The New York Times has a curious article posited today surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham who is doing the deep investigation into DOJ, FBI, CIA and intelligence community political espionage in the 2016 election and early Trump presidency.

CTH readers are very familiar with the granular details of what’s commonly referred to as “spygate”; the unofficial weaponization of the intelligence apparatus against candidate Donald Trump, president-elect Trump, and later President Trump.

The Times posts their article about Durham’s investigation against the backdrop of the completed inspector general report on DOJ/FBI misconduct in their FISA exploits.

While the majority of the narrative engineering is oddly irrelevant; and it doesn’t take a long review to notice the Times scribes have a motive to frame Durham’s eventual outcome as adverse to their own political interests; there is one particular paragraph that seems exceptionally curious:

[…] The inspector general’s report makes no substantive reference to Mr. Durham’s investigation. But before the report’s release, Mr. Durham got into a sharp dispute with Mr. Horowitz’s team over a footnote in a draft of the report that seemed to imply that Mr. Durham agreed with all of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions, which he did not, according to people familiar with the matter. The footnote did not appear in the final version of the report. (link)

How would the New York Times know?

Notice the citation: “according to people familiar with the matter”, that is an overly disingenuous attribution considering such a strong declarative accusation.

Something sketchy is afoot.

First, taking the declaration at face value, and ignoring the conflict the narrative engineers appear intent to create, if there is any truth to that statement – the Times is implying IG Michael Horowitz attempted to put words in the mouth of a U.S. attorney?

There’s something between the lines going on here; and if the New York Times is the tip-of-the-defensive-spear… well, that something is likely troublesome for the Coup Crew.

Interesting.

Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious…

As we suspected, albeit against much criticism, House counsel Doug Letter has responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here]

This court filing today bolsters the unspoken background motive for delayed House Impeachment Managers.  The House Judiciary Committee is using impeachment as support for their ongoing effort to gain: Don McGahn deposition, and Mueller grand jury material (6e).  The goal is opposition research; impeachment is a tool to establish legal standing to obtain it.  Everything else is chaff and countermeasures.

[Scribd pdf link – Direct pdf link (w/ embed below)]

This court filing bolsters CTH analysis that rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.

Here is the full House argument:

.

REMINDER: The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.

Here is the DOJ Response:

Notice the DOJ is aware of how the HJC is trying to manipulate the system…

.

KEY: 

[…] “Pursuing an interbranch suit in court while simultaneously pursuing impeachment, and then using that litigation as part of the impeachment proceedings, is “far from the model of the traditional common-law cause of action at the conceptual core of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 833 (1997) (Souter, J., concurring). But that is exactly what the Committee has done. The effect of that choice is
to “embroil the federal courts in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension.” Id.

Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial. That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial. Cf. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 232, 235-36 (1993).

The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels—before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President—puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 819.

This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on Fox Morning broadcast to discuss the current status of the House impeachment and his perspective on why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not sending the written articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

House Leader Kevin McCarthy stated yesterday he would recommend John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan and Doug Collins as House members who would represent the interests of President Trump if any Senate impeachment trial was to begin.  All three are exceptional legal orators who have displayed their skills during the House hearings.

Today Representative Doug Collins discussed the possibility:

Joe Dan Gorman has produced a Christmas Special edition of Intellectual Froglegs.

Visit Website Here to View Latest Production

Marc Short, Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence, appears on Meet The Press with Chuck Todd to discuss what the White House expects from a Senate impeachment trial.

Oddly, something about Short’s demeanor seems to neutralize the traditional partisan gibberish Toady is famous for.  There’s still a lot of pontification, but Short does a great job cutting through Toad’s burping noises.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on SMF with Maria Bartiromo to discuss House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment from the Senate.

Senator Graham does a good job explaining the fraudulent visible reasons, purposes and strategy for establishing the House obstruction article; however, Graham completely overlooks the hidden motive for withholding it/them.

Moving to “spygate” Bartiromo points out Special Counsel Mueller never investigated the “dossier”; however, Bartiromo misses that Rosensteins’ second scope memo in August 2017 specifically empowered the research of (ie. use of) the dossier for his probe.

*POINT: In my opinion, this is the reason why the DOJ (AG Bill Barr) will not release the scope memos…. Barr is protecting DAG Rosenstein and his good friend Robert Mueller.

.

Lindsey Graham goes on to discuss the background surveillance on the Trump campaign; and outlines questions he has and potential witnesses before his committee.  Pause for a moment in this part of Graham’s interview, and notice how the answer to every question is within the declassification documents we have discussed. We know where the answers are.

Amid the twists and turns many people have forgotten about the material congress asked President Trump to declassify a year-and-a-half ago.  Additionally there has been some material cited that just seemingly slipped away without follow-up.  Consider:

• Whatever happened to the forty pages of Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe text messages that Catherine Herridge noted nine months ago?  Herridge only published four of the pages in March 2019.
• Why are the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages still redacted two years after their original release (December 1st, 2017)?
• Where’s the release of the Susan Rice inauguration day memo to the file?
• Why didn’t the DOJ/FBI release all of the Bruce Ohr 302’s without redaction?  Will those fully unredacted 302’s be part of the IG report release?
• Where’s the unredacted David Archey FBI declarations that were previously ordered to be released by a DC judge?
• The Mueller investigation ended 9 months ago.  Why are we still not able to see the  unredacted three authorization memos that Rosenstein gave to the special counsel on May 17th, August 2nd and October 20th, 2017?

