Stunning development.

But Things Are Not What They Seem !

You’ve likely begun to hear about this letter from DOJ to Devin Nunes.  Please read it and evaluate.  Important Tip:  Notice the DOJ/FBI are referencing the Nunes Memo from a perspective of they know what the underlying documents are:

Notice all the inherent assumptions within the letter?

As a reminder, always question the assumptions.

♦Assumption #1 – The DOJ is presenting this letter to Devin Nunes from the position that the Nunes Memo is underpinned by documentary evidence they have provided. The DOJ provided FISA documents and FBI investigative documents, and they are assuming that’s the underlying material.

♦Assumption #2 – The DOJ is presenting this letter, and it is being interpreted by almost everyone, including Adam Schiff and media, to center around the Nunes Memo being written about, or including, FISA documents.

There is nothing to indicate either of those assumptions are correct.  In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that nothing about those assumptions are correct.

Secondly, how can ranking member Adam Schiff write a rebuttal memo to the Nunes memo, without any knowledge of the underlying evidence behind Nunes claims?

Again, more assumptions are needed.  ie. Schiff has to guess at the underlying evidence based on what he can read from the Nunes memo.  If he does that, he’s going to screw himself.

Here’s what is going on:

Think about the Nunes memo for a moment.

What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”?  From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017.  In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.

No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Devin Nunes, has actually seen the full material.  Therefore people are ‘jumping to conclusions’ based on their own inherent reference points.

People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes.

Now, as I go forward with this you’ll be lost unless you have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERE – Remember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:

[…]  Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI.  It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.

Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.

Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]

♦ Now, HERE IS WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT ON A “Politics only” FILTER.

Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?

Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it.  If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read more – Critical to understand)

Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled by ODNI Dan Coats for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see.

Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him.  Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself.  Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.

Sneaky Schiff used this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”.  It worked.

However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes (and maybe DNI Dan Coats) has any idea what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017.  However, we have an idea from his statements.

It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.  It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information, Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns.

After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.

WATCH:

1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]

Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns.  April 4th, 2017 Susan Rice appears:

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell.  This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘,  to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer.  Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine.  MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice.  Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas)  The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….

So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap).  Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.

See where this is going?

.

See how that works?

.

Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material.   That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.

This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing.  Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017  MSNBC statement for additional context:

“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 the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

.

That right there is the story.  With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.

The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.

If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.

Reverse the safety.   No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama.  They had no choice.

Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking.  She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence.  She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.

Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes.  The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value.  The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.

The interview goes much further.  There is a lot of news in this interview.  There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB.  Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific:  James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review:

.

Summary:  In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, this PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.

Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located.  No-one else does, including Adam Schiff.

Now do you see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?

With help from a few friends:

Hi Adam,

Wow. Massive amounts of confirmation for the ongoing strategy we outlined was underway. [Remember the batting order: Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz] As expected Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, steps to the plate following Devin Nunes.

We previously outlined how Senator Chuck Grassley was directly calling the bluff of the FBI when he sent a criminal referral to the justice department for Christopher Steele. Much of the referral itself was redacted and withheld from public view because it was classified.

Today, in a move with strong parallels to Chairman Nunes (House Intel Committee Memo), Senator Grassley is asking all of his senate colleagues to review the referral, and all the attached classified documents he and Senator Graham submitted to the Justice Department. Senator Grassley then went on the floor of the Senate to deliver remarks. WATCH:

.

[Notes and Transcript from Grassley] I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about the Judiciary Committee’s important oversight and investigations work over the past year. There are a lot of issues that need more sunlight and scrutiny.

One of my key concerns is the loss of faith in the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to do their jobs free from partisan political bias. The American people are rightly skeptical because of how the Department and the FBI have handled the following subjects:

1. Hillary Clinton and
2. Donald Trump and his associates.

Hiding from tough questions about these controversial cases is no way to reassure the public. If the Department is afraid of independent oversight, that just reinforces people’s suspicions and skepticism. The only real way to reassure people is to let the sun shine in and let the chips fall where they may.

In each of these cases, the government should obviously find out what happened and hold people accountable if there was any wrongdoing. But, it also has to play by the rules, and be held accountable for its actions, too. We need to shine the light of day on all of it.

