This is a little lengthy of a discussion, but it touches upon something very relevant to this election cycle.  Author Diana West discusses a network and pattern of ideology within the modern pentagon leadership, and how a worldview is threatened by President Trump. The interview and discussion is below.

The conversation necessarily gets in the weeds and is filled with unique insight into a very complex alignment. However, in the big picture it’s not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.  During the campaign and early administration President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat.  The same type of perspective applies internally to the U.S. military.

President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare makes the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hits the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  The primary has become the contingency. The value of James Mattis replaced by the effectiveness of Robert Lighthizer.  JC Milley isn’t in the planning room; Milley’s been replaced by Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).

In the Trump era the President is telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and asks them for ‘contingency’ preparation.  Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy is lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on economic strategy.

Take away power, or worse yet, stop using military power, and the leaders within the system start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent.  Overlay this military view upon pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse.

CTH touched on this last year when we noted how the Pentagon, specifically the joint chiefs, never took any action when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman positioned himself as an opponent to President Trump’s policy perspective.  The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.

Another example was Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and the visit Pompeo and Milley took to Mar-a-Lago in December, where they were informing President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here].

Yet another related example was Navy Secretary Richard Spencer threatening President Trump and attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher.

All of these examples paint a picture of a Pentagon operating outside the chain-of-command and civilian oversight.

Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of hyper-polarization, normally democrats would be alarmed about military leadership going rogue with their own agenda; however, as long as their agenda is anti-Trump, the political-left is now okay with it.

Recently democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump.  The media didn’t bat an eyelash…  The traditional checks-and-balances, things that keep us stable, are seriously getting sketchy.

Ms. West takes a deeper look at the internal ideology within the Pentagon and then notes the tentacles that extend beyond the military into the Brookings Institute and Lawfare agencies.   The larger assembly of the resistance movement becomes visible. WATCH:

.

…. It’s only a “soft-coup” until the military shows up.

DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec is interviewed by Liz MacDonald to discuss today’s DC Circuit Court hearing in the Flynn case.  As Ms. Kupec notes there are several irregularities in the case stemming first-and-foremost from a decision by Judge Emett Sullivan refusing to accept an unopposed motion by both the DOJ and Flynn defense to drop the case.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has an interview on OAN news to discuss FBI legal counsel Dana Boente and his exit from the FBI this month.  As Nunes notes Mr. Boente is at the center of an information flow which put him in a position to know the underlying evidence.  As an outcome of that position Boente is either a participant or a witness to corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ.

.

In prior positions as U.S. Attorney for Virginia; and while leading the DOJ National Security Division; and then later shifting to the FBI as chief legal counsel under Chris Wray; Dana Boente was at the epicenter of corrupt intent and malign activity toward the Trump administration.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

♦June 2019 – Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray – This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].

♦April 24, 2020 – Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents. AG Bill Bar intervenes. This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]

♦April 26, 2020 – CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr – Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid. The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious, and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO’s that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that’s the final straw? Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting “spygate” and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon. Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller’s team reported to Boente, including David Archey.

Dana Boente is enmeshed in all of it: the Wolfe case and cover-up, the Assange case and cover-up, and the hiding of documents in the Flynn case and cover-up. Boente’s role as a manipulative fixer to protect the ongoing corrupt action of the Mueller probe was exactly why FBI Director Chris Wray hired him.

Taking out Boente now exposes the complicit nature of FBI Director Chris Wray; who, it appears, AG Bill Barr is being forced -by new discoveries- to leave Wray naked to his enemies.

In a June 2019 interview Nunes said “someone at the FBI” appears to have been “determined to hide” then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s notes from both the FISA court and Congress. Our research identified that “someone” as Dana Boente a year before the Nunes remarks. [I even said ‘bookmark this and prove me wrong]

If you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.  ~ CONTINUE READING

After listening to oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court for the Flynn petition for a Writ of Mandamus (appeals court intervention); it seems very likely the panel of three judges will deny the Flynn defense and DOJ request, here’s why….

