the cover letter for this specific release to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees, the DOJ cites the January 7, 2020, FISA court order:

Keep in mind that prior to this release only the FISA court had seen this letter from the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).  As we walk through the alarming content of this letter I think you’ll identify the motive behind the FISC order to release it.

First, the letter in question was sent by the DOJ-NSD to the FISA Court on July 12, 2018.  It is critical to keep the date of the letter in mind as we review the content.

Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application.   The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found. On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA redactions:

As you can see: Christopher Steele is noted as “Source #1”.  Glenn Simpson of Fusion-GPS is noted as “identified U.S. person” or “business associate”; and Perkins Coie is the “U.S-based law firm.”

Now things get very interesting.

On page #8 when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the DOJ notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

Let’s look at how the IG report frames the primary sub-source, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.

Those interviews were 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018DOJ letter to the FISC.   The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation.  Why?

Keep in mind this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018.  Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG; Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel.

Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source?  This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid.  Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority.  That’s the motive.

In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation.  The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending.  The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the letter.

Remember, in December the FISC received the IG Horowitz report; and they would have immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.

The DOJ letter is a transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report. Hence, the court orders the DOJ to release the July letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.

The court was misled; now everyone can see it.

The content of that DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application.  The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.

Moving on…

Two more big misstatements within the July letter appear on page #9.  The first is the DOJ claiming that only after the application was filed did they become aware of Christopher Steele working for Fusion-GPS and knowing his intent was to create opposition research for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  See the top of the page.

According to the DOJ-NSD claim the number four ranking official in the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, never told them he was acting as a conduit for Christopher Steele to the FBI.   While that claim is hard to believe, in essence what the DOJ-NSD is saying in that paragraph is that the FBI hoodwinked the DOJ-NSD by not telling them where the information for the FISA application was coming from.  The DOJ, via John Demers, is blaming the FBI.

The second statement, equally as incredulous, is at the bottom of page nine where the DOJ claims they had no idea Bruce Ohr was talking to the FBI throughout the entire time any of the FISA applications were being submitted.  October 2016 through June 2017.

In essence the claim there is that Bruce Ohr was working with the FBI and never told anyone in the DOJ throughout 2016 and all the way past June 29th of 2017.  That denial seems rather unlikely; however, once again the DOJ-NSD is putting the FBI in the crosshairs and claiming they knew nothing about the information pipeline.

Bruce Ohr, whose wife was working for Fusion-GPS and assisting Christopher Steele with information, was interviewed by the FBI over a dozen times as he communicated with Steele and fed his information to the FBI.  Yet the DOJ claims they knew nothing about it.

Again, just keep in mind this claim by the DOJ-NSD is being made in July 2018, six months after Bruce Ohr was demoted twice (December 2017 and January 2018).  If what the DOJ is saying is true, well, the FBI was completely off-the-rails and rogue.

Neither option speaks well about the integrity of either institution; and quite frankly I don’t buy the DOJ-NSD spin.  Why?  The reason is simple, the DOJ is claiming in the letter the predication was still valid… if the DOJ-NSD genuinely didn’t know about the FBI manipulation, they would be informing the court in 2018 the DOJ no longer supported the FISA application due to new information.  They did not do that.  Instead, in July 2018, they specifically told the court the predicate was valid, yet the DOJ-NSD knew it was not.

The last point about the July 2018 letter is perhaps the most jarring.  Again, keep in mind when it was written Chris Wray is FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy and Dana Boente is FBI chief legal counsel.

Their own FBI reports, by three different INSD and IG investigations; had turned up seriously alarming evidence going back to the early 2017 time-frame; the results of which ultimately led to the DC FBI office losing all of their top officials; and knowing the letter itself was full of misleading and false information about FBI knowledge in/around Christopher Steele; this particular sentence is alarming:

“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”

Really?

As we have just shared, the July 2018 letter itself is filled with factual inaccuracies, misstatements and intentional omissions.  So who exactly did the “reviewing”?

This declassification release raises more questions than any other in recent memory.  Perhaps AG Bill Barr will now start asking some rather hard questions to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Here’s the Full Letter.  I strongly suggest everyone read the 14-pages slowly.  If you know the background, this letter is infuriating…

.