House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his ongoing investigation into the DOJ and FBI.  Chairman Goodlatte holds primary oversight authority over the entire Justice Department.

Part of the conversation turns very interesting, and provides an indicator into the next phase, when Bartiromo mentions messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Attorney Lisa Page surrounding an intent to “destroy evidence”, during their participation in the Clinton investigation.  WATCH:

.

Additionally, it must be noted how the narrative engineers are specifically misleading everyone with their ‘memo reporting’.  They intentionally overlook the distinction between U.S. branches of government and the separation of power as it relates to Chairman Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Memo.

There is a great deal of intellectual dishonesty within media as they discuss the FBI and DOJ demanding to see the Nunes memo prior to its release.

The FBI and DOJ are part of the executive branch. When the House Intelligence Committee votes to release the Nunes Memo, they are in fact giving that memo to the executive branch (President Trump) prior to release.

President Trump is the head of the executive branch. The DOJ and FBI are within the executive branch. When Nunes releases the House Intel memo to the executive branch, they are giving the memo to the FBI and DOJ in advance of public release.

It is not up to Chairman Nunes to decide to give the memo to specific leadership within the FBI or DOJ; that decision is entirely up to President Trump who is the boss over the FBI and DOJ leaders who are demanding to see it.

By accurately following the statutory and constitutionally mandated balance of power, the corrupt entities within the FBI are asking the wrong person to see the evidence. If the FBI or DOJ wants to see the memo in advance, they need to ask President Trump, not Devin Nunes.

Funny how the media spins a story without actually looking at the reality of our governmental structure.

[(L-R) Goodlatte, Grassley and Nunes (legislative branch)]

[(L-R) Sessions, Rosenstein, Wray (Executive Branch)]

In the past eight weeks a stunning amount of evidence has been accumulating that shows how the Obama Administration weaponized the FBI and DOJ and launched a political campaign spying operation into candidate Donald Trump.

There have been daily revelations showing a considerable collaboration between the White House, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson; his wife Mary Jacoby, DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr, Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page; and the highest levels of officials within the FBI, including Chief Legal Counsel James Baker and FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe.

All of the evidence points in one transparently obvious direction; toward a 2016 collaborative effort structured to use a counterintelligence operation to conduct wiretaps and surveillance on the presidential campaign of candidate Donald Trump.

Congressman Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News Sunday to discuss current DOJ and FBI issues surrounding the four-page House Intelligence memo.

All of the reasons to doubt the motives and intents of Trey Gowdy are present in this video (controlled opposition); to include all of the political media swamp defense maneuvers Chris Wallace is famous for.

On the night of Thursday December 7th, 2017 it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from the case against General Mike Flynn.  This recusal came five days after Judge Contreras accepted the initial pleading from Flynn.  Almost two months have passed, and there’s no explanation why?

(Reuters) The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday. (read more)

If sufficient judicial conflict existed on December 7th, why wasn’t that conflict present on December 1st, when Judge Contreras presided over Flynn’s initial pleading?

The story behind why U.S. District Court Judge would be recused, is transparently missing from any follow-up by media.  With all the current sunlight over possible manipulation of a FISA court application by the FBI, no-one seems curious if Judge Rudolph Contreras was the FBI’s FISA approval judge, and the U.S. DC Judge in the Flynn pleading.

The story has disappeared into the swamp; but the story is important.

There is a very strong possibility that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was forcibly recused by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, because Contreras is also the FISA Court Judge who signed-off on the 2016 FISA application (warrant) that led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Flynn.  That FISA application is now being questioned.

(link)

The initial media report stated Judge Contreras “was recused” implying the decision was ultimately put upon him.  However, I repeat, if there was a conflict on December 7th, 2017 wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on December 1st (Flynn pleading).?

If the conflict did exist on December 1st, 2017, why did Contreras even allow himself to preside over the first hearing of General Mike Flynn’s rather odd guilty plea?

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/366062176/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QHaNTpsHk3My0BRqqECU

.

As more details surface, it is increasingly likely the DOJ/FBI  FISA application in 2016 was based on sketchy, perhaps fraudulent, information.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the DOJ/FBI, under the guise of a counterintelligence investigation, used the ‘Clinton Dossier’, political opposition research, to apply for FISA court approval to conduct surveillance on the campaign of Donald Trump .

According to mounting evidence, the DOJ National Security Division, headed by John P Carlin, was working with the FBI Counterintelligence Division, headed by H.W. “Bill” Priestap, to spy on the Trump campaign.