For the past decade CTH has been accurate in predicting these judicial events based on one overarching principle.  The issues at hand are political arguments being made in the sphere of legal proceedings.  As a consequence, all judicial proceeding continue -regardless of legal merit- until such time as they run into the final barrier of legal standing.

This same principle played out in the George Zimmerman case (Trayvon Martin).  This same principle played out in the Baltimore Six case (Freddie Gray).  A modified version of this principle played out in the Darren Wilson case (Michael Brown).

In the assembly of each prosecution there was no legal basis for the underlying case to proceed into the judicial branch, and yet those proceedings continued.  They continued because the case travel is based on politics, not law.  This is the essence of Lawfare.

As soon as the political runway of the case runs-out; then, and only then, does the case itself run into the law, and the case collapses.  The Michael Flynn case is still on the political runway; and the DC Circuit will not intervene as long as the runway still exists.

Again, these are political cases being tried in the judiciary.  Most lawyers who review these cases, and follow the underlying aspects, continually view the activity through the wrong prism, because they do not accept that politics is the driving force.  Not law, politics.

In each example, based on the fortitude of the defendant; which assumes the pressure is withstood and acquiescence to a plea does not happen; there does -eventually- come a time when statutory law and the underlying factual evidence is confronted.  When those end-of-runway moments are reached, the cases collapse on their lack of merit because they were built upon false political foundations.   Notice it is only at the moment the political runway terminates that we find ourselves witnessing the legal collapse.

Thus we saw George Zimmerman found not-guilty because the underlying case was devoid of merit and built upon political fraud.  Thus we saw the Baltimore Six found not-guilty and remaining cases dispatched because the underlying case(s) were devoid of merit and the public evidence was built upon political fraud.  Thus we saw a Grand Jury no-true bill finding in the Darren Wilson case because it was devoid of merit and the underlying (public) evidence was built upon political fraud.   Same. Same. Same.

In the oral arguments today the DC Circuit panel recognized there was still a great deal of political runway to travel as they questioned why they should intervene prior to a ruling by Judge Emett Sullivan on the unopposed motion to dismiss.

Behind their arguments, unspoken but visible, was a familiar position. There is still distance on the political runway before Sullivan’s July 16, 2020, District Court hearing and ultimately a ruling on the unopposed DOJ and Defense standing motion for dismissal.

Judge Sullivan’s lawyer, Beth A. Wilkinson, argued Judge Sullivan’s request for an amicus briefing is moot to the interests of superior court intervention because the DC Circuit cannot evaluate Judge Sullivan’s intent until after he issues his ruling on the unopposed motion to dismiss.  That argument is what the panel wanted; that’s what the panel needed; that’s what the panel received. Thus, there’s plenty of political runway yet to be traveled.

Each of these political cases has a similar, perhaps identical, trajectory.  Each case seems to use the same airport; albeit with different lengths of runway; and each case travels that runway regardless of merit or legal standing for the underlying case.

Standing on the sidelines, viewing cases through the prism of the rule-of-law, while watching cases traveling on the runway of politics is frustrating.  Accepting the political motives of each case will lower blood pressure and save energy for the moment that really does matter, when the political runway is exhausted and legal statutes and principles do indeed apply.

Until the moment the value of politics expires, all judicial activity is an exercise in futility…. unless a target happens to come across a judge who will not support the politics of it (ie. Judge Andrew Hanen), but that is increasingly rare.

As long as a superior court judge, or panel of judges, can find a scintilla of legal space to justify political continuance, they will.   After two decades of this political metastasis, and despite the efforts of some lower courts trying to block it, even the U.S. supreme court is now infected.

If you find yourself as a target for one of these political cases, don’t hire a lawyer well versed in the legal aspects of your case; start first with a lawyer well versed in politics.  One that is not afraid to take your case loud and public.

In the case against Michael T. Flynn the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this morning for a petition for Writ of Mandamus. Circuit Court Judges: ²Karen Henderson, ¹Robert Wilkins and Neomi Rao are presiding Judges.