As part of our investigation we have requested documents and other information from the Department of Justice and FBI. Much of that information is classified. The Department has provided very limited access to those classified materials. It has limited the Judiciary Committee’s review to the Chair and Ranking of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. The government has also tried to severely limit the number of appropriately cleared staff who can review documents and take notes.

We have reviewed some information related to whether the FBI used the so-called Trump dossier and the extent of its relationship with its author, Christopher Steele. As we know now, Mr. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research Mr. Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. His work was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Remember, it took a subpoena and a court battle with the House Intelligence committee to force that fact out into the open.

Lawyers for the DNC and Clinton Campaign officials denied it to the press for months. They lied. The founder of Fusion GPS denied that his firm was “Democrat-linked.” That was untrue. When the news finally broke, New York Times reporters actually complained that people who knew better had flat out lied to them about who funded Mr. Steele’s dossier.

But, back before the 2016 election, it is unclear who knew that Steele was gathering dirt on Trump for the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Many of his sources for claims about the Trump campaign are Russian government officials. So, Steele, who was working for Fusion GPS, who was working for the DNC and the Clinton campaign, was working with the Russians. So, who was actually colluding with Russians? It’s becoming more clear.

Mr. Steele shared his, at least partially, Russian-based allegations far and wide. He shared them with the FBI. He shared them with the media. And, according to public reports, he shared them with high ranking officials in the Justice Department and the State Department.

Well, in the course of our review, Senator Graham and I came across some information that just does not add up. We saw Mr. Steele swearing one thing in a public libel suit against him in London. Then we saw contradictory things in documents that I am not going to talk about in an open setting. And from everything we’ve learned so far, we believe these discrepancies are significant. So, we sent a referral of Christopher Steele to the Justice Department and the FBI for potential violations of 18 USC 1001.

Now, I guess people are going to say whatever they want to say about it, no matter what the facts are. But it doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the public debate to ignore those facts or to speculate—wrongly—about Senator Graham’s motivations, or mine.

First, despite all the hubbub, this is not all that unusual. Anyone can ask for a criminal investigation. I have done it in the past when I’ve come across potential crimes in the course of my oversight work. And I have done so publicly. This situation is no different.
Second, as the Special Counsel has reminded us all recently, lying to a federal official is a crime. It doesn’t matter who is doing the lying. Politics should have nothing to do with it.

I’ve said repeatedly that I support Mr. Mueller’s work and that I respect his role. I still do. Nothing has changed. Let me say it again in case anyone missed it.

The Special Counsel should be free to complete his work, and to follow the facts wherever they lead.

But that doesn’t mean I can ignore what look like false statements. If an individual sees what might be evidence of a crime, he or she should report that to law enforcement so it can be fully investigated. That is exactly what Senator Graham and I did.

That does not mean we have made up our minds about what happened. It is possible Mr. Steele told the truth and the other, contradictory statements that we saw were wrong. But, just like any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.

Of course, even aside from these inconsistencies, public reports about the way the FBI may have used the dossier should give everyone in this chamber pause. Director Comey testified in 2017 that it was “salacious and unverified.” If it was unverified in 2017, then it had to be unverified in 2016, too.

So, it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration—or any administration—to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents?

That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.

Now, I wish I could talk more openly about the basis for our referral and other concerns, but right now that information is largely classified. It is controlled by the Justice Department. As I said, the Department has permitted only the Chair and Ranking of the full Committee and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, and limited numbers of their cleared staff, to see the underlying documents.

I have been pushing for the Department to provide the same access to other Judiciary Committee Members and their appropriately cleared staffs. But the Department refuses to provide that access or even to brief the other Members on the underlying information.

Fortunately, the Department has agreed that it has no business objecting to our Members reviewing our own work. So I have encouraged our Committee members and their appropriately cleared staff to do that. Look at the memo that Senator Graham and I sent to the Deputy Attorney General and the FBI Director. Members can then make up their own minds about it. I have also encouraged them to review the Committee’s transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and their staffs for many months. Finally, I’ve encouraged them to let me know if they believe that any of that information should be made public. I believe in transparency. We may agree that certain information should be released at the appropriate time with care to preserve classified information and the integrity of the investigation.

I have already been pushing the Department to review the classified referral memorandum to confirm the memo’s classification markings so that we can release the unclassified portions as soon as possible. But now the Department has deferred to the FBI, and the FBI is falsely claiming that three of our unclassified paragraphs each contain the same, single classified fact.

