Representative Jim Jordan and Representative Mark Meadows have NOT seen the widely discussed Inspector General report on politicization of the FBI and DOJ. The IG report will likely be released in segments according to the substance within the investigation.
However, what Jordan and Meadows have seen is the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) file sent to Jeff Sessions outlining reason for their recommendation of termination for Andrew McCabe; and that OPR summary includes the IG evidence that backs-up the referral to the OPR.
Daily Caller – “[McCabe] didn’t lie just once; he lied four times,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Thursday.
“Four times he lied. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the [FBI’s] Office of Professional Responsibility, and he lied twice under oath to the inspector general.”
Jordan, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier on Thursday the Office of Professional Responsibility report revealed McCabe not only did not tell Comey he authorized leaks to the media, he “affirmatively denied” he did so. (read more)
It is important anyone interested in the FBI and DOJ investigation take the time to digest the details within Attorney General Jeff Sessions notification letter to congress outlining his previous appointment of U.S Attorney John Huber to parallel Inspector General Michael Horowitz as a prosecutor.
Do not trust the pundit filtration of content, take the time to read it yourself.
Absorbing the DOJ has a long-standing criminal investigation will likely create anxiety for those committed to an irrational intolerance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions; but the substance remains evident regardless of sentiment.
The Bigger Picture – If we accept the historic context for DOJ official communication stemming from the IG investigation, it would appear the notification letter is timed with the conclusion of investigative evidence collection. As such, the timing is safe for the DOJ to reveal the name of the prosecutor many previously refused to believe existed.
There was already an appointed person, a prosecutor, from “outside of Washington”, in place prior to the recent request for a Special Counsel by Goodlatte and Gowdy. That was exactly what an objective analysis of the events previously outlined – and we previously noted.
Attorney Jeff Sessions previously outlined the existence of an outside prosecutor who has been in place for quite a while, exactly as we thought. All the evidence of this was/is clear if you follow the granular details closely. Here’s how we figure it out; and also the reason why no-one in Washington DC -including congress and the president- was previously aware, until today.
…”to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee sent to us” – HERE is an Example. And here is a response:
♦#1) The DOJ Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) has an obligation to notify his superiors when he/she discovers illegal activity, or conduct that is likely unlawful, while conducting an internal investigation. The IG cannot sit on knowledge or evidence of likely criminal conduct, just because he/she is conducting an investigation. This is the same reason why IG Horowitz had to inform Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July of 2017 of the potentially unlawful conduct of members on his team (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok).
♦#2) The same people under investigation within the IG purview (FBI and DOJ officials) are transparently cooperating with the Inspector General. That cooperation, in combination with a likelihood of unlawful conduct, would require a DOJ official (prosecutor) to be assigned to negotiate and outline the DOJ legal terms of investigative compliance. The person negotiating the terms for cooperation would NOT be the Inspector General; because of the potential for criminal charges related to the investigated individuals, it would be the job of a DOJ career prosecutor to comply with legal needs.
♦#3) Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr and Bill Priestap have quotes inside the HPSCI memos. Those quotes come from investigative interviews; no congressional committee has interviewed those persons. Those would be a few of the people in #2 above; and their testimony to Horowitz and a DOJ Prosecutor, would make them witnesses in a criminal investigation. That explains why they have not given interviews to congressional committees. The DOJ needs to keep the integrity of their testimony inside the investigative unit. (ie. in the control of the DOJ official from outside Washington that Jeff Sessions notes).
♦#4) President Trump is the chief executive over the DOJ and FBI; however, in this odd dynamic he is also the victim within the conspiracy as potentially outlined by the investigation. Therefore, again to protect the integrity of the investigation and witness testimony, the victim would be kept at arms length and not informed of the criminal investigation. That’s why POTUS Trump doesn’t know; and AG Sessions must keep distance from any discussion with the executive due to this separation.
♦#5) Cooperating witness testimony in a criminal investigation also means congress would not know of the details. Congress (Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte) wouldn’t even know a criminal investigation was opened. The prosecutor works parallel with, but separate from, the IG investigation. Congress would know of the IG, but not the prosecutor. This interview by AG Sessions is the first indication congress would have of a DOJ official already looking at the criminal issues.
♦#6) And the most transparent reason why we know there’s a DOJ prosecutor already on the case is because Jeff Sessions just said there was.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions – Federal Prosecutor John W. Huber
Here’s the U.S. Code explaining the power of the Inspector General – SEE HERE
Additionally on February 27th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below). During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions if the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.
