The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General review of DOJ and FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation has been ongoing for over 17 months. That’s a long time for a single investigation, and with good reason. The scale of the misconduct is staggering.
John Spiropoulos, a former TV news reporter at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, has created a series of video reports as a reminder on the background on the crime, the coverup and the corruption. Here’s the series:
Remember the January 2012 ABC Presidential primary debate when out of nowhere George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney: if access to contraception was protected under the constitution? [Please watch to remind yourself.] In 2012 no-one knew what the heck that was about… the question literally came out of left-field. Less than a week later the Democrats began introducing Sandra Fluke, and the rest is history. ABC was working hand-in-hand with the DNC to CREATE a narrative out of thin air.
Well, as you watch this interview today, notice the EXACT SAME framework being applied to the Stormy Daniels story. Seriously, watch the Stephanopoulos presentation, it’s spooky…. this is narrative engineering:
.
Before anyone starts saying Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, etc. etc., has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels, pay very close attention to what George Stephanopoulos is doing in that interview. Then listen to Johnathan Turley who appeared serendipitously on CBS:
Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University and joins moderator Margaret Brennan to discuss how the Stormy Daniels case and the Russia Investigation could play out legally for President Trump.
.
This is where the Lawfare crew, the nest of rabid legal hate-operatives, not coincidentally where former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker just announced he is going to work, is scripting the latest refined instructions for their “Insurance Policy”.
In rather stunning news this morning, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes informs the listening audience he plans to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. According to comments within a Fox News interview (see below) there is something important to Chairman Nunes the FBI and DOJ are intentionally withholding.
The issue is a little clouded because Chairman Nunes sent a classified letter to the DOJ requesting a specific response about the status of a specific person, and their engagement within issues of the DOJ and FBI conducting a counterintelligence operation. No-one knows who this “individual” might be. However the DOJ did write back to Chairman Nunes last Thursday and said they would not comply.
.
We have no way of knowing if the DOJ refusal relates to withholding evidence for a valid reason, or if the FBI/DOJ is refusing to comply because they are part of a cover-up of malicious conduct. Like many issues in this ongoing dynamic you can read valid and invalid motives into current action. The response letter from the DOJ is below:
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing issues with the special counsel appointed by Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Mr. Mukasey’s largest point of concern is how the Special Counsel was initiated, and the lack of public knowledge of the investigative intent.
You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States. ~SD
Rudy Giuliani, attorney for President Trump, speaks out about the Mueller investigation.
The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below). The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.
As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue. This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.
It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016. Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.
Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel the counterintelligence investigation and also gave them FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant authority; which allowed Robert Mueller to retrieve all communications (e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g) belonging to any person, entity or group, within two-hops of former unofficial campaign aide Carter Page. By extension this covered almost all the campaign officials, and also most of the Trump administration.
This is a critical point often misunderstood. When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, they began a criminal investigation (Title 3) by taking over the FBI counterintelligence investigation (Title 1). By design the counter-intel structure meant the special counsel had access to the entire gamut of active surveillance on almost every official in the Trump Administration; and every official in congress – without having to get a search warrant.
Ordinarily, under U.S. Title-3 criminal statute the investigative body, U.S. Attorney or Special Counsel, would need to go before a judge to swear out the reasoning for a search warrant and prove probable cause. Because the special counsel took Title-1 investigative authority (counterintelligence operation), they subverted domestic search and seizure protections applicable toward U.S. persons having nothing to do with foreign intelligence.
This melding of Title-1 and Title-3 legal authority is essentially what underpins Judge Ellis’s questioning. Judge Ellis began asking, and proving, that a 2005 and 2007 tax and banking case against Paul Manafort had nothing to do with a 2017 counterintelligence investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Digging into this odd framework results in the judge demanding the U.S. Attorney to reconcile/explain the origination of the special counsel investigation (2017); and the instructions therein; against the background of the case before him (Manafort), which has nothing to do with the originating mandate of the special counsel (2016 election matters).
The entire back-and-forth is well worth a read. It’s quite interesting, because there’s likely to be precedent established here.
Right from the outset the court begins questioning the entire premise of the special counsel’s expanded authority. Page #4:
The resulting exchange goes on for quite some time, generally circling back to the central issue. What is the originating authority of this investigation? and how that that specific authority apply to a case that has nothing to do with Russian election interference matters.
To defend their position the special counsel team was trying to reconcile how their May 2017 investigative mandate contains more instructions than outlined to the public.
On Page 32 of the transcript, while trying to specify how the initiating special counsel mandate has bearing upon a decades-old banking/tax case, U.S. Attorney Dreeben tells Judge Ellis the detailed instructions were delivered in person:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of Russian interference and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion, right where the 2016 and 2017 FBI counterintelligence operation left-off. This is additionally supported by reviewing the original investigative instructions as outlined by Rod Rosenstein the day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel:
The key phrase here is: “to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election”… Here, Rosenstein is clearly instructing Robert Mueller to pick-up the former Counterintelligence Investigation previously headed by FBI Asst. Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and his #2 FBI Agent Peter Strzok.
So there we have the three areas of direct authority: ¹Links or coordination between the Russian Government and the campaign of Donald Trump. ²Matters that may arise from the investigation of the Russian government and the campaign of Donald Trump. And ³other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). [<- ie. ‘Jurisdiction‘]
So there’s the instructions to Robert Mueller and his team on May 17th, 2017.
As an outcome of this May 2017 reassignment of investigative authority, Mueller took over from Bill Priestap. The Special Counsel took over the investigation from the FBI.
Without the July 18th 2017 FISA extension (provided by AAG Rod Rosenstein), Robert Mueller would not have predicate investigative authority to reach into the accounts of his targets and extract their personal communication. Mueller would have needed to go to court for a search warrant; he is conducting a criminal investigation; he would have needed probable cause. However, by applying the 2016 extended FISA Title-1 warrant, the Mueller special counsel used the previously granted legal authority from the FISA Court to extract all the information they wanted to review.
This is the issue explained by Representative Louie Gohmert at the beginning of this interview. WATCH:
Today U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III appears to have caught on to an explosive issue CTH noted yesterday. In building the case against Paul Manafort, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team used the pre-existing FISA Title-1 warrant that was originally applied to U.S. person Carter Page and the Trump campaign.
Under normal criminal investigation any search warrant or surveillance warrant would normally proceed through U.S. courts, under Title-3, where the Mueller team would need to show probable cause for a warrant. However, by using the Title-1 warrant from the FBI counterintelligence operation, as extended by AAG Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller was able to use far more intrusive and unchecked searches and seizures for his criminal probe.
The media, and broad media-consumption public, are currently unaware the Mueller probe was simply a continuance of the 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation. Most people think the special counsel investigation is a separate issue. It’s not.
However, in addition to a scathing rebuke of the underlying prosecutorial premise, ie. Mueller trying to keep the originating structure hidden, Judge Ellis demanded today that Mueller unredact the August 2, 2017, instructions from AAG Rosenstein. That removal will expose the use of the FISA Title-1 warrant use that drove the investigative origin.
WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.
“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”
Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought. […] The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.
The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation. But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe – and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation.
“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.
Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.
Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.
He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, “We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying.”
He referenced the common exclamation from NFL announcers, saying: “C’mon man!” (read more)
The Mueller team saying: “some powers are actually secret” is a direct reference to their use of the FISA Title-1 warrant, which they took over from the FBI counterintelligence operation and applied to their criminal investigation.
With the third 90-day extension of the FISA warrant, issued by AAG Rod Rosenstein (July 18, 2017), Mueller’s team were obviously using the FISA warrant from May through October of last year. [The FISA warrant expired 90 days from July 18.]
Andrew McCarthy discusses the origin of the feces. Specifically, how Robert Mueller was not assigned a criminal investigation, but instead given instructions to continue the FBI counterintelligence investigation originated by FBI Agent Peter Strzok in 2016.
This investigative framework is what Judge T.S. Ellis III (EDVA) challenged on Friday morning. The special counsel originated their Russian conspiracy investigation through exploitation of a Title-1 FISA warrant against Carter Page. The special counsel then seeks to merge the results of that 2017 Russia investigation authority into Title-3 criminal cases that have absolutely nothing to do with Russian investigations; see: Paul Manafort and 2004 and 2007 banking and tax issues(?). None of it makes a lick of sense.
Quietly, almost invisibly today, National Security Agency Director Navy Admiral Mike S Rogers turned over his command to Army General Paul Nakasone.
Together with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan, a small but formal ceremony was held at Fort Meade, Maryland, on the same day the U.S. Cyber Command was elevated to become the nation’s 10th unified combatant command.
It does not seem coincidental that today, in the background of events, there is also a great deal of activity within the aggregate intelligence community (FBI/DOJ). As DNI Dan Coats and NSA Director Mike Rogers are together in a formal and official capacity for the final time, the FBI was purging usurping agents (Page, Baker). Indeed with Admiral Rogers exit from service, he is now able to testify regarding his knowledge of prior FISA issues.
The Send-off: Friday May 4, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats delivers the colors of the United Cyber Command to General Paul M Nakasone as Admiral Mike Rogers beams with pride in the background.
You might remember it was DNI Dan Coats and NSA Mike Rogers who worked together to investigate the FISA abuses and declassify the FISA court opinion presented by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer in April 2017. It was also Mike Rogers who went to see President Elect Donald Trump in November of 2016 and alerted him to the counterintelligence surveillance being conducted by FBI and DOJ officials within the Obama Administration.
At the official ceremony today Army General Paul M. Nakasone officially replaced Navy Admiral Michael S. Rogers as commander, and as director of the National Security Agency and Central Security Service.
The New York Times is now reporting former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker has resigned from the FBI. This follows a similar announcement for Lisa Page.
James Baker and Lisa Page were part of the “fab five” (Baker, Page, Strzok, Ohr, Priestap) previously suspected as cooperating with IG and FBI INSD investigators in exchange for some form of process leniency. James Baker was removed from his position as FBI Chief Legal Counsel on December 21st, 2017. He has been holding down some previously unknown position inside the FBI until today.
WASHINGTON — Two top F.B.I. aides who worked alongside the former director James B. Comey as he navigated one of the most politically tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history resigned on Friday.
One of them, James A. Baker, served as the F.B.I.’s top lawyer until December when he was reassigned as the new director, Christopher A. Wray, began installing his own advisers. Mr. Baker had been investigated by the Justice Department on suspicion of sharing classified information with reporters. He has not been charged.
[…] Mr. Baker said in a telephone interview that he would be joining the Brookings Institution to write for Lawfare, its blog focused on national security law. (read more)
The New York Times (Michael Schmidt) focuses a great deal of energy attaching James Baker’s current perspective to James Comey as opposed to Andrew McCabe. Remember, Schmidt was the leak recipient from Comey via Benjamin Wittes (loyalty articles etc.).
Additionally, Baker going to work for Wittes at Lawfare..
(Hi Ben!)
….indicates he has NOT been granted prosecutorial immunity. If James Baker had immunity as part of his cooperation deal he would not be going to work for Wittes at Lawfare blog.
Additionally x2, this relationship solidifies our previous analysis that the Lawfare group was/is far more involved in the overall conspiracy scheme than all other reporting was highlighting. The Lawfare group were the ‘outside government’ team who were coaching the DOJ/FBI “small group” on how to execute the “Insurance Policy”.
It is transparently obvious from the way this NYT story is framed (Schmidt), that James Baker is seeking to hug up against James Comey for all pending legal issues. This puts Andrew McCabe on the outside of the circled-wagon defenses.
Big news.
Additionally x3, this also indicates the IG report is rapidly moving toward its conclusion, and also indicates that federal prosecutor John Huber is not granting immunity to the cooperating group.
The most interesting people in the ongoing investigation were those principals who clearly were in/around the center of 2015/2016 activity; were caught in 2017, yet remained inside the FBI and DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) ie. Main Justice.
♦James Baker – The former FBI chief legal counsel and close adviser to FBI Director James Comey. In addition to coordinating the “small group” activity to exonerate Hillary Clinton, Baker was also a recipient for some of the Comey Memos of recent release. This puts Baker in a position to understand the “insurance policy” described by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Counsel Lisa Page. Additionally, Baker would be able to identify the level of knowledge and participation of Director Comey, and is therefore perhaps the biggest risk to Comey specifically. December 21st, 2017, Baker was removed from any responsibility but remains inside the FBI in some capacity; he was therefore considered a cooperating co-conspirator for the FBI Inspection Division (INSD), IG Horowitz and likely prosecutor Huber.
♦Lisa Page – The former designated counsel from Main Justice assigned to assist Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. We know from open-sourced information; from her own released text messages; and from congressional releases, that Lisa Page was the person who provided the text messages to INSD and the Inspector General. Page’s account of the media leak instructions she received from McCabe conflicted with her boss, and ultimately led to the proof of McCabe’s false statements. Lisa Page was the connective bridge within the team joining the DOJ-NSD to the FBI operation. Obviously Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok were working closely at the heart of the “small group” activity. They were the footsoldiers carrying out the orders passed down from Lynch/Yates (DOJ) and Comey/McCabe (FBI). After cooperating with the INSD and IG investigation, Page quit the Mueller team in June of 2017.
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 