Those simple questions (and releases) are in addition to the original list that congress provided to President Trump back in the summer of 2018.  A declassification list that DAG Rod Rosenstein asked President Trump not to release until after the Mueller investigation. Again, the Mueller investigation ended nine months ago; President Trump authorized AG Bill Barr to declassify the material six months ago on May 23rd.

This was the original list from congress in the summer of 2018:

• All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
• All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI) [Without redactions]
• All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI) [Without redactions]
• All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
• All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
• All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
• The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

Additionally, since the 2018 list was developed, more information surfaced about the underlying material.  This added to the possibility of documents for declassification:

♦ The August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to expand the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also the October 20th, 2017, third scope memo that expanded the investigation again, and targeted additional people including Michael Flynn’s family. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]

♦ The July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus.  The CIA operation  created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.  [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.  [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]  Release and declassify the declarations of FBI Agent David Archey that describe the purpose of the Comey memos:

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?]  This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

♦ Did anyone question former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why did John Carlin quit immediately thereafter?

♦ The Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent, and likely based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]  What version of the FISA application will be released (if at all)?

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.  The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation.  This is likely why Page and Strzok texts were redacted!

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s without redactions.  And FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And did anyone get a deposition from this Pientka fella?] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

Yes it is good the FISA investigation report was released on December 9th. However, if all the underlying documents are not declassified; exactly as CTH has warned for over a year; the information therein is now subject to interpretation and/or manipulation.

There is a lot of material the public is aware of; and if the DOJ IG doesn’t release the underlying material then what exactly was the purpose of AG Bill Barr asking President Trump for the declassification authority?…..

Accountability requires transparency.

Frustrating as HECK !!

Maria Bartiromo shares an earlier interview with Senator Ted Cruz after the House passed two impeachment articles.   Senator Cruz is questioned about the impeachment fraud and the latest revelations in the 2016 election surveillance known as “spygate”.

LOL… “Welcome to the party pal“… Wait til Cruz finds out he too was a campaign target as outlined by the FBI instructions to Patrick Byrne; I digress.   Within the interview Cruz actually does a good job of outlining a brief cocktail party-length explanation of corrupt FBI conduct toward the FISA court.  WATCH:

.

“Political Espionage” – During the 2016 election season, Butina’s useful purpose appeared to be the reason the FBI in Washington DC enlisted Patrick Byrne as a handler, giving Butina specific instructions and introductions to Republican presidential candidates.

Once those candidates were contacted the FBI’s background surveillance transferred to the republican politicians, including persons in/around the Trump orbit.  Mr. Byrne stated several times that FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and persons working on his behalf, were the FBI officials directing the engagements.

Byrne claims he was asked to participate in an FBI intelligence operation and to introduce, and/or facilitate the introduction of, Ms. Butina to the campaigns of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

In December of 2015 Mr. Byrne said he became suspicious of the FBI motives because he warned FBI officials of the potential that his efforts, his reputation and those who trust him, may result in Butina gaining entry into campaign confidences. The FBI agents told Mr. Byrne that was exactly the intent.

People high up in the FBI wanted Ms. Butina to gain deep access into the Trump campaign. Mr. Byrne became suspicious of a corrupt political motive, but didn’t say anything at the time.

In/around Feb or March 2016 Byrne was told to focus Ms. Butina’s attention to the campaign of Donald Trump and to diminish any attention toward Rubio or Cruz.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”.  Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].  (read more)

“Criminal Conspiracy”

REMINDER: The House Judiciary Committee led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).  There are court deadlines for #1 and #2 tomorrow.

It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee. [Go DEEP HERE]

It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.

Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.

The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.

There is an argument to be made the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.

If accurate, that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.

We know from the alignment of interests it is likely Jerry Nadler and his legal Lawfare contractors are well aware of exactly what Weissmann and Co. created for them to discover. The problem for the House team(s) is they need legal authority to obtain it and then utilize it to frame and attack President Trump.

With the impeachment articles now approved – the DC Appeals Court is asking Nadler’s team if the purpose of their lawsuit is now moot. Essentially the court believes the prior lawsuit was based on gathering evidence for the impeachment articles:

If my suspicions are correct [SEE HERE] then Jerry Nadler will respond to the court by saying the HJC needs the 6(e) material to support the obstruction article in a Senate Trial. Per the court deadline, we will know by Monday December 23rd. The obstruction article will then become disposable; it will have fulfilled its purpose.

The original lower court ruling approved the HJC request but limited the scope of the material to only that which Mueller included in his final report. So it’s not accidental that Nadler’s crew shaped an “obstruction” article considering two-thirds of Mueller’s report was structured around… wait for it…. yep, obstruction.

Conveniently a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence.

While twisted, this approach screams Lawfare…. that is, to make an indictment and then go fishing for the evidence to support that indictment. Evidence that, not accidentally, carries more political usefulness than the indictment it is intended to support.

Also, it is worth remembering HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Mary McCord as part of his contracted team effort. McCord was the DOJ-NatSec Division head who accompanied Sally Yates to the White House to confront Don McGhan about Lt. Gen. Flynn.

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

My suspicion is the articles of impeachment are a means to an end, and not the end itself.

Defeating and destroying President Trump is the goal, by any means necessary.

This severe type of goal is not guaranteed by relying on a republican Senate to remove him. More extreme Lawfare measures are needed…