The legacy of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is a legacy of abject shame. Today the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the issue of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census back to the Commerce Department. The justices did not decide the question was unconstitutional, quite the opposite, they indicated the question was entirely up to the Dept. of Commerce, but disputed the motive behind the Commerce dept. position.
The court holds that addition of question about citizenship to 2020 census does notviolate Constitution’s enumerations clause or the Census Act, but that district court was warranted in remanding case to Department of Commerce to provide a non-pretextual explanation for adding the question.
The majority of the Court, with Roberts concurring, punted the issue back to Commerce by noting esoteric concerns about the motives behind the administrative procedure for adding the question. In essence, Secretary Wilbur Ross can add the question, but his current motive for adding the question was rebuked. Yes, this is ridiculous. Hence, the punt.
“The evidence showed,” Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”
Roberts acknowledged that courts should be “deferential” when reviewing an agency’s action, but he countered – citing Judge Henry Friendly, for whom he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – that “we are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” And here, when “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” judicial review calls for “something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” “In these unusual circumstances,” Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation. (read more)
President Trump responded with a few tweets, noting how ridiculous the ruling was – And Trump is entirely correct:
Common sense would tell you, if there’s no constitutional issue with adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census, then the issue of the Commerce Department motive behind the question is moot. It is constitutionally permissible to ask the question, meaning it is legal, and therefore FULL STOP.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross can have any motive for adding the question, the court only disagreed with the context of the current motive saying there was a disconnect in the commerce department reasoning.
To me it looks like Chief Justice Roberts wanted to split the baby: yes, the question is constitutional and therefore legally permissible; however, the court will block the actual implementation by running out the clock based on a repudiation of irrelevant motive.
As to why Justice Roberts is a manipulative political weasel within the High Court, consider this:
In the Obamacare decision Roberts dismissed the motive issue where the government claimed the originating legislation for the healthcare mandate was a “Fee” not a tax; and Roberts manufactured the mandate argument into a “Tax” to support the mandate. In essence Roberts completely ignored the motive of the government lying about the architecture of the Obamacare payment mechanism in order for the court to support the unconstitutional mandate.
In Obamacare, the government motive was irrelevant to Roberts, so long as his court could re-write the architecture (an unconstitutional ‘fee’ became a constitutional ‘tax’) to grant constitutionality for the unconstitutional foundation of Obamacare.
However, in the Census citizenship question… government motives are now, apparently, everything that matters. In a reverse of his prior Obamacare logic, Roberts is using the motive of the government to thwart a completely constitutional administrative procedure.
See the weasel?
In the previous case Roberts ignored motive so that the court could turn an unconstitutional law into a constitutional court decision. In this case Roberts demands motive to turn a constitutional regulation into a court decision to block implementation.
Alan Dershowitz appears with two panel members of the ‘Tick-Tock-Boom club’ to discuss the potential of Robert Mueller’s testimony.
.
On the issue of the May 16th, 2017, Mueller trip to the White House raised by ‘tick-tock’ chairman Greg Jarrett, his emphasis is on the wrong syllable.
If Mueller does appear before congress the substance of Mueller’s White House visit should be ignored, and his status within the visit should be the focus. Not to beat a dead horse, but the purpose of Rosenstein taking Mueller to the White House had nothing to do with Mueller as a candidate for FBI Director.
Congress needs to skip the BS, and get right to the heart of the issue. Here is five Minutes of rapid fire questions for Mueller on this subject:
♦On May 16, 2017, were you applying to become FBI Director?
♦Why did you go to the White House?
♦When did Rod Rosenstein contact you about going to the White House?
♦When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
♦Did you speak to any members of the DOJ or FBI prior to going to the White House?
♦Were there conversations about a possible ‘special counsel position’ prior to May 16th, 2017?
♦Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
♦Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
♦Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?
♦Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
♦Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
♦Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
♦How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
♦Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
♦How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?
See where this line of questioning goes?