Arguing before the court: Flynn defense attorney Ms. Sidney Powell; Mr. Jeffrey Wall, deputy US solicitor general argued for the government representing the position of the DOJ; and Ms. Beth A. Wilkinson representing the position of Judge Emmet Sullivan.

• Ms. Sidney Powell Begins through @27:40 (Foundation)
• Mr. Jeffrey Wall Begins @27:50 – 01:12:35 (Meat of Issues)
• Ms. Beth Wikkinson Begins @01:12:35

AUDIO of the Hearing Below:

¹Judge Robert Wilkins is politically adverse to the interests of the DOJ/Defense and wants to deny the petition for intervention.  Judge Wilkins fabricates and manufacturers an irrelevant hypothetical example based on race to highlight his intent. [See @44:48]

²Behind the arguments of Judge Karen Henderson; it is visible she wants to deny the DOJ/Defense petition based on PC concerns that Judge Emett Sullivan is a black jurist. [See @1:00:37]

Prediction: The defense petition for the Writ of Mandamus will be denied (2-1); based, mostly on activist political intentions of Henderson and Wilkins.  However, there is an outside possibility for a limiting Mandamus ruling, where the DC Circuit Court will put limits on Judge Sullivan’s efforts to probe the motives of the DOJ.

The July 16th hearing with Judge Sullivan will almost certainly take place.

DNI John Ratcliffe has declassified the Appendix to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). [Source Document Here] The appendix known as “Annex A” was the material the FBI and CIA did not include in the body of the ICA; however, it was used to brief congress.  [NOTE: the document quality/clarity is very poor as released]

There was always suspicion that “Annex A” was the ridiculous claims by FBI source Christopher Steele; those suspicions are confirmed today.  The ICA was written in late December ’16 & early January 2017, and the purpose was to politicize intelligence by making outlandish claims of the Trump-Russia conspiracy the official position of the U.S intelligence apparatus (CIA, FBI, DOJ and NSA).

[Link to Original pdf]

The “Annex A” supporting the narrative was made out of claims by Christopher Steele. The two-page document is stunningly obtuse by design; and despite the FBI knowing the purpose of Christopher Steele, the Annex pretends not to know his agenda.

By keeping the ridiculous Steele claims in the annex the FBI was able to use the claims and yet afford themselves plausible deniability under the pretense of non-verification.  When James Comey briefed President Trump about the claims he pretended not to know the political intents of the information; and worse still, he covered-up that Clinton’s campaign had paid for the information.  A stunningly political move based on deception.

In many ways the refusal of the FBI, CIA and DOJ to admit their knowledge of the material from Chris Steele is the biggest example of how those same agencies were playing politics.   None of the Steele claims were based on actual evidence; everything was hearsay, gossip, innuendo and entirely made-up.  The agencies knew this and yet they pretended not to know the motives for the fraudulent intelligence.

As bad as it was to not clearly disclose to FISA court the Steele Dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, it was far worse to not disclose this to President-elect (and outgoing President) in the intelligence community assessment.

Deceptive and fraudulent official intelligence documents, purposefully designed to achieve a political agenda, outline a level of serious misconduct even beyond the fabricated claims within the Carter Page FISA application.

The release of this “Annex A” document shows something beyond the willfully blind intentions of James Comey and John Brennan, and speaks to an intentional effort to fabricate claims against the incoming administration on the weakest of possible grounds.

Our research previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report(JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s likely USAO John Durham will cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by DAG Rod Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.

Scope: This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell appears for a discussion with Lou Dobbs about the echo-chamber within Washington DC and the internecine relationship to the intelligence apparatus.

Ric Grenell makes a really good point when he connects how the DC political resistance would not attend the Trump inauguration, and how that same attitude just continued throughout.  President Trump’s outsider status made him a risk to the interests of the administrative state.  The DC system will not accept a ‘people’s president’, they demand approval authority permitting only one of their UniParty tribe.

.