Now, that surprised me, because those particular paragraphs are based on non-government sources and do not claim to repeat or confirm any information from any government document. Even if those portions of our referral did reference the allegedly classified fact at issue, it is hard to understand why that fact should be classified.

First, the Deputy Attorney General has discussed the fact at issue with me more than once in unsecure space and on an unsecure phone line. Second, the FBI is not acting as if this information would harm national security if released. FBI never notified the entities copied on the memo’s transmittal, for example, including the Inspector General and the Intelligence Committees, to ensure that fact was protected as classified.

If FBI really believed this fact was classified, then the FBI and the Department should take better care to act consistent with that belief. Unfortunately, I suspect something else is really going on here. It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball, rather than a genuine concern about national security. I am pressing this issue with Director Wray, and I hope that we can provide this information to the public as soon as possible.

I also believe that the Department should carefully review the entire memorandum and begin an orderly process to declassify as much of that information as possible. The Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives recently voted to allow all House Members to review a short memo summarizing what it has learned. Senators are not allowed to see it. However, House Members who have seen it have been calling for a vote to release the memo.

Here in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee has access to the same information that the House Intelligence Committee saw before drafting its summary memo. Our committee does not have the same authority to release classified information. We have to rely on the agency to review and potentially declassify our memo.

Based on what I know, I agree that as much of this information should made be public as soon as possible, through the appropriate process. And, I don’t just mean the summary memos. The government should release the underlying documents referenced in those memos, after deleting any national security information that truly needs to be protected. But most of this story can be told, and should be told. The American people deserve the truth.

Stale, recycled media spin from journalists and pundits who do not have all the facts is not enough. The country is filled with frenzy and speculation, but hungry for facts. However, I cannot release this information on my own, and neither should anyone else. Classified information is controlled by the Executive Branch. We should work together to achieve the greater transparency while still protecting legitimately sensitive national security information.  (END TRANSCRIPT)

Here’s the Reposted Back Story on The Referral [January 4th, 2018]:

Yup, the walls are closing in.

In a brilliant move of strategery, Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, and Senate Judiciary member, Lindsey Graham, send a criminal referral of Christopher Steele to the DOJ for investigation.   But things are not what they seem…

Today Senators Grassley and Graham sent a letter of criminal referral to the Department of Justice, based on information -provided by the FBI- their investigation has uncovered.

However, the actual motive for the criminal referral is not exactly what it appears.

Highlighting two pertinent passages (emphasis mine) from the New York Times article will explain what’s really going on:

[…] Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate. The committee is running one of three congressional investigations into Russian election meddling, and its inquiry has come to focus, in part, on Mr. Steele’s explosive dossier that purported to detail Russia’s interference and the Trump campaign’s complicity.

[…] The criminal referral appears to make no assessment of the veracity of the dossier’s contents, much of which remains unsubstantiated nearly a year after it became public.

[…]  Mr. Grassley’s decision to recommend criminal charges appeared likely to be based on reports of Mr. Steele’s meetings with the F.B.I., which were provided to the committee by the Justice Department in recent weeks.

It was not clear why, if a crime is apparent in the F.B.I. reports that were reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department had not moved to charge Mr. Steele already.

The circumstances under which Mr. Steele is alleged to have lied were unclear, as much of the referral was classified.  (full article)

Can you see what is really going on here?

The criminal referral is based on FBI reports of meetings the FBI has given to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the FBI meetings with Christopher Steele.

Within those FBI reports (presented to the committee) are conflicting statements and accounts that do not align with known evidence.

The FBI is attributing claims to the meetings with Christopher Steele that do not match known evidence about the Steele Dossier and use therein.

Remember what Senator Graham said recently about his review of the evidence surrounding the Steele Dossier and how it was used, by the FBI in gaining the FISA warrant?  –Refresh Memory Here–

What Grassley and Graham are now doing is forcing the DOJ to reconcile the conflicts between the FBI presentations to the judiciary committee -about the origin of, and their use of, the Steele Dossier-  against known evidence.

Someone is lying.

Graham and Grassley know the motive to lie about the Steele Dossier does not necessarily belong to Christopher Steele.  The motive is within the corrupt FBI.

In order to accurately prove ownership of the the falsehoods Grassley and Graham are saying: ‘If what the FBI says is true then Chris Steele is lying, because the evidence doesn’t support what the FBI previously said to us, and attributed to Christopher Steele’…

Grassley and Graham are calling the bluff of the FBI.