The dynamic here is pretty damned obvious.
There was less than 24 hours between the time Mueller and Rosenstein were in the Oval Office (May 16th), and the time Rosenstein told the Gang-of-Eight that Mueller was appointed Special Counsel (May 17th).
That’s not a lot of time for discussion and contemplation by Mueller. Yet, Rosenstein confirmed Mueller’s appointment to the Gang-of-Eight less than 24 hours after the oval office meeting.
So it stands to reason the first contact about the position happened prior to the May 16th Oval Office meeting. If accurate, Mueller was aware Trump was under investigation, AND Mueller was aware he could be special counsel to take over the investigation prior to the Oval Office meeting.
I’ll bet you a dozen donuts the entire purpose of the Oval Office meeting with Mueller was part of the FBI investigation…. and Mueller’s cell phone wasn’t actually Mueller’s cell phone… it was an FBI phone set up so that McCabe’s investigators could listen to the conversation with the target of the investigation, President Trump.
Occam’s Razor – A former FBI Director… meeting with the president of the United States… in the oval office…. in the middle of one of the more consequential time-periods in history… immediately after the firing of the former FBI Director… with family and a network of friends curious as to the outcome…. who is also communicating with the Deputy Attorney General… doesn’t *accidentally* leave his cell phone in the Oval Office.
That background allows people to absorb the intent and motivations of the Special Counsel investigation. How many people even know Robert Mueller interviewed President Donald Trump six days after the FBI launched a criminal “obstruction of justice” investigation, and ten months after the FBI launched the counterintelligence investigation….
..The May 16, 2017, Mueller meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office.
The Mueller Report shows there never was a Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy case to begin with; and with the report showing how most of Mueller’s investigative time was spent gathering evidence for an ‘obstruction case’; and with new revelations from Andrew McCabe, John Dowd and Mueller officials overlayed on the previous Strzok/Page texts; we can now clearly reconcile the May 16th, 2017, meeting between President Trump, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller. Here’s how…
FBI Director James Comey was fired on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
These McCabe statements line up with with text message conversations between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok – (same dates 5/9 and 5/10):
It now appears that important redaction is “POTUS” or “TRUMP”. [Yes, this is evidence that some unknown DOJ officials redacted information from these texts that would have pointed directly to the intents of the DOJ and FBI. [WARNING: Don’t get hung on it.]
The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”
McCabe responded: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”
However, again referencing his own admissions, on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before. According to McCabe:
… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)
Recap: Tuesday: Comey Fired; Wednesday: McCabe starts criminal ‘obstruction’ case; Thursday: McCabe testifies to congress “no effort to impede”; Friday: McCabe and Rosenstein discuss appointing a Special Counsel.
After the weekend, Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”
Now, overlaying what we know now that we did not know in 2018, to include the John Dowd interview and McCabe admissions, a very clear picture emerges.
On Tuesday May 16th, Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to talk with the target of the ‘obstruction’ criminal investigation, Donald Trump, under the ruse of bringing Mueller in for a meeting about becoming FBI Director.
Knowing McCabe launched a criminal obstruction investigation six days earlier (May 10th); and knowing Mueller was ineligible for the position of FBI Director; this “meeting” looks entirely different.
This meeting looks like an opportunity to gather evidence for the obstruction case.
Heck, perhaps this meeting was even recorded as part of the FBI investigation.
Remember the Rosenstein ‘wear a wire‘ debates? Well, did Rosenstein need to actually wear a wire, or did soon-to-be appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller just carry the recording device into an undercover deposition?… Consider:
WASHINGTON – Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former acting FBI director, reveals in his new book that Robert Mueller temporarily left his cell phone behind after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office and that the phone “later had to be retrieved.”
McCabe did not explain why he included the detail in his book.