Attorney General Sessions affirmed the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI was indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]
.
This February 27th mention by AG Jeff Sessions WAS NOT NEWS.
That’s why yesterday’s admission by IG Horowitz in this regard was NOT a surprise. It was happening all along.
The February statement by Jeff Sessions was exactly what those who have followed closely will note had seemed to be the direction of the IG investigation since mid-year 2017.
As AG Sessions affirmed, repeatedly, IG Horowitz was NOT limited in scope. Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse. If he found an issue, he had the authority to follow it.
Add this fact to General Sessions’ answers about the appointment of a DOJ official from outside Washington on March 8th, 2018, and you could clearly see the IG and appointed prosecutor have been working together for quite some time.
How long?
Likely since the time when IG Horowitz first informed the AG (Sessions) and DAG (Rosenstein) that he may have discovered significant evidence of unlawful conduct within the DOJ and FBI. That would be around July/August 2017, when IG Horowitz was bound by duty to inform DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That notification led to the removal of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.
Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.
The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.
On January 8th, Bruce Ohr was demoted for the second time. [AND DOJ officials scheduled Bruce Ohr to be available to Devin Nunes on January 17th]
On January 9th, the DOJ provided the unredacted DOJ/FBI documents requested to Chairman Nunes; the documents the DOJ produced surrounded the Clinton-Steele Dossier and the FISA Title-1 application. The documents were assigned to a SCIF in the basement of the House. Those documents become the basis for Chairman Nunes to outline his memo; essentially a declassification request to the White House written by Trey Gowdy.
As a result of the agreement between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes, one member from each side of the HPSCI aisle (one Democrat and one Republican) was permitted to review the original FISA application documents which included the Clinton-Steele dossier use therein.
Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff were the two Intel committee members who reviewed. (Remember, this is January 9th, 2018) [Only Gowdy, Schiff, Ratcliffe and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte reviewed the original FISA documents]
A week later, January 16th, 2018, Chairman Nunes postponed the witness interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr scheduled for the next day, January 17th.
Instead, on January 18th, 2018, the HPSCI voted to allow all members of the House to review the Nunes-Gowdy Memo created after the DOJ provided the documents (January 9th). [January 18th THROUGH February 2nd was #ReleaseTheMemo]
Now remember, throughout this time none of those prior agreed-upon FIVE witnesses (Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, Ohr) have been interviewed. Everyone’s attention shifted from witness testimony to the Memo; and as Democrat Eric Swalwell stated, no witness was interviewed. Period. [<- key point].
So to summarize so far: during January all the DOJ documents arrived, the HPSCI (Nunes) memo was written, released, declassified and released to the public on February 2nd, 2018 – but no witnesses testified. [Nunes Memo – Link]
So the question becomes:
How does the exact testimony (including quotes) of Bruce Ohr, and Bill Priestap become part of the Nunes Memo if neither Bruce Ohr or Bill Priestap was ever interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee?
Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?
It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]
See where this was going? The investigative unit of the IG is providing congress with transcripts of testimony from IG investigators (DOJ and FBI employees within the OIG); with the review, control and approval of the DOJ outside prosecutor. We now know that prosecutor is John Huber.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses, likely with his appointed DOJ prosecutor Huber, and extracted testimony. This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).
Let me remind everyone that each of the aforementioned names is still within the system. Unlike Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki or Andrew McCabe, none of the five (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Priestap) have been removed. Peter Strzok is in FBI HR; Lisa Page is doing something; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are holding down chairs somewhere; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence.
It doesn’t go unnoticed the media are transparently not following up on Peter, Lisa, Bruce Jim or Bill. No satellite trucks in front of their houses etc.; no pounding on their doors for comment etc. Nothing.
Further, ask yourself why Inspector General Michael Horowitz (or someone thereabouts) began to advance upon the entire ‘Trump operation’ with releases of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages? Why them? Surely, other collaborative communication was also captured, yet we only heard of Page and Strzok. Why?
Here’s what is becoming transparently obvious. The fab-five are cooperating with the investigative unit of the OIG. All five of them.
The text message release was strategic. It was intended to substantiate the entire enterprise, put the ‘small group on notice’ and flush out the co-conspirators. The downstream exits of Kortan, Laufman, Rybicki, McCabe et al are evidence therein.