What are the rules of FISA (approval/warrant) cases where the warrant leads to a prosecution?  Is the FISA approving Judge allowed to preside over a federal case that is a direct outcome from the judge’s granting authority?

The only two significant things that happened between the initial Mike Flynn plea hearing (Dec 1st) and the recusal of Judge Contreras (Dec 7th) was:

#1) The stories about anti-Trump FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his involvement with Fusion-GPS and Christopher Steele hit the headlines; and

#2) FBI Director Chris Wray appeared before the House Judicial Committee and Representative Jim Jordan demanded the FBI show their 2016 FISA application material. (Hearing Dec. 7th)

In fact, Judge Contreras recused himself only a few hours after that House Judicial Committee hearing. These are all just general questions that stem from Judge Contreras appearing to concede to a conflict, but doing so only AFTER the first administrative hearing on the case.

Apparently no-one else is in the least bit curious; and absent of anyone seeking such clarity; it leads CTH to wonder if U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras wasn’t possibly the same judge that denied the initial FISA application in June/July of 2016.  According to what information is available the standard process for the rare instances where FISA-702 approvals are denied, is for any subsequent follow-up application to go to the same judge.

It’s very rare that a FISA application from the DOJ/FBI is denied. Considering the possibility the earlier denial was based, in part, on the target (candidate Donald Trump) of the FISA warrant; and considering the massive ramifications within the U.S. government applying to monitor, wiretap and use surveillance upon a presidential candidate; it would not be a stretch to think Judge Contreras might even establish a ‘higher threshold’ for granting such surveillance authority.

Given what we know now, that we did not know before, namely that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr were part of the counterintelligence operation that began in June/July 2016…. and understanding that Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, was working for Fusion GPS the contractor for Christopher Steele and the Clinton Dossier; [Ultimately hired by Hillary Clinton]  And accepting that the information within the dossier (whole or part) was within underlying 2016 FISA application, the legal construct of the FISA application is suspect.

The FISA issues get even more convoluted when you consider within this entire series of event you also have the NSA Director (Mike Rogers) and DOJ-NSD (John P Carlin) informing the FISA court in mid-October, 2016, that for multiple years FISA-702 searches had been occurring without court authorization; and the entire FISA-702 system had been abused.

The full FISA Court Ruling (declassified and released in April 2017 by DNI Dan Coaats) containing the 2016 admissions from the NSA and DOJ is below.  There’s a growing likelihood the admissions to the full FISA Court panel happened only a few days after Judge Rudolph Contreras approved the fraudulent FISA application to monitor Trump.

I pulled out a few sections [page 83, pdf] CRITICAL to understanding the scale of FISA abuse that was taking place:

Pg 83, 86. “FBI gave raw Section 702–acquired information to a private entity that was not a federal agency and whose personnel were not sufficiently supervised by a federal agency for compliance minimization procedures.”

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

.

Please pay close attention to this section, pg 84, [Note the date April 18th, 2016]:

Which takes us back to U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras.

Was Contreras forcibly recused by Chief Justice John Roberts (who controls the FISA court) as an outcome of concerns from the DOJ and FBI abuse of the “FISA System”, and because Judge Ruben Contreras was the presiding judge over all of the FBI applications therein throughout this counterintelligence operation?

Was Contreras ultimately seeing in Flynn’s appearance before him in court, evidence of what happened specifically because of DOJ fraud in the FISA process.

FUBAR

So many questions, and yet a transparent lack of overall curiosity around the recusal.

FBI SIDE: FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey.

Inside the DOJ: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr’s former boss was Asst. AG John P Carlin (National Security Division).  Carlin’s boss was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Sally Yates boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Since Thursday night we’ve been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in one of the most recently released text messages.  We have discovered the context and the text is now damning.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte read this specific text message on Thursday night during an interview with Sean Hannity:

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

“Jim” is likely James Baker, the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.

“Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

“Dave” and “Mike” currently remain unknown.

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

REFERENCE and RESOURCES:

• FBI September 2nd, 2016, Press Release HERE
• FBI Investigative Outline released September 2nd, 2016, HERE
• FBI Investigators Notes (302’s) as Released Sept., 2nd, 2016, HERE
• Chairman Bob Goodlatte Interview Video – HERE
• September 2nd, 2016, CTH Article Discussing FBI Release HERE

File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860635/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-HWBLlhbfv51rhuuPdJ8r

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860731/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-u0DDwNVYNippWK8p67Xs

.

