Apparently the institutional protection system was in full force today as current FBI lawyers blocked any questions directed toward former FBI Director James Comey as they related to FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton; applications to the FISA court and the use of the Steele Dossier.  Darryl Issa explains a transcript will show the severity of shielding:

We shared a discussion thread several months ago about how the media are enmeshed within the story of the DOJ and FBI corruption. The media engagements with the parties swirling around the FBI, DOJ and Clinton-Steele Dossier are so pervasive they cannot reasonably report on any aspect of the story without exposing their own duplicity.

As more and more information surfaces about corrupt DOJ and FBI activity, it’s worth remembering the media’s complicit role.  Here’s an updated review for context:

Michael Isikoff highlighted that level of how enmeshed media is with the story in February when he admitted his reporting was being used by the DOJ and FBI to advance the political objectives of the intelligence community. Additionally, FBI investigator Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page were shown in their text messages to be leaking stories from the Clinton Investigation, the Trump investigation and the Mueller investigation to journalists at Politico, The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. –SEE HERE–

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was busted by the Inspector General leaking stories to the media and then lying about it to INSD and IG investigators. FBI Director James Comey admitted to leaking stories to the New York Times, and even hired his friend Andrew Richman (off-the-books), gave him access to FBI and NSA databases, and then leaked information to Richman along with another friend Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare blog.

Lest we forget, the IG report on how the FBI handled the Clinton investigation revealed that dozens of FBI officials were actually taking bribes from the media for information:

IG REPORT – We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. Attached to this report as Attachments E and F are two link charts that reflect the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016. We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.

[…] We do not believe the problem is with the FBI’s policy, which we found to be clear and unambiguous. Rather, we concluded that these leaks highlight the need to change what appears to be a cultural attitude among many in the organization. (link to pdf – page Xii of executive summary)

Madness.

This is an IG fact-based criticism of the institution of the FBI, not simply a few rogue officials within it.

But wait…. Perspective:

Later it was revealed that Andrew Weissman, Robert Mueller’s #1 special counsel prosecutor, was coordinating investigative efforts with the full support of four AP reporters who were giving Weissman tips.  That’s information from journalists to use in his court filings and submitted search warrants.  Make sure you grasp this: The AP journalists were feeding information to their ideological allies within the special counsel.

Nuts; simply, well, nuts.

And then there’s Devlin Barrett, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

(Source Link – pdf Page #5)

Additionally, Christopher Steele has stated in U.K. court records the person in charge of the Clinton Campaign’s opposition research firm, Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, arranged and coordinated for Mr. Steele to talk to several journalists (CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News and Mother Jones) while Mr. Steele was also the primary source of information for the FBI investigators (including Strzok and Page):

(Source – page #8)

Make sure you read that full response from Christopher Steele above to see the scope of the media engagements he was conducting.

As more evidence surfaces the relationship between journalists, Fusion-GPS, Chris Steele and the media’s DOJ/FBI sources begins blending together. The FBI was using media reports, which were based on Fusion-GPS pitches, to bolster its investigative documents to the FISA court. It is an intelligence laundry operation:

According to the U.K records, Christopher Steele reports this September 2016 meeting with Isikoff was arranged by Glenn Simpson. According to Michael Isikoff on his February podcast, he met Christopher Steele at a Washington, D.C. hotel in Sept. 2016. They were joined by his “old friend” Glenn Simpson, the founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, who Isikoff now defines as a “private investigator.”

So Christopher Steele was meeting with journalists, the journalists were writing articles; the FBI was leaking to media and simultaneously citing those same articles as underlying evidence to support their counterintelligence investigations; and all of this was used to validate the investigative documents the FBI was receiving from Christopher Steele; who, along with the leaking FBI officials, was also the source of the media articles.

FUBAR! This is exponentially bonkers.

This is a circle of information, all coming from Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, who was the opposition research firm being financed by Hillary Clinton, along with FBI officials who were using their own strategic leaks to validate their own investigation.

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.

Now, it actually gets even more convoluted.