• When Democrats won the White House in ’92 Republicans helped the transition.
• When Democrats lost the White House in ’00 they created chaos. They destroyed the telephones and computers, punched holes in the walls, spray painted and cut the furniture, and the Clinton’s even stole the furnishings down to the dishes.
• When Democrats won the White House in ’08 Republicans helped the transition.
• When Democrats lost the White House in ’16 they weaponized the intelligence apparatus to destroy the incoming administration. Leaked intelligence to the media; and unmasked incoming officials to create chaos and fabricate lies.

Notice a pattern?

The DC circuit court of appeals has oral arguments scheduled for this coming Friday as the DOJ and Flynn defense both request intervention.  In the interim the underlying case continues in Judge Emett Sullivan’s court.  Part of that underlying case activity was a request by Sullivan for an Amicus briefing by court appointed lawyer John Gleeson.

John Gleeson is essentially filling an assignment by the judge to assume the role of prosecutor and inform the court through an amicus briefing.  That brief was filed today [pdf available here and below].  Within the brief, and counter to the position of the DOJ with new information, Gleeson claims the predicate for the investigation of Flynn was valid and sets out to launch his argument from that foundation.

In essence Gleeson is defending the origin of Spygate/Obamagate and all the downstream consequences from that originating decision; one of those origination issues was an investigation of Michael Flynn; and one downstream consequence was an interview of Flynn under the guise of the dubious originating investigation authority.

Assuming the role of “Spygate” defender is an interesting effort by John Gleeson; considering that Gleeson should have little knowledge about new discoveries into the DOJ and FBI predication activity in 2016.  The discoveries by USAO John Durham (Spygate in total) and USAO Jeff Jensen (Flynn case specific) should be unknown to Gleeson as he attempts to frame his argument.

When you read the brief, it does make you wonder if Gleeson might be attempting to frame the current Flynn argument from the perspective of justifying the total Spygate operation. This approach would be of benefit to the corrupt DOJ and FBI small group who are viewed to have purposefully weaponized their agencies for political intents.  From that perspective Gleeson (Lawfare) would be using his Amicus role to build the small group defense.

By taking this approach Gleeson opens himself up to the collapse of his position, right out of the gate, if the valid predicate he is assuming does not exist.  Of course this assumes the DOJ might be willing to highlight the specifics on why the Gleeson predicate is invalid, in the counter to his Amicus brief.

The predicate is critical.  The DOJ has dropped the case specifically by saying the predicate to investigate General Michael Flynn was invalid; ergo all consequences from that corrupt investigation, including the questioning of Flynn on January 24, 2017, are materially and fundamentally flawed.   Gleeson must maintain the investigative predicate if he is to argue a false statement within the Flynn interview was a material lie.  This is a tenuous approach if Gleeson doesn’t know the most recent evidence that may have destroyed the predicate.

From that position John Gleeson then argues that Michael Flynn perjured himself in front of the court by admitting to a lie he now says did not take place.  Of course Gleeson omits any aspects to the plea being coerced under duress as the special counsel threatened his family (Flynn Jr.) with arrest if he didn’t take the plea.

Instead Gleeson’s argument is that Flynn’s guilty plea now represents a violation of law, perjury, because the defendant is now saying his guilt admission was false testimony.

Gleeson, argues Flynn should be punished at sentencing for lying about crime he was coerced to plead guilty to, and which he did not commit. Madness.

It’s an interesting read and there are likely several people who held interest in the careful way John Gleeson constructed his argument.  However, it may all be a moot point depending on the outcome of the DOJ DC circuit appeal, and the possibility the superior court may just tell Judge Sullivan to stop the games and accept the withdrawal.

Here’s the Amicus Filing:

.

Fox News with Bret Baier broadcasts the second segment of their interview with U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr.  The interview begins with a discussion of recent rioting and the activist groups who participated in looting, arson and attacks against police.

AG Barr notes the ‘spygate’ investigation into DOJ and FBI conduct so far indicates that for the first time in American history, the police and national security apparatus was used to spy on the Trump campaign.  Additionally, the AG cautions people not to read into the lack of indictments as the investigation remains ongoing.