McCabe says that Mueller left the phone behind after Trump had interviewed Mueller as a potential candidate to replace James Comey as FBI director. The interview reportedly took place in the Oval Office just one day before Mueller had been appointed special counsel in the so-called Russia collusion case. (more)
Oh, I think I know why McCabe included the detail in his book… leverage.
In combination with the ‘wear a wire’ comments, McCabe’s stealth book note is a shot across the bow to Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller. Only the insider ‘small group’ would understand what McCabe is threatening. It’s a get out of jail free card that McCabe played to escape the clutches of the 2018 DC criminal referral.
McCabe telling Rosenstein: Don’t try to put yourself of a pedestal and act like you were not a direct participant in the investigation of President Trump; remember the May 16th, operation? And, guess what…. it looks like it worked.
[This would explain why DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu dropped the case against McCabe?]
The next day, Wednesday May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”
[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)
Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.
According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group. Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.
Now, with hindsight and full understanding of exactly what the purposes and intents were for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to bring Robert Mueller to the White House, revisit this video from June 2017:
.
The DOJ (Rosenstein) and FBI (McCabe) activity in coordination with the Robert Mueller team was always about the obstruction case from day one; heck, from even before Robert Mueller was appointed.
The totality of all primary effort has always been to protect the ruse of the Russia investigation by throwing out nonsense Russian indictments and keeping Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos (the original spygate targets) under control…. while the focus was on building the obstruction case against President Trump. Remember what FBI Agent Peter Strzok said:
…”you and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
Mueller’s investigative ‘small group’ were the people inside Main Justice (DOJ) and FBI headquarters who redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages, and removed messages and communication antithetical to their goals.
As Devin Nunes outlined recently the Mueller team also kept key documents and information away from congress; stalled any effort to expose the unlawful aspects of “SpyGate’ and the fraudulent foundation behind the Carter Page FISA application; and undermined any adverse discoveries in the leak investigations (James Wolfe) writ large.
This investigative small group didn’t change when Mueller arrived, they just retooled the focus of their effort based on new leadership and new objectives. Those who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy case of 2016, evolved into creating the Trump obstructing justice case of 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Everything Mueller and Rosenstein were doing in late 2017 and throughout 2018 was intended to drag-out the Russia conspiracy narrative as long as possible, even though there was no actual Trump-Russia investigation taking place. The goal for the “small group” was to bury the risk by Democrats winning the 2018 mid-terms.
It was always the “obstruction” investigation that could lead to the desired result by Mueller’s team of taking down President Trump through evidence that would help Pelosi and Nadler achieve impeachment . The “obstruction case” was the entirety of the case they were trying to make from May 2017 through to March 2019.
All of the hostile DOJ and FBI action toward the people within the targeting of the investigation: Targeting Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr; Paul Manafort’s early morning no-knock FBI raid; Michael Cohen’s FBI office raid; Roger Stone’s FBI and SWAT team raid; etc… All of it, was designed to provoke President Trump into taking action that would further fuel the ‘obstruction‘ case. It was all BAIT.
[¹] Now we know why House Speaker Paul Ryan moved to sideline Devin Nunes under the cloud of an ethics investigation.
QUESTION: Hi Martin,
I have been reading your blog for about 5yrs now.
Do you think that the Alabama “anti-abortion” bill could be one of the fundamentals hurling the USA towards the massive civil unrest that is Socrates model is predicting? The Alabama bill passing seems similar to events leading up to the US Civil war in the timeframe of 1830-1861 in which states were passing laws/court rulings that forced the Supreme Court to make decisions (i.e. Dredd Scott and others) that ultimately lead to secession and war.
thanks!
FB
ANSWER: Not this one issue. It is accumulative and illustrates the differences culturally within the United States on a regional basis. Clearly, what the culture is in California has a polar opposite view in Alabama.
Fox News contributor Dan Bongino and Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera respond to the latest news that Robert Mueller has agreed to testify to the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on Wednesday, July 17th.