Below is the list of things Hillary Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview, as compiled by Lifezette in 2016:

• When she received security clearance
• Being briefed on how to handle classified material
• How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
• Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
• How to select a target for a drone strike
• How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
• The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
• Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
• Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
• Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
• Getting guidance from state on email policy
• Who had access to her Blackberry account
• The process for deleting her emails
• Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
• Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
• Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
• Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
• Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
• Using an iPad mini
• An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
• Jacob Sullivan using personal email
• State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
• Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
• Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
• Being read out of her clearance
• Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.

Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department “related to the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information.”

Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs – the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence – but could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information.  Additional discoveries from September 2016:

DISCOVERY ONE: Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive “A Few Weeks After The New York TimesDisclosed” The Private Server. Viser Tweet: “A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox was deleted.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TWO: Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not “Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels.” Seitz-Wald Tweet: “Clinton said she didn’t know what (c) mark meant, didn’t pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY THREE: “There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn’t Turn Over To The State Inspector General.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FOUR: As Secretary Of State Clinton “Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads” With Her Private Email.Viser Tweet: “Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FIVE: Clinton’s Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: ‘FBI found 13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton’s 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn’t locate the devices” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SIX: “The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SEVEN: Clinton’s Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky Tweet: “In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail address to help” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY EIGHT: Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought “She Didn’t Need Them Anymore.”Cilizza Tweet: ‘Clinton told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn’t need them anymore not to avoid FOIA”(Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY NINE: Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton’s iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: “The FBI found that someone was trying to hack into Hillary Clinton’s iCloud account. They were unsuccessful.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TEN: “Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

BONUS DISCOVERY: “The Phrase ‘Could Not Recall’ Or ‘Did Not Recall’ Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview Transcript.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

We can only imagine what the FBI held back…

WASHINGTON – As part of their ongoing oversight efforts to ensure that the FBI’s law enforcement activities are free of improper political influence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday sent six letters seeking information and documents regarding Christopher Steele’s work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary for America.

The letters seek information and documents relating to those political organizations’ knowledge of and involvement in Mr. Steele’s work and his reported interactions with the FBI while he was working on behalf of these political organizations.

The letters were sent to:

• The Democratic National Committee (DNC)
• Hillary for America (HFA)
• Former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
• Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile
• HFA Chair John Podesta
• HFA Chief Strategist Joel Benenson

An example of the requested information:

♦ For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all communications to, from, copying, or relating to: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser;4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer;5 Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones;6 Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; 7 Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John Brennan.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370089125/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-CP9xDiZ0CnvVZvDviOsN

.

It would appear that Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley is sending out advanced notice of who he is looking into as part of the Steele Dossier construct and how it was used by the DOJ/FBI.

Well, well, well…. that’s a shift in language.  Congressional Rep Matt Gaetz: “I believe there’s been a criminal conspiracy”…  This specific language elevates the current political dynamic toward an exponential level of risk for those within the “conspiracy”.

.

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured — They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (link)

Earlier today, prior to his speech in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump sat down for an interview with Joe Kernen to discuss the America-First economic policy.

With the latest information revealing that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page were specifically leaking to their media sources to shape the underlying story of their political efforts, everything presented by the recipients of those leaks should now be questioned.

Page and Strzok were the “sources” for stories written by Devlin Barrett of the Washington Post.

As such, obviously the network of Page and Strzok’s professional colleagues, would also be considered part of a grouping of people who would benefit from specific leaks intended to shape the stories.

One of those initial stories was a December 2nd, 2017,  WaPo outline describing Page and Strzok against the backdrop of the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz investigation.

The Washington Post presented the story of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok having an affair to the world.

That presentation became the underlying assumption for all reporting that followed (despite the lack of supporting evidence).  That WaPo story (narrative), “The affair” was written by Devlin Barrett, who we now know was in direct contact with Page and Strzok.

As with all new information, all assumptions –driven by that WaPo original story– should be carefully reconsidered.

As an example: were Peter Strzok and Lisa Page actually having an affair?  Or, was the “affair” simply an effective narrative, entirely constructed to describe the scope of their communication and cover-up a larger and far more looming truth, a bigger conspiracy?

Amid a vastly growing release of text messages, there’s nothing to indicate a relationship between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok based on anything except collaboration to politicize their jobs to the benefit of Hillary Clinton and against all her political  opposition.