“Based on the information contained therein, we are respectfully referring Mr. Steele to you for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, for statements the Committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained.”  (link)

The “information contained therein” is the FBI presentation of statements and evidence the FBI is attributing to Christopher Steele.

By referring a criminal complaint to the DOJ the Senators are, in essence, forcing the DOJ to outline that material presentations by the FBI, to the committee, were false…. OR, that Christopher Steele is lying.  The former is likely, the latter not-so-much.

Additionally, by asking Rod Rosenstein (DOJ) and Christopher Wray (FBI) to investigate the conflicting evidence and FBI statements Grassley and Graham are also providing political cover for Rosenstein and Wray to showcase the corruption within both the DOJ and the FBI.

Strategery.

The walls are closing in.

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) referred the author of the “Trump Dossier,” Christopher Steele, to the Justice Department for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements investigators have reason to believe Steele made about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.

“I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation. But, as I would with any credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review,” Grassley said. “Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI. If the same actions have different outcomes, and those differences seem to correspond to partisan political interests, then the public will naturally suspect that law enforcement decisions are not on the up-and-up. Maybe there is some innocent explanation for the inconsistencies we have seen, but it seems unlikely. In any event, it’s up to the Justice Department to figure that out.”

“After reviewing how Mr. Steele conducted himself in distributing information contained in the dossier and how many stop signs the DOJ ignored in its use of the dossier, I believe that a special counsel needs to review this matter. The rule of Law depends on the government and all who work on its behalf playing by the rules themselves. I hope the Department of Justice will carefully review our letter and take appropriate action,” Graham said.

Yesterday evening, Grassley and Graham delivered to Senate Security a letter and classified memorandum for delivery to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray containing information that forms the basis of the referral.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, individuals are prohibited from making false statements to the federal authorities of the United States. Grassley and Graham are referring Steele for making potentially false statements about the distribution of claims from the dossier. (LINK)

Andrew McCarthy has a worthwhile article today discussing his long-held belief that Secretary Hillary Clinton could never have been prosecuted by the DOJ due to her non-secure email communications with former President Obama, and the need for the prior administration to protect the president.

Additionally, McCarthy appeared on Fox News to discuss the same:

.

At the epicenter of what Andrew McCarthy outlines is the physical action of FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap in 2016.  CTH has been pointing out this shadowy figure for almost a year.  Priestap’s appearance this week in text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page explains why.

W.H. “Bill” Priestap is the FBI Head of Counterintelligence. Priestap was one of the first FBI officials who caught our attention (spring of 2017) because FBI Director James Comey mysteriously pointed a finger upon him during testimony to congress on March 20th, 2017 [Although Comey didn’t use Bill Priestap’s name, only his position].

James Comey said last year the reason the FBI did not inform congress of the ongoing eight month counterintelligence investigation (required by congressional intelligence oversight), which began in July 2016 into candidate Donald Trump, was because Bill Priestap specifically told Director Comey not to inform congress or intelligence oversight.

That March 20th, 2017, Comey testimony -and the exponential ramifications therein- largely remained under the radar until late last year when Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and the Office of Inspector General began presenting information that painted a very disturbing picture of the DOJ/FBI motive to keep their suspicious activity hidden.

As a result of growing concern surrounding the political endeavors of the Dept. of Justice, Devin Nunes included FBI Asst. Director Bill Priestap in his witness demand to the DOJ. According to the response letter provided by Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, Priestap will be presented to the House Intelligence Committee soon for questioning.

Yesterday, a key aspect of Bill Priestap surfaced, in a semi-related matter, surrounding the Clinton email investigation.

In a letter from Senator Ron Johnson (Committee overseeing Homeland Security) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Bill Priestap surfaces. [full pdf here]

On page #2, Johnson points out that prior information from the FBI showed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton communicated via email with President Obama:

(Page #2 Link)

Obviously President Obama could be at risk within the unlawful Secretary Clinton use of unauthorized and non-secure email controls. President Obama previously stated he had no knowledge of Secretary Clinton using non-governmental email.

Transparently, the fact that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were emailing each other, indicates President Obama did in fact know of Clinton’s email account structure. The electronic communication between Clinton and Obama now becomes a risk.

Enter FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap to clean up a messy issue.

