U.S. Attorney John Durham issued a statement contradicting a key and consequential  conclusion of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and reads in part:

…”last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agreewith some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

The reason for this conflict, and immediate rebuke by Durham, is stunningly clear on Page ii of the executive summary as highlighted below.  This is a very important element, and needs to be contemplated in its totality:

What inspector general Horowitz outlines in that key section is that: (A) he has reviewed everything, and talked to everyone (current and former) within the FBI; and (B) the ONLY evidence they FBI cited for the opening of Crossfire Hurricane is the singular conversation between George Papadopoulos and Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer and/or Downer’s asst. Erika Thompson.

That’s it.  Nothing else.

There is no other predicate evidence from the FBI investigative unit other than a singular conversation between Alexander Downer/Erika Thompson and George Papadopoulos.

Nothing before that July 26, 2016, contact by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer relaying a conversation with Downer on May 10th, 2016, is cited by the FBI as having anything to do with opening Crossfire Hurricane (started on July 31st).

That conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was George Papadopoulos relaying a rumor he heard from Joseph Mifsud is the totality of evidence used to initiate Crossfire Hurricane.

This investigative predicate is where Durham and Horowitz have a conflict.  Horowitz says the predicate was justified, Durham says not-so-much.

So the totality of the variables to create a conflict is very small.  Papadopoulos, Downer and Mifsud.

Durham says: “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened“.  This is important because the difference between the inspector general and the U.S. attorney is that John Durham has interviewed Downer and Mifsud, and Horowitz has not.

Therefore for Durham to state the predication was not justified, has to come from his contact with Ambassador Downer or Joseph Mifsud.

However, stay with me, Alexander Downer is not really a variable in this dynamic. Assuming Downer is honest, and there’s nothing indicating inconsistency in the public comments he has made about this contact.  Downer had a conversation on May 10th, weeks later he relayed what he felt was his best interpretation of that conversation on July 26th. There’s not a lot of variable in that sequence.

The variable in this small group dynamic is Joseph Mifsud, and the only variable within the Papadopoulos-Mifsud interplay is the background and purpose of Mifsud.

Horowitz has eliminated all predicate variables on his end by stating all FBI witnesses and all FBI documents agree the Downer contact with the FBI initiated the investigation.  The only variable on the Durham end is…. yep, the background and purpose of Joseph Mifsud.

If Durham is disputing the validity of “predication and how the FBI case was opened”, then it’s the predicate behind Joseph Mifsud driving the dispute. This almost guarantees that Mifsud was *NOT* the Russian operative that current FBI and Intelligence Officials have stated he was or is.

From Page 56 of the IG report:

We also asked those FBI officials involved in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane whether the FBI received any other information, such as from members of the USIC, that the FBI relied upon to predicate Crossfire Hurricane. All of them told us that there was no such information and that predication for the case was based solely on the FFG information.169

We also asked Comey and McCabe about then CIA Director John Brennan’s statements reported in several news articles that he provided to the FBI intelligence on Russian contacts with U.S. persons that predicated or prompted the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Comney told us that while Brennan shared intelligence on the overarching efforts by the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, Brennan did not provide any information that predicated or prompted the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.

McCabe said that he did not recall Brennan providing the FBI with information before the FBI’s decision to open an investigation about any U .S person potentially cooperating with Russia in the efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. Priestap and the Intel Section Chief also told us that Brennan did not provide the FBI any intelligence that predicated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. We did not find information in FBI or Department electronic communications, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating otherwise. [Page 59 IG Report pdf]

Chapter 3 of the IG report clearly outlines a presumption by all FBI officials that Joseph Mifsud was acting on behalf of the Russian government.  Again, Horowitz eliminates more variables.

The only thing remaining is the conflict between Durham and Horowitz on this predicate issue; and eliminating all other possibilities for the strength of the disagreement expressed by Durham only one reasonable aspect remains to reconcile the disparity:

Joseph Mifsud wasn’t an FBI operative (not in the CHS database); but also Joseph Mifsud was not a Russian operative (hence predicate issue).

Someone else was running Mifsud on behalf of the background effort.

My hunch is CIA asset Stefan Halper was running/instructing Mifsud, thereby creating plausible deniability for the CIA and John Brennan.  Whoever it was, Durham knows.

U.S. Attorney John Durham is currently doing a criminal investigation into how the intelligence community, CIA, ODNI and DOJ/FBI originated the investigation of candidate Donald Trump.  U.S. Attorney Durham does not agree with the conclusions presented by Inspector General Horowitz:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.

Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”(link)

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr releases the following statement after the release of a 21-month investigative report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz:

FBI Director Christopher Wray releases a letter submitted to U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr after the IG Horowitz findings of wrongdoing within the FBI FISA process:

[VIA FBI] Dear Inspector General Horowitz:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report titled, “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation” (Report).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the OIG’s crucial independent oversight role and the thoroughness and professionalism your office brought to this work. The Report’s findings and recommendations represent constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization.

We also appreciate the Report’s recognition that the FBI cooperated fully with this review and provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the OIG, including highly classified and sensitive material involving national security.

The Report concludes that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related investigations of certain individuals were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with adequate factual predication.

The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel, at times during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OIG, did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI.

We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.

Accordingly, the FBI accepts the Report’s findings and embraces the need for thoughtful, meaningful remedial action. I have ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the Report’s recommendations.

Because our credibility and brand are central to fulfilling our mission, we are also making improvements beyond those recommended by the OIG. And where certain individuals have been referred by the OIG for review of their conduct, the FBI will not hesitate to take appropriate disciplinary action if warranted at the completion of the required procedures for disciplinary review.

Below is a summary of the actions we are taking, which we describe in more detail in the attachment to this letter.

First, we are modifying our processes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), both for initial applications and renewals, to enhance accuracy and completeness. The FBI relies on FISA every day in national security investigations to prevent terrorists and foreign intelligence services from harming the United States. We are making concrete changes to ensure that our FISA protocols, verifications, layers of review, record-keeping requirements, and audits are more stringent and less susceptible to mistake or inaccuracy. These new processes will also ensure that the FISA Court and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are apprised of all information in the FBI’s holdings relevant to a determination of probable cause.

Second, we undertook an extensive review of investigative activity based out of FBI Headquarters. The FBI is a field-based law enforcement organization, and the vast majority of our investigations should continue to be worked by our field offices. Moving forward, in the very rare instance when FBI Headquarters runs a sensitive investigation, we are requiring prior approval by the FBI Deputy Director and consultation with the Assistant Director in Charge or Special Agent in Charge of the affected field offices.

Third, we are making significant changes to how the FBI manages its Confidential Human Source (CHS) Program. Many FBI investigations rely on human sources, but the investigative value derived from CHS-provided information rests in part on the CHS’s credibility, which demands rigorous assessment of the source. The modifications we are making to how the FBI collects, documents, and shares information about CHSs will strengthen our assessment of the information these sources are providing.

Fourth, I am establishing new protocols for the FBI’s participation in Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)-led counterintelligence transition briefings (i.e., strategic intelligence briefings) provided to presidential nominees. The FBI’s role in these briefings should be for national security purposes and not for investigative purposes. Continued participation by the FBI in these transition briefings is critical to ensuring continuity in the event of a change in administrations. The new FBI protocols about transition briefings will complement procedures already implemented by the FBI earlier this year to govern the separate category of defensive briefings. The FBI gives defensive briefings, which are based on specific threat information, in a wide variety of contexts and for myriad federal, state, and other public and private individuals and entities. The procedures we recently established for defensive briefings regarding malign foreign influence efforts have brought a new rigor and discipline to whether and how such briefings should proceed.

Fifth, I am mandating a specialized, semiannual training requirement for FBI personnel at all levels who handle FISA and CHS matters. This training will be experience-based, and it will cover specific lessons learned from this Report, along with other new and revised material. Earlier in my tenure as Director, I reinstated an annual ethics training program for all FBI employees, because I learned the training had been discontinued in prior years. While that training was not introduced in response to this Report, all current FBI employees involved in the 2016-2017 events reviewed by the OIG have since completed this additional training in ethics and professional responsibility.

Finally, we will review the performance and conduct of certain FBI employees who were referenced in the Report’s recommendations — including managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time. The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted. Notably, many of the employees described in the report are no longer employed at the FBI.  (read more)

The House Judiciary Committee holds their second impeachment inquiry hearing at 9:00am ET. Presentations from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and House Judiciary Committee.

Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke (representing the majority) and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor (representing the minority) will make opening arguments to the House Judiciary Committee. Lawfare Counsel Daniel Goldman & Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke will then present the evidence for impeachment. House judiciary member questioning will likely follow last week’s questioning of academic impeachment experts.

C-SPAN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link

.

.

Today the Dept. of Justice Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will release the much anticipated report covering a 21-month review of FBI and DOJ compliance with legal requirements surrounding FISA and the application against U.S. person Carter Page.

The report is rumored to be well over 600 pages.  It will BE RELEASED HERE.