Christopher Steele has sworn under oath that he met with multiple journalists (at least eight organizations) in September, mid-October, and late-October 2016: “at Fusion’s instruction“. (pdf page #7)

Overlay upon that sworn admission with what Glenn Simpson (Fusion-GPS) told the House Intelligence Committee while also under oath about his involvement in sharing information derived from Christopher Steele:

(Testimony – pdf link, page #147)

…”without my knowledge and against my wishes”?

Huh?

FBI Director James Comey admits to leaking his ‘memos’ to the New York Times. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was busted for leaking and lying about it. FBI #2 Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page are caught in their text messages leaking to Politico, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

…. AND the FBI is caught, in at least one FISA application, using Yahoo media reports provided by them AND their investigative source Christopher Steele to establish a basis for FISA “Title I” surveillance; the most intrusive and wide-open search and surveillance authority possible.

The Clinton Campaign is paying Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against Donald Trump. In addition to Glenn Simpson pushing that opposition research into the media, Fusion GPS is also providing that opposition research –including information from contacts with media– directly to the FBI:

(pdf link – page #4)

… In addition to using the Fusion-GPS opposition research to underpin their counterintelligence investigation, the FBI then turn around and leak the same opposition research information to the media to create secondary support for their counterintelligence investigation.

Tell me again how the media can possibly write about this now?

The problem is not just corruption with the U.S. Justice System, the DOJ and the FBI; the problem is corruption within the media.

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?

Hell, twenty-something-year-old “journalists” were so committed to the resistance narrative they were even sleeping with their sources to get any little engineering angle possible.

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

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 or 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 or manipulated by the “sources” distributing the material for their reporting.

There’s not a single media outlet capable of doing that.

Think about a New York Times, CNN, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones, Yahoo News or Washington Post journalist now having to write an article deconstructing a foundation of two-years worth of lies they participated in creating.

Do we really think such a catastrophic level of corrupted journalism could reconstitute into genuine reporting of fact-based information?

EVER?

Impossible.

The entire MSM apparatus were breathlessly waiting for the Michael Flynn sentencing memo in the hopes they could glean some information as to the nature and substance of the details within Flynn’s engagement with the special counsel.  It is unlikely anyone will be awaiting the sentencing memo for former SSCI Director of Security, except us.  The DOJ sentencing memo is due Tuesday, December 11th, at 5:00pm.

It will be really interesting to see the details of James Wolfe’s sentencing memo, because some (not us) have speculated Wolfe’s minimal charges were due to cooperation with the DOJ on larger constructs.   According to the original indictment, James Wolfe leaked “classified” and “top secret” information from the Senate Intelligence Committee to the media.  However, Wolfe was only charged with one count of lying to the FBI.

CTH suspects the reason for the minimal charges, is specifically because the corrupt DOJ (Rosenstein) is providing cover to the corrupt SSCI (Warner/Feinstein/Burr); and Wolfe has not been a cooperating witness – because he was never asked to cooperate in an investigation the DOJ never intended to pursue.

(Court Filing Link)

The BACKSTORY – To understand why and how the DOJ appears to be covering-up the most damaging evidence toward the institutions of the Senate (SSCI), the DOJ and the FBI. The discussion must first establish a a key distinction:

What we know of the DOJ and FBI events, is entirely different from what the DOJ and FBI have admitted to.

#1) The DOJ and FBI have never officially said, or made a statement about, the FISA Court having sent a copy of the FISA application against Carter Page to the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 17, 2017.   That knowledge has come from our independent research and review of the released parts of the FISA application.

#2) The DOJ and FBI have never said, or made any statement toward, the FISC application being leaked by the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 17, 2017, by SSCI director of security James Wolfe.  That knowledge has come from our independent research and review of the: (a) Wolfe indictment; and (b) the released FISA application.

#3) The DOJ never indicted SSCI Security Director James Wolfe with leaking the FISA application.  Nor did the FBI or DOJ technically ever state within the indictment that Wolfe received, let alone leaked, the FISA application.

Within the Wolfe Indictment, the FBI did describe with some detail the type of document sent to the SSCI and the date therein (March 17, 2017).  It was later, when the FISA application was released (July, 2018), when we could compare the description within the indictment, align dates and pages with the FISA documents, and put those issues together.

The three points above did not come from any admission by the DOJ or FBI, but rather by connecting information that was produced in individual and unrelated releases.