From the text messaging between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, we see that Bill Priestap helped create the carefully worded manuscript FBI Director James Comey delivered in July 2016 to extricate Clinton from her illegal action. However, Bill Priestap’s editorial focus was very specific:

(Page #3 Link)

It was Asst. FBI Director W.H. “Bill” Priestap, in his role within the DOJ/FBI “small group”, who removed the connection of President Obama to the email account of Secretary Clinton:

That removal is one of the more consequential changes that appears to have taken place in changing Comey’s transcript. That change held massive potential ramifications.

This is yet another indication that Bill Priestap is a key and central figure inside this conspiracy. Bill Priestap was FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s direct boss.

Also, as head of FBI counterintelligence, Priestap would have to sign off on the use of Fusion-GPS (aka: Bean LLC, aka, Glenn Simpson), Crowdstrike, and/or any FBI contractor who was allowed access to, or received information from, the FBI database.

What Asst. AG John P Carlin (DOJ – National Security Division), is to the DOJ FISA-702 side of the entire operation, so too is Asst. FBI Director Bill Priestap on the FBI side of the FISA-702 operation – and much more.

Hopefully you can see a little better how each of these officials are lining up on our graphic:

Over the past year we have learned that a significant number of people within the DOJ and FBI have been the source of leaks to the media.  Almost all of those leaks built on lies.

Reports have confirmed that FBI Director James Comey, his chief legal counsel, James Baker as well as his chief-of-staff James Rybicki have all be leaking to media outlets.

In addition, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page have been identified as leaking stories to Politico, the Washington Post and New York Times.  Adding to that mix, Asst. AG Sally Yates, Asst. AG John Carlin and a host of Main Justice officials were also participating in leaks; all leaks based on self-interest.

DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr were both in close contact with Glenn Simpson and Fusion-GPS, and that entity has admitted openly to shopping -and selling- stories to the media, under the auspices of ‘anonymous sources’.  Those financially distributed Fusion-GPS stories went to a host of friendly and ideological media outlets.

In total, hundreds of leaks from the Obama White House via, Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice and the larger intelligence community staff, add up to thousands of media reports which were then re-reported by dozens more media outlets filing their reports under citations of “according to a report in (fill-in-blank)“.

Think about the scale of the reporting, and reporting on reporting, of anonymous leaks, false leaks, lies from “people with knowledge of the matter”, “government officials involved in the matter”, “people familiar with the matter”, “government sources” etc. all going in one unified and semi-coordinated direction – against the aggregate Trump administration.

We’re talking about thousands of hours of media TV pundits, thousands more columns written, and almost every scintilla of it based on originating intelligence sources -from the larger intelligence system- that are now being exposed as duplicitous and conspiratorial in the scale of their malicious intent.

This larger story-line has traveled in one direction.  The narrative has only traveled in one direction.  Each thread converging on codependent trails for collective stories all going in one direction. One big engineered narrative endlessly pushed.  Think about how far the collective media have traveled with this story over the past eighteen months.

Now, in a period of a few weeks, it has become increasingly obvious the collective journey, using all that expended effort, was going in the wrong direction.

Think about this carefully.

Do we really think, with that much exhaustive energy spent in one unified direction, that this massive monolith of media are capable of questioning their destination?

Think about it.

For context, think about how the U.S. Media writ large responded to their absolute guaranteed election outcome of November 8th 2016?

After almost two years of one-way traveling and convincing themselves of one predetermined outcome/desination, what was their response to Clinton’s loss and their getting the entire arc of the election wrong?

Did a single media outlet reset their baseline?  Did any corporate media executive demand a comprehensive reassessment of their coverage to see how they could have possibly been so comprehensively wrong?

Was there any autopsy of their own inherent institutional echo-chamber to reevaluate anything? Anything?

Were any personnel changed?  Were any executive adjustments made in the wake of their seismically wrong assumptions?  Was there a single comprehensive editorial review?

No.

Nothing.

They.Did.Nothing.

After a brief period of grief counseling amid their peer group they went right back to the exact same flawed system; used the exact same ideological perspectives; controlled by the exact same disconnected executives; and began engineering/reporting the exact same flawed and ideological broadcasts and narrative scripts from the past two years.

Not a single thing changed.

So….

What exactly do you think the American institutional media will do with a Justice department reality, within the real DOJ and FBI story, that factually ends up in a direction 180° divergent from their current year-long travel?