[Toward the end of the panel segment Mr. Bongino has some additional insight into the Michael Flynn situation]
Well, it looks like the gang has a plan… the details are sketchy, but the picture of the construction is visible. According to Adam Schiff, Robert Mueller has agreed to deliver congressional testimony to a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th.
♦ First, to frame the narrative for the appearance, HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff releases a letter signed by *only* Nadler and Schiff, that “threatened” a subpoena. This subpoena letter is a prop for a pre-planned theatrical event. How do we know? Because only Schiff and Nadler signed it (no coordination with ranking members). It’s an optic to set the cornerstone for a narrative that Schiff and Nadler want Mueller’s appearance.
♦ Second, the joint committee approach is also part of the strategy. With 40 members from both committees there will intentionally only be ONE ROUND of questions. The size of the committee is part of the design to protect Robert Mueller. Those who follow politics closely will immediately note this motive.
Knowing Mueller was in deep discussions with Schiff and Nadler to coordinate the appearance, the optic of the letter and the size of the committee are the first two immediate flares that indicate a staged performance is being set-up.
Here’s the letter:
Three days ago CTH shared: “Shifty, Pelosi and Nadler have to be very careful with Mueller to avoid exposing the coordinated enterprise behind the two-year Rosenstein, Weissmann and Mueller scheme. It will be interesting to see how they plan it out.”
Now we have a little more information. Watch what details surface over the next few weeks; just like the letter and the joint committee issues, I guarantee you we’ll see the construct of a completely manufactured event.
Keep watching.
Adam Schiff
✔@RepAdamSchiff
Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before Congress pursuant to subpoena. Russia attacked our democracy to help Trump win. Trump welcomed and used that help. As Mueller said, that should concern every American. And now, every American will get to hear directly from Mueller.
In March 2017 CTH first highlighted statements by Evelyn Farkas that described a coordinated effort from within the Obama administration to push political opposition research, gathered by the intelligence community, into the media.
Jay Sekulow now discovers documents that highlight the Obama administration’s efforts in their last days in office. This effort backstops Farkas’s earlier statements. First, from Sekulow:
(Via Fox Op-ed) – Stunning new information just released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) shows that the Obama administration stepped up efforts – just days before President Trump took office – to undermine Trump and his administration.
The ACLJ, where I serve as chief counsel, has obtained records that show the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, under Director James Clapper, eagerly pushed to get new procedures as part of an anti-Trump effort. The procedures increased access to raw signals intelligence before the conclusion of the Obama administration, just days before President Trump was inaugurated.
By greatly expanding access to classified information by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, the Obama administration paved the way for a shadow government to leak classified information – endangering our national security and severely jeopardizing the integrity and reputation of our critical national security apparatus – in an attempt to undermine President Trump.
The documents confirmed what we suspected: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence rushed to get the new “procedures signed by the Attorney General before the conclusion of this administration,” referring to the Obama administration.
The documents also reveal that Robert Litt, who worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense’s Director of Intelligence Strategy, Policy, & Integration: “Really want to get this done … and so does the Boss.” Presumably “the Boss” is a reference to Director Clapper.
And documents the ACLJ received that were produced by the National Security Agency show that NSA officials discussed that they “could have a signature from the AG as early as this week, certainly prior to the 20th of Jan.” In other words, certainly before President Trump’s inauguration. (more from Sekulow)
Overlay Sekulow’s January 2017 documents with the statements from Evelyn Farkas and a clear picture emerges. Here’s Farkas from March 28, 2017:
[TRANSCRIPT] “I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”
“So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to [Democrat politicians].”
With the help of MSNBC, simultaneous to her admission of first-hand specific knowledge of the administration spying on candidate and president-elect Trump, Ms. Evelyn Farkas outed herself as the key source for a March 2017 New York Times report which discussed President Obama officials leaking classified information to media.