Additionally, the OIG (Horowitz) would want to keep the testimony of Page, Strzok, Ohr, Baker and Priestap away from the Democrat politicians, well known leakers, within the House Intelligence Committee (ie. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff) until he was certain their usefulness as witnesses was exhausted.
The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.
The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG (as Jeff Sessions confirmed today) and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part.
[That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; and no-one outside the AG, AAG, and the ‘outside’ prosecutor’s office would know.]
The prior testimony/statements to the IG by the fab-five would explain why AAG Rod Rosenstein was negotiating with Devin Nunes; would explain why Rosenstein was reluctant to allow testimony; and would also explain why Nunes came away from those negotiations with wind in his investigative sails.
The DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) needs to wall-off the politics (Nunes/Congress) from the ongoing criminal investigation (DOJ-OIG-Prosecutor John Huber) to preserve the integrity of his advancing and assembling case (including criminal witness testimony).
As soon as Chairman Nunes recognized something was going on, and after a review of the FISA documents – Nunes dropped his demand for immediate testimony by the fab-five to the HPSCI mid-January. [A record is already established]
As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures recently shared:
“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”
Additionally regarding Bruce and Nellie Ohr:
“The Republican memo states they turned over all their work and testified to someone that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele and Steele was saying he didn’t want Trump in office. They didn’t testify to a Congressional committee, so it had to be the IG.”
The already existing “outside DOJ official” outlined by AG Sessions, John Huber the person who would be constructing the witness agreements with approval of his DOJ bosses, Rosenstein and Sessions. Is this all making sense now?
All of the news and information coming forward, including the lack of follow-up attention by the Democrats regarding the minority HPSCI memo, aligns with a very specific set of facts. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with prosecutor John Huber for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor.
Thereby the Fab-Five have provided the IG investigative team and the DOJ prosecutor Huber with sworn statements and testimony which is highlighted in investigative communication between the DOJ and Chairman Nunes; and we saw snippets surfacing in the Nunes memo. That perspective explains everything seen and not seen.
It is likely the final investigative summary from the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG), Michael Horowitz, is going to be very encompassing. It is also likely to be immediately followed-up by actions, perhaps immediate indictments, from DOJ Prosecutor John Huber who Jeff Sessions brought in from outside Washington.
There is no need for a “Special Counsel” when a DOJ Prosecutor is already working with IG Horowitz. The “outside prosecutor” can begin issuing subpoenas for Grand Jury testimony and statements by the officials no longer within the DOJ/FBI, just as soon as the IG report is finished.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley discusses Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision not to appoint a second special council; and the stunningly powerful move to have a federal prosecutor (Huber) working together with Inspector General Horowitz. WATCH:
In response to a litany of congressional requests demanding a second ‘special counsel’, Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously told media (largely ignored) he appointed a prosecutor from “outside DC” to look at all the issues surrounding the corrupt FBI and DOJ:
MARCH 8th, 2018 – “Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations. I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation.
Also I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process, we’re not afraid to look at that. The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong; but he has almost 500, employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors; and they are looking at the FISA process. We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that. And I’ll consider their request.” (link w/video)
Despite AG Sessions repeated assurances that he had already assigned a DOJ prosecutor to work with IG Michael Horowitz, on the myriad of issues surrounding corruption within the FBI and DOJ – to include the FISA court abuses, congressional voices kept demanding a second special counsel.
Continuing the drumbeat, last night HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes restated the political demand for another Special Counsel. Today AG Jeff Sessions reveals the name of the prosecutor assigned to the task, John Huber from Utah, included in a letter to congress.
Washington (CNN) Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed Thursday that Utah’s top federal prosecutor, John Huber, has been examining a cluster of Republican-driven accusations against the FBI and has decided that no second special counsel is needed — at least for now.
Huber has been looking into allegations that the FBI abused its powers in surveilling a former Trump campaign adviser, and more should have been done to investigate Hillary Clinton’s ties to a Russian nuclear energy agency, but his identity had remained a secret.
[…] It also comes one day after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog office confirmed it would review how the FBI obtained a warrant to monitor Trump foreign policy aide Carter Page, as well as the bureau’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier.
Huber, who currently serves as the US attorney in Utah, may now find himself thrust into the middle of a fierce partisan struggle — with Republicans arguing anything short of a special counsel is insufficient because the Justice Department cannot investigate its own people, and Democrats maintaining that any allegations of bias are an unfounded ploy to distract from Mueller’s investigation into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials.
Originally appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015, Huber, along with many other US attorneys, resigned after President Donald Trump took office early last year, but was reappointed by Trump shortly thereafter. (read more)
It is not accidental this announcement from AG Jeff Sessions happens on the same day that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe began a legal defense fund.
Combine these developments together with the OIG news release from yesterday and you can see things are about to break loose.
Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved.
The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.
The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases. (more)
Horowitz is releasing an investigative report on his review of “phase #1” very soon. This is the Clinton email investigation, the pre-planned exoneration, the media leaks, and the political corruption to attain the objectives therein. Again refer to the original January 2017 (pre-inauguration) public information release:
It is in the course of this original investigation, and the surrounding interviews, where the evidence of Phase-2 (spy on Trump) and Phase-3 (Russia Collusion) was discovered. Hence the outcome of the IG report will predictably follow the same sequence.
Here’s the important part to remember – The evidence already exists. The documentation, interviews and gathering of evidence of what happened in Phase-2 and Phase-3 already exists. However, the IG has never announced the opening of that investigation avenue. (Because 2, and 3, were an outcropping of original intent)
Horowitz is not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence. He is now announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.
In essence he’s announcing the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered. Horowitz already has the material.
Curious timing. One day after the Department of Justice announced felony charges against FBI Agent Terry J. Albury for leaking confidential information to the media, fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe launches a legal defense fund.
Andrew McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DAG Rod Rosenstein on the recommendation from the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility. The recommendation followed an Inspector General referral which outlined how deputy McCabe had constructed leaks to the media, and instructed his team (Mike Kortan, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page etc.) to contact media outlets, feeding them information in an effort to shape the stories of financial connections between McCabe’s family and Hillary Clinton.
When confronted by the IG about his involvement leaking stories to the media, Andrew McCabe lied. His initial denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence provided by the cohorts he instructed, prompted the IG referral to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The OPR recommended McCabe’s termination to DAG Rod Rosenstein.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing investigations into the FBI and DOJ along with the numerous tentacles that have surfaced in the last several months.
.
Remember, less than 10% of the American public have any idea the scale and scope of the Obama administration using the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign… including the FISA(702) abuse and the manipulations within the FISA Title-1 surveillance application(s).
Additionally, to add a little context to the latest IG announcement of an investigation into FISA Court abuse by the DOJ and FBI, remember it was only a few short months ago when the institutional media were labeling any discussion therein as “conspiracy theory.”
“WHY” – The first video highlights the historic backdrop of DOJ/FBI FISA court abuses:
.
“HOW” – The second video highlights the specific example of how the DOJ and FBI used false information to the FISA Court to secure a fraudulent ‘Title-1’ surveillance warrant:
.
“WHO” – The third video highlights who the primary players were within the scheme:
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has released a public statement stating the OIG intention to investigate the fraudulent FBI FISA Title-1 surveillance application submitted to the court against U.S. person Carter Page; and the surrounding issues of the FBI using Christopher Steele to underwrite their evidence therein:
There are likely to be voices wondering why this OIG investigative avenue is only just now being announced and/or explored. However, a careful review and reminder of the process explains what is happening.
Inspector General Horowitz initial investigation focused on the politicization of the FBI and DOJ surrounding the Clinton investigation. However, that original announcement also included the disclaimer that he would follow “other issues that may arise”. To say there were “other issues”, that indeed did “arise”, would be the understatement of the decade.
After looking at the myriad of issues and releases since MSM attention began noticing the IG investigation on December 2nd, 2017, there’s been a very specific pathway evident. Hence yesterday, in anticipation of the first part of the IG report being released next month, we shared the following:
Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved.
The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.
The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases. (more)
Most of the critical principals attached to the FISA Title-1 application, and the downstream issues, are still within the DOJ. This is a key point to reference.
The same cannot be said for the principal members of the “small group” surrounding the FBI/DOJ politicization of the Clinton investigation. Look at the “small group” officials who quit the DOJ and FBI. Those officials are closely connected to the Clinton operation, but not necessarily the Trump-Spying-Operation: Sally Yates (DOJ), Mary McCord (DOJ), David Laufner (DOJ), along with James Comey (FBI), Andrew McCabe (FBI), Jim Rybicki (FBI), Michael Kortan (FBI). These are the principals involved in the Clinton operation.
Yes, there is some aggregate overlap amid the top tier (Lynch, Yates, Comey, McCabe) but that’s to be expected. Remember the BIG PICTURE of corruption was actually three phases:
Second, conduct surveillance on candidate Trump. [fisa application]
Third, the insurance policy. [fabricated Russia Collusion investigation]
The second phase of the FBI/DOJ small group plan was the “Trump Operation”, and the third phase was the “Insurance Policy”. For phase two and three there was increased specialty. Also, phase #3 involved the larger IC (CIA, ODNI, etc.)
FBI Agent Peter Strzok was involved in all three phases along with his co-hort Lisa Page. However, James Baker, Bruce Ohr and Bill Priestap were more involved in phase-2 (counterintelligence operation, surveillance etc.), and phase-3 (muh Russia Conspiracy) the insurance policy. Those officials are still employed within the FBI; and as we have shared, likely cooperating.
Horowitz is releasing an investigative report on his review of “phase #1” very soon. This is the Clinton email investigation, the pre-planned exoneration, the media leaks, and the political corruption to attain the objectives therein. Again refer to the original January 2017 (pre-inauguration) public information release:
It is in the course of this original investigation, and the surrounding interviews, where the evidence of Phase-2 (spy on Trump) and Phase-3 (Russia Collusion) was discovered. Hence the outcome of the IG report will predictably follow the same sequence.
Here’s the important part to remember – The evidence already exists. The documentation, interviews and gathering of evidence of what happened in Phase-2 and Phase-3 already exists. However, the IG has never announced the opening of that investigation avenue. (Because 2, and 3, were an outcropping of original intent)
Horowitz is not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence. He is now announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.
In essence he’s announcing the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered. Horowitz already has the material.
We can just as likely anticipate another DOJ OIG notice of review for an investigation into how the DOJ and FBI collaborated to manufacture the “vast Russian Conspiracy/Collusion” narrative. However, that phase-3 “insurance policy” also involves the CIA (Brennan), ODNI (Clapper), and additional elements of the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus. As a consequence Phase-3 accountability is better handled by congress.
A lot of under-the-radar action happening today surrounding the upcoming DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz report.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte called Inspector General Michael Horowitz earlier today to discuss the content of the subpoena he recently sent to the DOJ demanding investigative records related to the ongoing IG internal review and report.
Simultaneous to this oversight discussion, and related to the content therein, FBI Director Christopher Wray released a public statement announcing additional FBI staff resources committed to fulfillment of Chairman Goodlatte’s request.
FBI – As the Director of the FBI, I am committed to ensuring that the Bureau is being transparent and responsive to legitimate congressional requests.
Up until today, we have dedicated 27 FBI staff to review the records that are potentially responsive to Chairman Goodlatte’s requests. The actual number of documents responsive to this request is likely in the thousands. Regardless, I agree that the current pace of production is too slow.
Accordingly, I am doubling the number of assigned FBI staff, for a total of 54, to cover two shifts per day from 8 a.m. to midnight to expedite completion of this project. (link)
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has ‘at least’ 1.2 million documents gathered as part of his fourteen month investigation into the politicization of the FBI and DOJ.
Included within the exhaustive evidence is the total transcript of text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page extending almost two years. Some of those text messages were previously released to congressional oversight committees and have structured much of the media storyline and investigative pathways for three congressional committees. However, only a small portion of those texts were actually release so far.
According to an interview between Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and radio personality Sean Hannity earlier today, Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved:
The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.
The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases.
However, following protocol the IG report will first be released and reviewed to the three principles in charge of the internal departments being investigated. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray will review each section prior to further release.
Additionally, it is almost certain the IG report will contain highly classified information. While congress will see the totality of the report (after Sessions, Wray and Rosenstein review), each segment will be vetted in a similar matter to the April 2017 FISA Court opinion; which is to say – the public version will have redactions. [At least initially].
Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo. 99.99% of the interview is country club Senator Graham repeating the same South Carolina white wine spritzer talking points he’s famous for. That is to say lots of words amounting to nothing. The gastric equivalence of cucumber and mayonnaise triangle sandwiches on crust-less Wonder bread with a side of celery.
However, there is a reminder at 09:50 of a key and important point that tries to surface yet continues to get whacked down by the annoying duplicity of swamp creatures and a media that completely ignores the obvious. Lindsey Graham claims Christopher Steele lied and told the FBI he never talked to media.
We do not know this to be true, and neither does he.
.
It is far more likely the FBI:… #1) Ignored Chris Steele talking to media because they needed his Clinton-Steele dossier for a false FISA application; and #2) the FBI later told congress they didn’t know about Steele talking to media, but they really did; and #3) the FBI falsified FD-302 reports of their interview with Chris Steele to cover their tracks.
Here’s how we know:
Christopher Steele had no motive to lie to the FBI about his media contacts.
The FBI had tons of motive to lie about their knowing Steele talked to the media.
It’s just common sense.
Christopher Steele wasn’t meeting in secret with the media, it was well known. He was traveling around to meet them in August and September 2016. Why would he lie to the FBI about such transparently well known action in October? Answer: He wouldn’t.
Toward the end of December, the FBI provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, with FBI investigative documents (likely FD-302’s) from their contacts with Christopher Steele. According to most reasonable timing we can discover Steele met with FBI officials sometime around October 1st, 2016.
From the U.K. lawsuit against Christopher Steele (pdf here), Steele admits to having shopped the Clinton-Steele dossier to U.S. media outlets “in person” in late September (New York Times, WaPo, New Yorker and CNN), and mid-October, 2016 (New York Times, WaPo, and Yahoo News), per instructions from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS):
Additionally, in late October, 2016, Christopher Steele briefed Mother Jones via Skype.
According to the HPSCI intelligence memo, the FBI sought a FISA application based on the Steele Dossier on October 21st, 2016. From the evidenced UK court records at least two briefings with reporters, containing five outlets, took place prior to the FBI using the Clinton-Steele dossier in their FISA application.
The “late September” briefings with the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker and CNN took place prior to Christopher Steele meeting with FBI officials early October.
The implication therein is that the FBI had to know prior to their October 21st, 2016, court application that the information they were presenting to the FISA court was being heavily shopped to media outlets. This would be immediately disqualifying.
However, in the released HPSCI memo, it is noted that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about those media engagements taking place. See:
The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016. Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.
The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses? Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?
The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“.
The FD-302’s (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, could contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped; – OR – show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement; – OR – the FBI could have manipulated the FD-302’s.
In an effort to get the answer to those questions into sunlight; and with the understanding that Chairman Grassley has the FBI documents; Grassley produced a memo for declassification that facilitates understanding how the FBI claims it used the Clinton-Steele dossier during their investigation.
On January 5th, 2018, The Grassley Memo approach surfaced. Grassley issues a statement on the reason for the criminal referral. He lets us know that he ALSO has a classified memo that he is trying to get released! Unlike Nunes he needs to go through DOJ:
January 24th, 2018, Grassley Speech: “Hiding From Tough Questions” – In his 17 minute speech Grassley reveals important details about his investigation into Steele and the FBI.
Thanks to the brilliant work of DaveNYviii we can walk through this carefully, and watch the outline in a logical sequence.
“If those [FBI] 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.”
The FBI, via Agent Peter Strzok, was already caught (text messages with his co-hort Lisa Page) admitting to falsifying FD-302 material during this exact time frame.
At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.
On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:
“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.
We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)
The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents. On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview. This investigative release was big news at the time.
The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.
Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:
•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.
•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.
This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference). This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page. Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.
Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:
…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”
•”Jim” is likely James Baker, the disgraced Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey. He was busted out of a job right before congressional questioning.
•”Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]
•”Dave” was likely David Laufman the Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence. Laufman sat in on the questioning of Hillary Clinton and resigned RIGHT AFTER these Strzok/Page text messages were released. [SEE HERE]
•And “Mike” was almost certainly Mike Kortan, the FBI Communications Director who also resigned right after the Nunes memo was released, when confronted by FBI Director Christopher Wray about an unauthorized FBI statement which attempted to undermine the HPSCI memo content. [See HERE and HERE]
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, in addition to Lisa Page the DOJ attorney assigned to the staff of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were all legally aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated by the FBI to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”. However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)
They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information. That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.
There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.
We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.
If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation, the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.
FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.
Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.
President Trump is no longer planning to utilize the services or representation of the legal husband and wife team of Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, within the ongoing Mueller probe, due to conflicts.
“The President is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the President’s Special Counsel legal team,” his lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said in a statement. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the President in other legal matters. The President looks forward to working with them.”
[…] DiGenova and Toensing released a statement on the announcement Sunday, saying: “We thank the President for his confidence in us and we look forward to working with him on other matters.” (link)
Just guessing, but it doesn’t seem surprising there would be a conflict considering Toensing is representing an FBI whistle-blower in the Clinton Uranium-One scandal.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 