The media have fully invested themselves in eighteen months of narrative distribution in only one direction.  Not a single MSM entity has questioned their travel as a result of false leaks and false sources in the totality of time they have covered the DOJ and FBI story.

Nothing within their collective need to will-an-outcome, will change the media’s proximity to facts when the truthful story behind the DOJ and FBI corruption is finally exposed.  The media are so far away from the place where this story ends, they have no inherent capability to even begin to travel in the opposite direction, toward the truth.

The only way they could align with the truth is to admit that virtually every scintilla of their reportage over the past 18 months was inherently false.   There’s not a single media outlet capable of doing that.

If the media had only gone half as far in their flawed journey, perhaps an argument could be made that their return was possible.  However, they have gone so far beyond the horizon they are no longer even capable of seeing the origination point; and even if they did turn around now, it would take so long to return they would be strangers upon arrival.

Think about a New York Times, CNN or Washington Post journalist now having to accept that every column inch they have written in the past eighteen months was built upon a foundation of lies.  Do we really think such a catastrophic level of flawed ideology could ever reconstitute into genuine reporting of fact-based information?

Unlikely.  Heck, impossible.

Think about this as we read media reporting over the next few weeks.  Keep all of this in mind. I would anticipate the media’s only reasonable option is to double down on trying to convince themselves there’s another reason, some other reason, for their disconnect.

Introspection of the level needed to admit their prior gullibility and attempt recovery would be akin to Al Gore admitting to the foundational lies of man-made global warming.

These next few weeks will be very interesting.

Very interesting.

.

Cleaning up the corruption in the entire Justice Department is the legacy objective of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte who will not be running for reelection.

Chairman Goodlatte appeared on No-Points-Allowed tonight for an interview with Laura Interruptus.  Mrs. Hannity did another exceptional job using Words-In-Edgewise to chase all the pesky points away from the interview.

By now everyone should be fully aware that the Washington Post is the media PR firm selling the position of the intelligence apparatus.  Tonight the WaPo rises in defense of Asst. FBI Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe by pushing a ridiculous -and anonymously sourced- story about President Trump asking McCabe who he voted for in 2016.

(WaPo) Shortly after President Trump fired his FBI director in May, he summoned to the Oval Office the bureau’s acting director for a get-to-know-you meeting.

The two men exchanged pleasantries, but before long, Trump, according to several current and former U.S. officials, asked Andrew McCabe a pointed question: Whom did he vote for in the 2016 election?

McCabe said he didn’t vote, according to the officials, who like others interviewed for this article requested anonymity to speak candidly about a sensitive matter.

Trump, the officials said, also vented his anger at McCabe over the several hundred thousand dollars in donations his wife, a Democrat, received for her failed 2015 Virginia state Senate bid from a political action committee controlled by a close friend of Hillary Clinton.

McCabe, 49, who had been FBI deputy director for a little more than a year when James B. Comey was fired, is at the center of much of the political jockeying surrounding the investigation into potential coordination between Trump associates and the Kremlin. He has for a number of months been the subject of Trump’s ire, prompting angrytweets suggesting that the Russia probe is politically motivated by Democrats sore about losing the election.  (read more)

 

The transparency of motive here is hilarious.  The Washington Post is desperate to try and get some kind of push back established while many of the current, and all of the former, FBI and DOJ leaders are coming under investigation.

The Washington Post has staked their journalistic reputation on the Russia Collusion story.  There’s no possibility of any successful exit from two years of completely false reporting through the use of corrupt anonymous sources; some of those FBI sources we now know were Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey and Andy McCabe.

Senator Ron Johnson, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has been investigating FBI activity surrounding the Clinton email investigation.

Tonight during an appearance on Fox News, Senator Johnson claimed to have an FBI informant who has information about secret ‘off-site’ meetings between high-level FBI and DOJ officials. WATCH:

.

Earlier today Senator Johnson released copies of text messages (full pdf below) between DOJ/FBI attorney Lisa Page and FBI Lead Investigator Peter Strzok which indicated the FBI agent saw no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and was reluctant to join the Special Counsel Robert Mueller team because “there’s no big there there.”

(Via Chuck Ross) […] In an interview with WISN-Milwaukee radio host Jay Weber, Johnson read aloud a May 19, 2017 text that Strzok sent to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and his mistress.

Strzok wrote: “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 that there’s no big there there.”

“In other words, Peter Strzok, who was the FBI deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division, the man who had a plan to do something because he just couldn’t abide Donald Trump being president, is saying that his gut sense is that there’s no big there there when it comes to the Mueller special counsel investigation,” he said.

The text message was included in 400 pages of text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page. Lawmakers have started reviewing the trove of documents for evidence of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias. (link)

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/369815742/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QkCQyo4Tg0mzTH2nm7sm

.

James Rybicki [Hi, Jim] was former FBI Director James Comey’s chief-of-staff and retained that position under current FBI Director Christopher Wray (more on that later).

Rybicki was the key figure in circulating and coordinating the “Clinton Exoneration Statement” read by Director Comey.  For Clinton endeavor Rybicki was the hub collecting and dispatching communication as the ‘talking points’ were constructed, edited, refined and ultimately finalized.

Additionally, Rybicki was the communication hub surrounding the Clinton-Lynch ‘Tarmac Meeting’ discussion points that led to public statements therein by the FBI and ultimately Loretta Lynch’s public statements about distancing herself from the investigation.

Also, James Rybicki was listed as one of the key witnesses requested by Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes as outlined in the letter of agreement between Nunes and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.   James Rybicki was/is being questioned by Nunes et al.

So today, James Rybicki quits.

WASHINGTON DC – FBI Director Chris Wray announced Tuesday that his chief of staff, James Rybicki, is leaving the bureau.

Rybicki, who served in the same position under former FBI Director James Comey, had come under scrutiny from Republicans in recent months about his role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Federal law enforcement sources told Fox News that Rybicki was not fired. His departure, they said, has “been in the works for awhile.”

“Jim Rybicki notified me last month that he will be leaving the FBI to accept an opportunity in the corporate sector,” Wray said in a statement. “While this is an exciting move for the whole Rybicki family, Jim will be dearly missed by the FBI family – and by me personally.”

Wray added: “His many years of dedication to the bureau and DOJ, his level-headed judgement and earnest professionalism, and his steady good cheer have been an asset to us all and have contributed greatly to the safety and security of our nation.”

The FBI director said he tapped attorney Zachary Harmon to replace Rybicki.  (read more)

Some people are needlessly defrosted over the way Christopher Wray presented the exit of Rybicki, looking to cast aspersions against Director Wray for not kicking Rybicki in the teeth now, or prior.  Don’t buy into that nonsense. THINK.

Think strategically.

Chris Wray is an expert in prosecuting ‘white collar’ crime.  He is a ‘Machiavelli Tracker‘, a pro wolf hunter.  A very smart man.  Hence, his nomination and his role.

Director Chris Wray knows the key to capturing the fish is to keep them within the distance of the casting net.  Keeping the “small group” participants within government, yet under full control, is a part of the strategy.  [ See James Baker for example ]

Each of the co-conspirators is much easier to handle, control, monitor etc. if they are within ‘the system’.  It is much harder to plead the fifth when you are required by your official duty to be accountable to government investigation(s).

Director Wray knows it’s easier to monitor the entire network if the actors within the network are retained within the organization while the investigation continues to gather evidence against them.

Do not assign illicit motives to Director Wray or buy into media narratives that are intended to create confusion and chaos amid the team of White Hats.  Remember, corporate media have a vested interest in hiding the overall scheme; they helped to create it….

Representative Trey Gowdy (U-DC), and Representative John Ratcliff (R-TX) appeared on Fox News with Martha MacCallum to discuss the five months of missing FBI text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page.

[05:12] “It makes it harder and harder for Chairman Gowdy and I to explain away one strange coincidence after another”.

Hmmm?  Now, why would Roosterhead want to “explain away“?  LOLOL. These UniParty knuckleheads are so transparent.  THIS is why they are not part of the current team.

Moving on…  Timing of missing Strzok-Page texts:

♦Start date: 12/14/16: same date WaPo cites unnamed intel officials stating… wait for it… Russians tried to hack election for Trump.
♦End date: 5/17/17: same date Mueller is named Special Counsel. (Timeline)

Also, the mention of a DOJ “Secret Society” reminds me of: …”One small group calls itself “Dumbledore’s Army,” according to two of the people who were familiar with their discussions. The name is a reference to a secret resistance force in the “Harry Potter” books.”… from the CFPB crew.