Considerable irony jumps to the forefront when you recognize, the New York Times tried on March 1st, 2017, to protect Evelyn Farkas as the source of their reporting by stating:
“More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret.” (link)
One of the reasons why the Flynn legal situation is so interesting is not really because of Flynn himself; but rather because the Flynn situation is a likely example of President Obama’s surveillance network in operation.
Tenuous legal theories (Logan Act) and obscure laws (technical FARA violations) appear to have been exploited by DOJ administration officials, in close ideological alignment with the Lawfare Group. In association with overall Obama administration officials, the fellow travelers used the legal system to create a DC surveillance network.
At the 30,000 ft. level Obama’s surveillance network looks like this:
• White House identifies a target; •passes request to the DOJ National Security Division (middlemen); •who then use the auspices of possible FARA violations to pass the instructions to the FBI contractors; •who data-mine the NSA database.
•The FBI results are then passed back to the DOJ-NSD; •who weaponize the information for FISA applications (becomes legal cover); and •pass the authorized surveillance (spying) results back to the White House etc.
It’s a circle of surveillance activity that could encompass almost every politician in Washington DC as they network with foreign lobbyists and special interests.
Those warrants then permit surveillance and the unwitting targets can infect anyone they come into contact with.
Using this process unwitting targets would be carrying surveillance like an ebola virus, and the Obama administration would be monitoring almost everyone in Washington DC.
Throughout the weaponized process there’s an element of plausible deniability, and a tenuous legal justification to protect the participants. If questioned the first line of defense would be to assert National Security; and almost all of the activity would be considered “classified”.
Obviously the purposes and intents of the surveillance would be political. However, by using The Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), there’s a useful legal cover story. Exploiting the NSA database also ties in neatly to this process. The database is how the FBI would get the evidence for the DOJ-NSD FISA applications.
Restrictions on Title III 4th amendment privacy protections are worked-around by using Title-1 national security claims; and conveniently everything around FISA is classified.
It is not coincidental that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were all charged or threatened with FARA violations. Additionally, in the one known FISA application Carter Page was called an “agent of a foreign government”.
Extending the legal theory into action, the Special Counsel, and particularly DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, can be viewed as simply charging forward with a pre-existing process all the special counsel participants were familiar with.
Michael Flynn is a case-study in the exact type of target this process would be perfect to ensnare. [Explained Here] Now, whether what’s left of Flynn’s case is enough to drag this political surveillance system into the sunlight is yet to be seen. However, as explained, this is why Flynn’s case is so interesting.
That said, here’s the status hearing from yesterday:
Per DOJ IG, FARA prosecutions are very rare. 7 in 50+ years.
The reason for this may be that the NSD has decided to focus on 18 USC 951.
Why Section 951? Because they can go after “political or non-political activities of agents under the control of foreign governments.”
Techno Fog@Techno_Fog
The NSD Officials say “a Section 951 case generally involves espionage-like or clandestine behavior… or a connection to an intelligence service”
Meanwhile, the FBI’s system “commingles both FARA and Section 951 cases.”
There’s no reason to prosecute FARA violations when the more robust Section 951 is available for intelligence collection.
Case in point: General Flynn.
Potential charge: Not FARA (618) but Section 951.
Techno Fog@Techno_Fog
Section 951 (foreign agent) would have been the tool used to gain a FISA warrant on Flynn – whether through the Turkey work or through the IC’s use of Halper.
This may also explain Judge Sullivan’s freak out over “treason” and Mueller’s mention of the Espionage Act re: Flynn.
Stephen Green finds a way to talk about one of Google’s forbidden topics without going broke. He’s forced to refer to certain companion robots as “knitting” bots to avoid getting flagged and demonetized for appealing to prurient interests. Together with Bill Whittle and Scott Ott, Steve examines the benefits and drawbacks of these high-tech “knitting bots” while trying to avoid Google and YouTube’s secret defamation. If you think we need more free speech, not less, join the people who made this show. They run their own private blog away from Google’s prying eyes at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
E Jean Carrol made headlines recently with her rather bizarre and sketchy claims of a forced sexual encounter with Donald Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room two decades ago. President Trump denies even knowing who she is…. but the media, well, you know…. OrangeManBad; so anything goes.