How we gained knowledge is very important and being overlooked/conflated in discussion.

As a consequence of what was never officially released, the DOJ is not “technically” covering-up these issues within the James Wolfe pleading;  rather, the DOJ is simply continuing a process of not revealing information that would be highly damaging to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI/DOJ.

However, accepting the DOJ and FBI have never officially gone on record is also the baseline to understand that James Wolfe cannot be striking a plea deal, accepting a lesser charge, to avoid being charged with a crime he was never indicted for; and the DOJ/FBI have never said existed.

Wolfe was charged with three counts of lying to the FBI. In his agreement Wolfe has plead guilty to one count lying to the FBI.  James Wolfe cannot be striking a plea deal, accepting a lesser charge, to avoid being charged with a crime he was never charged with; and, *more importantly* the DOJ/FBI have never said existed.

If there was a plea in return for cooperation on other indicted persons, James Wolfe would not be sentenced until AFTER all assistance had been given in those other cases, so that if he backed out, the heavier charges could be brought. Additionally, any plea that requires cooperation is spelled out within the plea document that’s filed with the Court. If there’s cooperation the court must be informed so the court can take that into account for sentencing.  None of that is present in THIS PLEA agreement.

The fact the DOJ never charged Wolfe with leaking the FISA application; and the fact the DOJ never even admitted to giving the FISA application to the SSCI; is the baseline for the DOJ and FBI to be covering-up the bigger untold story.

Remember, if it were not for our (and others) independent research we would never know the FISA application was given to the Senate, let alone leaked from within it.  If we were to go by what has officially been stated by the FBI/DOJ, none of this information exists.

Start with point #1 – the DOJ has never admitted to giving the SSCI the FISA application; neither has the Senate ever admitted to receiving the Carter Page FISA application in March 2017; exactly the opposite is true.

When you consider all of the statements from Richard Burr, Mark Warner and the Senate Intelligence Committee members, going back to March/April 2017, the fact the Senate had the application is a massive story unto itself.

Several SSCI senators including Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, and especially Mark Warner, made outlandishly false statements about the DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the Russia investigation during the time-frame when no-one even knew the SSCI had custody of -and reviewed- the application.  It is demonstrably true those committee senators were making false statements throughout 2017, and well into 2018; and no-one knew how purposefully false they were because no-one knew they had the FISA documents.  It was a secret kept easily hidden by the nature of the classification.

Even through today, there’s never been a single MSM article written about the Senate having the Carter Page FISA application in 2017; and/or not a single confrontational question to any of the committee members about their statements. So, there’s a typically swampian political motive for the DOJ/FBI to not expose those lying senators.

Secondly – The DOJ has never admitted, or outlined, the SSCI leaked the FISA application to the media.  Nor have any of the recipients (Buzzfeed, Washington Post or New York Times) ever admitted to the possession therein.  Again, that’s a massive story unto itself.

So when I outline how four issues are being intentionally buried by the DOJ and FBI:

(1) the FISC sending the FISA to the SSCI;

(2) the SSCI leaking the FISA;

(3) the media receiving a copy of the FISA; and

(4) Wolfe never being charged with the FISA leak…

…all of that is based on research and dot-connections that are not in open evidence as admissions by the DOJ and FBI.  It would also be intellectually dishonest not to accept that all of that activity took place during the current administration.

The DOJ and FBI have never officially outlined any of the above; and the DOJ/FBI have never been questioned on record to get an admission for any of the above.

The decision to protect the Senate and the institutions of the DOJ and FBI was made long before James Wolfe was indicted in June 2018.   It was likely an outcome of those earlier decisions -to keep this damaging FISA information hidden- that led to James Wolfe never being charged with leaks of classified information.

The “cover-up” per se’, is in the fact(s) the DOJ and FBI have never outlined to the American public that James Wolfe received and leaked the classified FISA application.

The decision not to inform the public, or to outline the truth behind the events, is factual.

That decision is a fact because officials have never made statements outlining what is known by those of us who have done the legwork.  That decision is also hidden by a complicit main-stream media.

The motive behind that decision is open to interpretation; however, the most likely motive for the DOJ and FBI to hide all of this is nothing more than a typically swampy decision to protect the institution of the Senate (SSCI); -and- to protect the integrity of the FISA court; -and- to protect the DOJ and FBI as agencies within the apparatus.

James Wolfe is nothing more than a benefactor of that intent.

John Solomon appears on Fox News Tick-Tock to discuss the latest breaking tick-tock developments deep inside the spygate story.   The bombshell discovery lies within a chain of emails, prior to the FISA application against Carter Page, that includes DOJ and FBI officials discussing the lack of substantiation for the warrant request. [Story Here]

Additionally, Solomon outlines his sources telling him the reasons for President Trump to delay any involvement within the declassification process.  Meaning the sources for Solomon are the same voices advising the President. [Key point]  Watch:

.

Wait.. A.. Minute.. James Comey is scheduled to appear on Friday right?  Now ask yourself: why would the people feeding information to Solomon want him to push this story into the media bloodstream ahead of that testimony?  Wouldn’t earnest investigators prefer to question Comey about these emails without him having time to prepare?….

Think about it.

Perhaps HERE’S The Reason

In a May 2017 testimony to congress former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates explains the details surrounding her engagement with White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  However, for the purposes of truthful discussion, the important part of the back-and-forth between Senator Graham, Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper is not the aspect about Flynn or McGahn.

Listen carefully to the first three minutes; specifically the part about the Flynn transcript leak to the Washington Post.  Notice Graham outlining how easy it would be for the intelligence apparatus to find out who: (A) unmasked the Flynn communication; and (B) likely then leaked the Flynn communication.  Pay close attention:

Now ask yourself…. If Graham, Yates and Clapper are correct; if there is a paper trail; if it would be essentially a simple process to discover that detail; then WHY hasn’t that been done?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DNI Dan Coats made a big deal of stating they were committed to finding out who would leak such critical and sensitive ‘top secret’ information.  And Graham tells everyone how easy it would be to do… and Yates and Clapper agree… So, why wasn’t it done?

Want to drain the swamp?  Start there !

The uncomfortable truth is: they don’t want to find out… and they never did want to find out… so they didn’t.

Co-dependent no more.

Yet, for some apparent reason, we anticipate this same DOJ/FBI and intelligence community, who didn’t go through the simple process to discover who unmasked the Michael Flynn wire-tap, will suddenly develop some virtuous intent around Michael Horowitz, Matt Whitaker and John Huber?…

Color me skeptical.

.

.

There are elements who took the redacted portions of the Mueller sentencing memorandum, and the notes of Flynn’s assistance in an unrelated criminal matter, to point out a possibility Flynn’s “other criminal investigation” assistance, might be an investigation headed by U.S. Attorney Huber.

The baseline for that hypothesis would be: (a) Mueller would intentionally point to a criminal investigation adverse to his ideological interests; and (b) that Mueller’s special counsel team might also be willing to take down a team member of the administrative state in some sort blind justice quest.  Nonsense.

That is classic victim projection toward the abuser: if we just make Mueller’s team better sandwiches they will also target “their side“…. Yeah, no; it doesn’t work like that.

The special counsel team, all of them, have one directional focus and it is the same focus as written outlining the only target in their DOJ mandate of targets: President Trump.

So what is the “other criminal investigation” that Flynn is/was helping with.  Easy, the New York Times spelled it out today:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released the sentencing guideline memo against General Michael Flynn (full pdf below).  Within the sentencing recommendation the special counsel recommends leniency:

Here’s the full court filing, along with CTH review and opinion therein.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/394926613/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-U7SKDN7r4cZGYnGsBglI

Notice the primary legal risk/emphasis is not directed to the *lying* issue surrounding the FBI interview with Flynn, but rather is focused on the issues surrounding the unregistered lobbying for Turkey; the FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) violation.

There’s about a page on the FBI interview, and two pages on the Turkish lobbying issues.

The Turkish lobbying was the teeth that Mueller used to keep General Michael Flynn on the ropes.  Long time CTH readers might remember how we warned about this issue even before Flynn was selected for National Security Adviser [PLEASE SEE HERE].  So it does not come as a surprise to see this issue at the epicenter of Mueller’s leverage against Flynn.

Secondly, CTH warned again in August 2017 about how this issue was likely to be used against Flynn.  [AGAIN SEE HERE FOR THE SECOND WARNING]   The FARA issue was the preeminent leverage used by Mueller, exactly as expected.

We knew even before the election this could be a problem.  As far as we could surmise at the time – the Trump Campaign and subsequent President-Elect transition team, had no idea that campaign advocate and campaign adviser Michael Flynn was also being paid to lobby in DC on behalf of the government of Turkey, and Recep Erdogan.

The entire Flynn lobbying arrangement was beyond sketchy.  Before the election Flynn penned an op-ed advocating heavily for Recep Erdogan –SEE HERE–  The content was entirely disconnected from the assembled foreign policy outlook of Candidate Donald Trump. The Flynn Op-Ed was actually counter to candidate Trump’s policy views.  (more)

♦Now, on the issue of Flynn lying to the FBI – this is the primary focus of the media’s entire narrative construct and is part of the Mueller sentencing memo.  However, if you look at the recommendation for no-incarceration; in my opinion, there’s an angle to this that has always been FUBAR.

This is complex, so please bear with me.

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

It’s a great question.

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding BFF’s”,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

If you look at the timeline, there was always a sketchy set of circumstances.

Reminder:  •Sunday January 15th, 2017 – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

*NOTE* Notice the incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media.  At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.  VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.

That toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview was the issue. Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to Pence’s false point without clarification.  Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.

•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.

During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn.  [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]

How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th, and what actually took place, is why the FBI ended up with the conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.

I have long believed it is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Stay with me and think about this carefully.

The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had a bombshell issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?  The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  That’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap.

I’m not convinced that Flynn lied.  There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and he likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative, if Flynn is brutally honest, is for the media to run with a narrative about Vice-President Pence is now a national liar in the media.

That’s why the issue of how the FBI interviewers write the 302 summary of the interview becomes such an important facet.   We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.

♦February 14th, 2017, text messages – here is a note about the FBI reports filed from the Flynn interview.  Peter Strzok asks Lisa Page if FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is OK with his report: “Also, is Andy good with F-302?”

Lisa Page replies: “Launch on F 302”.

That would be Flynn’s 302.  The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview, is now the way the FBI can control the interview content…. and, specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.

See what happened?

Does it all make sense now?

Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview.  Likely because Flynn didn’t…. but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose.  Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.

See how that went down?

That’s also the likely reason why FBI Agent Joe Pietka has been kept quiet.

FUBAR !!  All of it.

Political analyst and commentator Dan Bongino has a great dot-connecting podcast today that outlines the players, motives, moves and intentions surrounding the ongoing Deep Administrative State battle.

It is an excellent presentation in all facets, with one minor gear slightly askew – which CTH will explain.  The content is very well presented. Everyone should listen to the podcast.  (Hit the little orange arrow):

.

The only divergence CTH holds to the overall outline is below.

This is not a criticism to the well thought-out Bongino presentation. When compared to our research and the myriad of granular issues that can be overwhelmingly complex, the summary and conclusions of Mr. Bongino are accurate, factual and well delivered.  There’s just a part of the process missing from the analysis.

CTH has a worm buried deep in the machine.

Think about the CTH worm like a tiny, seemingly insignificant, gear amid a massive and complex information machine that runs on hundreds of other interconnected gears that work in concert.

Here’s the flaw.

IG Michael Horowitz is *NOT* a decision-maker in the system.

The IG is an evaluator of investigative fact. He holds absolutely no power.  The distinction is important.  Understanding the distinction is critical.

Within the IG process – a draft report is assembled, exhaustively and painstakingly reconciled, and delivered to the principles. In essence, the DOJ Inspector General presents his findings to his boss.

That’s where things get squirrely.

That’s where Dan Bongino’s excellently prepared outline goes askew.

Mike Horowitz schedules an appointment, shows up and gives his DOJ boss the draft report. [This happens prior to the draft report going to the principles outlined within the report.]  The boss says: “Thanks Mike; really, you’ve done an excellent job; please thank your entire team; we’ll take it from here; and we’ll get back to you shortly”.

From that moment, Horowitz no longer has control or input. He has assembled the draft report. The bosses review the draft. Within the bosses review, redactions to the report begin.  These are not the type of redactions you are familiar with.  There are no black boxes covering up the text.

This type of redacting is actually decisions above the IG’s pay grade. The redactions are removals of report content that become part of classified appendices.  The issues the bosses want to see handled with sensitivity are removed.  Text is not covered-up, it is removed.

Remember the IG report on FBI misconduct and bias? If so, you might remember there were two classified appendices.  This is how the bosses remove the damaging stuff which allows the executive summary of the report to be written in a manner that might be entirely different from the report content.

The decision-making over the removed material (classified appendices) is the opportunity for corrupt DOJ/FBI officials to remove any uncomfortable issues for their interests.  This is where the risk is managed.  This is where the administrative state protects itself.

Once the “classified” information is removed (“classified” as determined by the officials in control to represent details that are of national security value – and not necessarily based on anything other than their arbitrary opinion), the report is given back to the IG in modified form to allow: (A) the modified draft to be submitted to the external principles for potential feedback and addition; and (B) the executive summary to be written.

The executive summary is formulated to describe what is left visible within the main report.  It is a summary of the public version.  The executive summary does not draw attention to the classified appendices.

As a result the executive summary may end up being disconnected from the main body of the report because substantive information is now removed and held only in classified appendices.

When the final report is presented, the control over the “national security” appendices is tight and only given to a select set of elected political officials charged with oversight.

As Bongino has eloquently outlined, in this current IG example the oversight team just happens to be the team that is at greatest risk from the content within the draft IG report.

The removed material, the classified and national security appendices, can hold the problematic material that is damaging to the administrative state.

This little known and highly opaque process allows the deep state damage control.  It is not a flaw in the system; it is by design.  The ‘system’ is not technically influencing the IG report; the ‘system’ is controlling the consequences of the report based on national security interests.

See how that works?

That is the process.

Now…. That’s the bad news.  There is, however, a possibility for good news.

Without providing my opinion on the matter; it is a fact the person who Michael Horowitz would normally be calling to schedule the draft report meeting has changed.

Because of the Jeff Sessions recusal issues, the previous two draft reports (¹FBI handling of Clinton email, and ²FBI bias in ’15/’16) were delivered to Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller.

It was Rod and Bob, with input from Chris who said: “Thanks Mike, we’ll take a look and get back to you”; and then proceeded with the removal of *national security* content for placement in the lock-box of classified appendices.

Do the prior IG report consequences, or lack therein, make sense now?

For this third IG report, perhaps the most important IG report, Michael Horowitz should be calling Acting AG Matthew Whitaker to schedule the appointment.

Depending on your confidence in Mr. Whitaker; the very positive potential outcome Dan Bongino describes might be true…. Or, if you are more cynical of the deep state; and your experience has taught you these officials tend to think well ahead of everyone else; that Acting AG appointment might result in the same outcome of the prior two.

To fuel the optimism angle…. Perhaps that’s why Jeff Sessions *needed* to resign.

Perhaps, without knowing the granular details – but on the advice of others, that’s why POTUS Trump agreed to allow the IG to complete his tasks (prior to Sessions removal announcement); with advisors aiding the office in timing etc.

I agree with Bongino that there’s an epic game of political chess afoot within the overarching dynamic.  The stakes could not be higher; and if you are one or two degrees wrong in forecasting the motives; you likely can’t anticipate the moves.

So CTH provides the information, you decide what it means.

The good thing is, regardless of how it all ends-up, President Trump *can* request to see all of the report content –and he can declassify it– if the people around the office of the president desire to aid him in doing so.

Then again, the deep state knows this too….

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has always worked earnestly to protect whistleblowers; it is a subject near and dear to his heart.  Against the backdrop of an unexpected raid on the home of an approved and protected whistleblower named Dennis Nathan Cain, Senator Grassley writes to Inspector General Horowitz:

(Document Link)

You’d be amazed at the number of people, presumably ‘on-our-side‘, who deny that Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein are simply an extension of the corrupt intelligence/political apparatus.  However, President Trump knows exactly what the Team Mueller intents and purposes are:

I strongly suggest reading this research:  “On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.

Page 2 of the same criminal information document holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.” This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.” [Please continue reading]