The report was published at 1:00pm – The Report is only 476 Pages

PDF of REPORT HERE – Read on Oversight Here– Press Release HERE

Use this thread as an open discussion and research thread  specific to the content of the IG report when released.

Things to keep in mind…

First, with a volume of text over 600 pages, and potentially as high as 1,000 pages, there is no immediate analysis you will find in the media today based on a review of the report.  The report is simply too long to read, review and outline today.

Therefore all of the MSM journalists will likely be reporting from pre-written talking points distributed by officials with a vested interest in shaping opinion of the report immediately upon release.

From my own experience, even after several days very few journalists will have actually even read the full report; they will instead be working from selected segments of the report as outlined by others.

It is strongly suggested you read the report for yourself, draw your own conclusions, and don’t rely on what could be sections taken out of context.  Obviously crowdsourcing the report is one of the fastest ways to absorb information in a discussion thread.

Secondly, keep in mind while the IG review began in March 2018 the Mueller investigation almost certainly kept many aspects of the material shielded from IG inquiry until the special counsel investigation ended.  Indeed as we have seen from other material delayed throughout 2018, up to March 2019 when the Mueller probe ended, many documents were hidden (likely intentionally) by the special counsel.  So a full unimpeded IG review likely did not begin until after the Mueller investigation concluded. Hence, some delays.

♦Use this thread to share any information you find of value within the report.  As previously noted MAKE SURE you give a page number for anything you cite.  This helps others who are doing a similar review.

♦Be on the lookout for any material inside the IG report that stems from the list of classified documents previously requested to be declassified by congress.  If you note any of that material again please give citations. [Declassification Reference List Here]

♦It will be disappointing if the IG release does not also bring forth a considerable amount of declassified documentary material in support of the findings.  Arguably the list for declassification is more important than the IG report itself.

♦As soon as the report is released CTH will share direct links and attempt to download and upload into a shareable, hopefully searchable, and embed format.  If it is a big report this can sometimes be problematic.

♦Be on the lookout for the report around Noon to 1:00pm Eastern.  OIG Website HERE

Rudy Giuliani traveled to Ukraine with OAN investigative journalist Chanel Rion.  The U.S. media are going absolutely bananas after finding out Giuliani is now gathering even more information about Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt endeavors within Ukraine.

In this interview former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin spoke to OAN about Joe Biden’s direct role in getting his office to stop investigating his son Hunter.  The problem for Joe Biden was when Shokin seized all of Burisma’s assets the Ukranian gas company could no longer pay his son Hunter Biden.  So the vice president demanded Shokin be removed.

.

When you combine this interview with the damning public statements delivered by the Ukraine prosecutor that replaced Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko, things really get troublesome for Joe Biden, the Obama administration and Adam Schiff.

Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko stated that after he replaced Shokin he was visited by U.S. State Dept. official George Kent and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch; they provided a list of corruption cases the Ukraine government was not permitted to follow.

Prosecutor Lutsenko dropping specific corruption cases was critical because that allowed/enabled a process of laundering money back to U.S. officials.  [SEE HERE]

The potential for this background story to become part of a larger impeachment discovery is what has the U.S. media going bananas against Rudy Giuliani.

Senator Lindsey Graham is directly connected to the group of U.S. politicians who were participating in the influence network within Ukraine.  One of the downstream consequences of Rudy Giuliani investigating the Ukraine corruption and money laundering operation to U.S. officials is that it ends up catching Senator Graham.

Hence, earlier today Senator Graham said he would not permit Senate impeachment testimony that touched on this corrupt Ukraine aspect.

In essence Senator Graham is fearful that too much inquiry into what took place with Ukraine from 2014 through 2016 will expose his own participation and effort along with former Ambassador Marie Yovanovich.

Graham is attempting to end the impeachment effort quickly because the underlying discoveries have the potential to expose the network of congressional influence agents, John McCain and Graham himself included, during any witness testimony.

Senators from both parties participated in the influence process, and part of their influence priority was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting fellow participant Joe Biden and his family.

If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus.  President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.  Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup. The Giuliani letter:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because in reality many U.S. Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.

Those same senators are jurists on a pending impeachment trial of President Trump who is attempting to stop the corrupt financial processes they have been benefiting from.

The conflicts are very swampy….

FUBAR.

.

Rudy Giuliani went to the Ukraine with an investigative journalist team from One America News Network and boy howdy are the democrats going bananas all over again.

In this interview Margaret Brennan sits with jaw agape as she questions Mark Meadows about the latest information that Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine. WATCH:

.

The DNC media is really worried about anyone going to Ukraine.  The over-reactions indicate something very politically damaging to them must emanate from Ukraine.