In addition to personifying an abject lack of credibility Ms. Carrol just imploded on CNN with Anderson Cooper, explaining her definition of rape is not sexual, nor doe it include sex. However, before getting to that recent development, a historic reference to Ms. Carrol is, well, weird.
(h/t BAXT3R) In 1995 E. Jean Carroll shares her unique perspectives on an Esquire article, “Do Women Love Men?” and discusses changing gender roles with Charlie Rose:
At this point it’s difficult to imagine anyone lending credibility to this claim. Then again, this is 2019, and the media is fraught with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.
If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).
In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail. In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]
.
However, in the two years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?
The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was under FISC authorized active surveillance. Here’s how we know.
♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper. As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant. “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:
The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental. Flynn was actively being monitored. Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant.
♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:
Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, after John Carlin left in October of 2016. McCord would have signed-off on the Flynn FISA warrant, or any extension therein, throughout the Trump transition period.
[McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]
♦ Third, from the 2017 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), when Devin Nunes was Chairman, the four targets of the Trump campaign -under investigation throughout 2016- were outlined:
SUMMARY: ♦In real time Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying the “incidental contact” (unmasking) narrative was incorrect. ♦Then Devin Nunes outlines the targets of the 2016 FBI investigation which included Flynn. ♦Then Robert Mueller says Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 phone call with Kislyak.
Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the FISA court granting a surveillance warrant.
The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail to an unmasking request. The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and FISC authorized surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.
There are only three options:
Incidental collection = unmasking request.
Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.
All of the evidence from documents over the past two years indicates #2 was the status of Michael Flynn at the time of the Sergey Kislak call.
The incoming National Security Advisor of President-Elect Donald Trump was under active FBI surveillance as granted by the FISA court. That’s how the FBI intercepted the phone call with Sergey Kislyak and why there’s no unmasking request.
This doesn’t deal with the propriety of the FISA warrant, or the legal basis, the legal predicate that must exist prior to granting the FISA warrant. However, accepting that Michael Flynn was under court approved surveillance reconciles all the issues.
Additionally, this would explain two more issues. #1) President Obama warning incoming President Trump not to hire Michael Flynn as his Nat. Sec. Advisor; and #2) a very strong possibility that Flynn’s status is the redacted paragraph in the January 20th, 2016, Susan Rice memo.
At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self. Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered. Here’s the email:
“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“.
The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”
[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]
“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”
I would suggest the redacted section relates to President Trump being under FBI investigation; and NSA Advisor Michael Flynn being under investigation and FISA surveillance. Hence the issues with “sharing information”.
While Michael Flynn being under active FISC authorized surveillance would indicate there’s no need for unmasking of Flynn, there would be a need for unmasking of everyone else captured within the Flynn surveillance. Hence the dozens of White House unmaskings identified by Devin Nunes in March 2017.
Additionally, Flynn being under FISA authorized surveillance still doesn’t excuse the leak -likely by Andrew McCabe- to the Washington Post about the phone contact between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.
There are likely multiple FBI 302 reports on all sorts of contacts by Michael Flynn; as the FBI was investigating and updating their files.
This FBI surveillance background of Flynn would also reconcile another unusual date within the Mueller report. An FBI 302 written on January 19th, 2017,before the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, about Kislyak:
Flynn was under surveillance and the FBI reports on Flynn’s surveillance did not start with the January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn – As you can see above there are FBI 302 reports that preceded it. [h/t Techno Fog] This aligns with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Mary McCord, Devin Nunes and Robert Mueller all saying Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 Kislyak call.
Lastly, release and unredact the Comey memos, and Flynn’s status under a FISA warrant is likely outlined by copious Comey CYA diary entries.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 