For several years CTH has been pointing out how the larger U.S. intelligence community has a pattern of leaking specific information to specific outlets.

Information from Justice Department leaks and the Intelligence Community (writ large), generally appear in the Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, and -depending on content- the Wall Street Journal.  Information from State Department leaks generally flow to CNN, CBS and ABC.

Each of the initiating media reports of the leaks are then cited by their peer group: ‘media reports on media reports’. It is a pattern that has become transparently visible for those who follow politics and media.

Additionally, and perhaps more disturbingly, against the backdrop of officials within the FBI and DOJ having an agenda to protect their internal allies, it is also important to note that some leak efforts might actually be using the media to protect their team.

As an example, a Justice Department official may know one of their aligned colleagues might be scheduled for questioning by congressional oversight.  The insider, perhaps from a different sub-department within the DOJ, would have knowledge of the information provided to congress -and- desire to prepare their colleague by leaking the content of the information they have provided.

Recently, and specifically because of the explosive nature of the larger construct of the conspiracy within the Justice Department targeting of candidate Donald Trump, we noted the possibility of this happening. –SEE HERE– This stemmed from the original January 8th, 2018, Hill report of Page and Strzok as likely ‘leakers‘.

[…] What that individual series of text messages from Lisa Page highlights is how far she was willing to go to shape DOJ/FBI investigative action to the benefit of her favorite political candidate.

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were not only willing to manipulate their official investigative duty to the benefit of Hillary Clinton, but they were also willing to leak information to the media in an effort to shape the narrative around their investigative duties.

Both Page and Strzok are scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee *VERY* soon. Like, within a matter of days.

Given the revelation(s) within the text messaging today, and the evidence therein that proves the politicization of their offices, it is highly likely *NOW* they will plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions.

Which immediately makes me wonder about the motive behind whomever gave that text messaging information to John Solomon and Sara Carter.

Were those specific text messages, which clearly prove Lisa Page was leaking to the media, INTENTIONALLY given to Solomon and Carter because someone on “The Hill” was trying to warn Page about known evidence against her?

I don’t expect that Sara Carter would reveal her sourcing on this. However, I would WARN HER, *strongly* that there’s a serious possibility she is being used by her SOURCE to dilute damage against the “small group” co-conspirators.

Those who have followed CTH closely will note my historic suspicions toward a strong likelihood that Sean Hannity’s favorite journalists are being handled by DC control agents who know how manipulate media people. (link)

This does not mean that all media are doing the bidding of the corrupt officials knowingly. Some might be relaying information thinking they are just breaking exclusive news, without actually considering they are helping corrupt insiders to get dangerous information to their ideological allies in a scheme to assist them. [Not everyone has the benefit of HAM radios]

However, for the reassessment of all Devlin Barrett’s narrative engineering (reporting), we can be certain he is more than a willing ally to the corrupt group of FBI and DOJ insiders.

How do we know this?

Well, one of the brutally obvious stories was national security journalist Devlin Barrett writing a story specifically using “sources” to explain the context of the Page/Strzok message about untraceable phones:

(Twitter Link and WaPo Story Link)

By Devlin Barrett – Two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from a spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to people familiar with the matter.

The two officials, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page and senior counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, are the subjects of an internal investigation that has roiled the FBI and emboldened its Republican critics who have accused the bureau of political bias. Had Page and Strzok used personal phones instead, people close to case say, it’s unlikely their text messages would have come to the FBI’s attention.

The texts, a trove of which were released by the Justice Department this week, have raised questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russian officials to interfere with the presidential election. Page and Strzok, who have declined to comment, were involved in both.  (read more)

In this example, and thinking about the approach of a willing media journalist helping his FBI and DOJ allies, there’s a really odd dynamic to use the subject of the article as the likely source of information on the subject of the article.

“According to people familiar with the matter”, is likely to be Peter Strzok and Lisa Page themselves.

That’s perhaps the most obvious example of narrative engineering ever.  Again, “sources say” now appears to be reporter Devlin Barrett writing an article based on direct information from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were the subjects of the story.

Obviously they would have a vested legal interest in shaping/spinning that story in a very specific direction, and it appears Devlin Barrett was more than willing to assist.

Knowing that DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok were key sources for Barrett’s stories at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all assumptions based on this reporting should be questioned.

Again, President Trump was prescient when he tweeted: