Representative Jim Jordan appears with Sara Carter and Greg Jarrett to discuss the refusal of Fusion-GPS media hub and professional propagandist Glenn Simpson to appear before congress.  [Discussing This Story]

.

Jim Jordan also points out the risk in President Trump’s current strategy. Timing the most damning evidence against the soft-coup usurpers to come out after the election; in combination with the DOJ/FBI influenced IG report on FISA abuse; can also mean that if Democrats win the house the corruption scandal simply melts back into the swamp…

I’m going to walk through a long-held hypothesis of sorts, surrounding how multiple institutions within government were weaponized around politics.  The foundation is what we already know about how the intelligence apparatus was politically weaponized by multiple Obama-era officials.

Jeff Carlson has assembled a strong and in-depth outline covering most of the weaponized intelligence agencies and how they related to “spygate” – SEE HERE –

However, there has also been a strong suspicion that most of the corrupt origination activity would never surface.

The downstream ramifications to the institutions of our IC apparatus would be too destructive. What follows below is the story that will never reach sunlight officially.

When reading the Department of State (DoS) letter today, I cannot avoid reviewing the information against the backdrop of known DoS corrupt political activity that extends beyond the Clinton emails scandal.   For this explanation, here’s the excerpt that matters:

Forget Clinton’s motives for a moment. We all know her “request” was a proactive measure due to the likelihood her clearance was going to be forcibly revoked.  Requesting the removal avoids multiple political and logistical issues of her security file being damaged by a forced revocation.  The request is transparent in motive; so lets get beyond the surface issue.

The “researchers” who Secretary Clinton designated is the topic of interest; and the redacted identifications therein are telling.  The Executive Order referenced is HERE.  The subsection [Sec. 4.4 (a)(2)] involves:

Sec. 4.4. Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.

(a) The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information may be waived for persons who:

(1) are engaged in historical research projects;
(2) previously have occupied senior policy-making positions to which they were appointed or designated by the President or the Vice President; or
(3) served as President or Vice President.

(link)

Essentially what this tells us is that Secretary Hillary Clinton used her authority to waive the ‘need to know‘ limit on the people she listed.  In essence, she gave unlimited access to her “researchers” for an unspecified reason.

When I see the wording, immediately I think of two distinct reasons for Clinton to grant her researchers with top-level security access to classified information: (1) to participate in searches of FISA databases (ie. ‘queries’); and (2) to make unmasking requests for any results within those search query results.

Keeping in mind these appear to be State Department access / authorized researchers.  The DoS is one of the intelligence authorized access portals.  [FBI, DOJ-NSD, NSA, CIA, DoD are others.]  In short, Clinton ‘researchers’ would have access to compartmented intelligence gathering systems, ie. FISA intelligence systems.

Now, remember all of the ‘unmasking requests’ attributed to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers?   Hundreds of them.  Ambassador Samantha Powers is a top-level official, for Obama a cabinet level official, within the Department of State.

In October of 2017, HPSCI lead investigative House member Trey Gowdy questioned Ambassador Powers about those unmasking requests.

Prompted to 04:38.  Just hit play:

Brett Baier: “You are also looking, and have talked to the former Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. We reported that she requested or her officer requested 260 plus efforts to unmask, in other words, get who was talking about picked up in surveillance. How did she answer that question? Why so many?”

Trey Gowdy: “Well, I’ll tell you broadly, uh Brett, I think if she was on your show, she would say those attempt to unmask may have been attributed to her. But they greatly exceed, by an exponential factor, the requests that she actually made.  So that’s her testimony, uh, and, and she was pretty emphatic. 

The surveillance community, the intelligence community, has assigned this number of requests to her – her perspective, her testimony is: ‘they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests‘.”

“So, we’ve got to get to the bottom of that; if there was someone else making requests on behalf of a principal in the intelligence community we need to know that because we are getting ready to reauthorize a program, that’s really important to the country, but also has a masking component to it.”

Can you see the possibilities here?

We already know the intelligence systems were weaponized for political opposition research.  The FBI assembled a FISA-Title-1 surveillance warrant on U.S. citizen Carter Page, using completely fraudulent information and misled the FISA court.

Those FISA issues are still being investigated by the Goodlatte/Gowdy Joint House Committee and, the DOJ (Rosenstein) is working earnestly to block any declassification of documents that would evidence the corruption.  Additionally, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is also investigating corruption within the FISA process.

However, we don’t need to wait for the House or IG to tell us the FISA(702)(16)(17) search queries were weaponized for political use, because FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer already outlined the investigative findings of NSA Director Mike Rogers in his admissions to the FISC (FISA Court).

Reminder:

(Source pdf)

♦ Thousands of search queries from November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016.

♦ 85% of those Search queries were unauthorized (ie. illegal).

There is a reason why the FISA abuse origination story is every discussed.

The period in review matches exactly the period in which Fusion-GPS was conducting opposition research.  November 2015, is when Nellie Ohr, DOJ-NSD official Bruce Ohr’s wife, was hired by Fusion-GPS.

All of these data-points flow in one distinct direction: a collective effort within various administrative IC agencies of the U.S. government to use access to intelligence systems to conduct research on their political enemies. That includes candidate Donald Trump.

In the aggregate the Clinton “researchers” are advancing her interests through the insider use of a system that is ideologically aligned with her political objectives.

While the 2016 FBI unit, headed by Andrew McCabe, is facilitating -via contractors- a fraudulent and corrupt operation against Clinton’s political opponent; at the same time the Clinton research team are using their DoS access point to unmask the results of the names that come from the Fusion-GPS team, and flow those results into the bloodstream of the Obama administration.

This is all one massively corrupt enterprise using intelligence gathering databases.

However, here’s the punch in the gut.  The U.S. government doesn’t want the previous corrupt use of the system to surface, because that could potentially put the entire intelligence system at risk… The public might demand the entire system is dismantled. As a consequence even the non-corrupt entities within government are not in position to make the jaw-dropping weaponization public.

Now, considering that Ambassador Samantha Powers was not making the unmasking requests, and that someone -likely Clinton ‘researchers’- within the DoS compartment was making them through her office, re-read this letter from HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes to DNI Dan Coats in 2017:

(Full Letter pdf Source)

“Political spying”?

“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.” [ie. Democrat politicians] (link)”

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

All of the evidence points in one transparently obvious direction; toward a 2015 and 2016 collaborative effort structured to use a counterintelligence operation to conduct wiretaps and surveillance on the presidential campaign of candidate Donald Trump.

Accepting all of that mounting evidence, does that March 2017 interview with former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas (Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense), appearing on MSNBC, make even more sense now?

A statement from Senate Judiciary Committee today outlines a letter received from the U.S. State Department highlighting security ramifications of the ongoing issues of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -and her staff- transmitting classified information over unsecured networks:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department recently confirmed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security clearance has been withdrawn at her request. Clearances for five other individuals whom Clinton designated as researchers have also been withdrawn, including close aide Cheryl Mills, according to the State Department’s update of its ongoing review of the mishandling of classified information related to the use of Clinton’s non-government email server.

Documents containing classified material have been sent to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and all valid security incidents have been added to the security file for some individuals.  Department authorities are continuing to review tens of thousands of documents for classified content.

The update was provided to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and is being released for the first time following consultation with the State Department.  The update follows a letter from the Department in May of 2017 confirming the Department’s review into any mishandling of classified information stemming from the use of Clinton’s non-government email server.  That letter, which responded to an inquiry from Grassley, also outlined the review and adjudication process. (LINK)

Here’s the letter from the State Department:

(Source pdf)

This is an interesting panel segment. It is not often you get the primary source (Meadows) and the recipients (Carter, Solomon and Hannity) all in one panel segment.  Representative Mark Meadows has been the primary source for information from within the joint committee oversight hearings to Sara Carter, John Solomon, Sean Hannity, Greg Jarrett and Catherine Herridge.

All of the panel participants concede that most of the declassified evidence against the soft-coup officials will not come out until after the mid-term election.  Additionally, it appears to be generally accepted now that AG Jeff Sessions will be fired (allowed a graceful exit) in the lame-duck congressional period or soon after.