GOP Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Defeat


Published on Nov 9, 2018

Stephen Green laments a greater loss after the 2018 midterm elections — the Republicans lost opportunity when they had the House majority. Scott Ott finds a golden nugget in the muck, and Bill Whittle pushes back on Steve’s regret over losing earmarks.

 

McSally Concedes Arizona Senate Race To Democrat Krysten Sinema…


Embedded video

McSally For Senate

@MarthaMcSally

US Senate candidate, AZ

Congrats to @kyrstensinema. I wish her success. I’m grateful to all those who supported me in this journey. I’m inspired by Arizonans’ spirit and our state’s best days are ahead of us.

13K people are talking about this

Reconciling Rosenstein through Wolfe and Horowitz…


Back on July 22nd, the day after the July 21st surprise release of the Carter Page FISA Title-1 surveillance application, I wrote: “Oh My, This is Either A Sting -OR- The Most Corrupt U.S. Dept of Justice in History” (link).  The issue surrounded the seemingly transparent connection between the James Wolfe indictment and the FISA application.

Three months later, when James Wolfe accepted a single-count guilty plea offer around lying to federal investigators, the answer seemed obvious, at least to me.  Despite the evidence of leaking “top secret” classified documents within the Wolfe indictment DAG Rosenstein initially charged 3 counts of lying; and offered a lower guilty plea on one count.

Along with tenuous congressional testimony; a refusal to comply with document production; and a never-ending defense of the Mueller investigation; Rosenstein gives all appearances of an administrative state weasel.   However, there are solid and reasonable people who genuinely believe both Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are doing a good, and fair, job for President Trump.

Jeff Carlson over at Marketswork does solid research and analysis.  His position on Rosenstein is far more favorable than mine; and in the interests of intellectual honesty, he could be correct [Here] and [here] and especially [Here], and  I could be entirely wrong.

To shorten the Carlson view, he essentially points out that neither Mueller or Rosenstein have ever taken direct positions against the President, and both have made statements claiming there is no evidence of Trump colluding or coordinating with Russia, writ large.

Carlson also points out that President Trump has spoken warmly about Rosenstein (frequently and recently), and continues to provide the Deputy AG with visible and vocal support.

Additionally, President Trump took Rosenstein’s advice and cancelled the declassification request after their meeting; seemingly another data-point toward a view that Rosenstein, at least from Trump’s perspective, is working toward his goals.

My own opinion on Rosenstein is far more cynical.  However, with no-one really knowing which direction this is going, it is only fair to share an entirely different possibility.  I hope I’m wrong.  Therefore here’s a counter-perspective to my own cynicism.

It would be dishonest not to admit that my own history of researching politics could be clouding my perspective and judgement.  Any time I have dropped the cynical view, and looked at DC swamp activity with optimism, that favorable outlook has burned me and I’ve victimized myself through my own desire to find virtue where none exists.

So it is important to share with readers, my gut instinct -driven by experience- is always to look cynically toward anything that seems altruistically optimistic.

A recent example will help explain.

I was guilty of being hopeful the June 2018 Inspector General report on FBI misconduct surrounding the Clinton investigation would have revealed the scale and scope of wrongdoing.  I was hopeful that President Trump’s appointed DOJ and FBI leadership would be able to cut through the malfeasance, resulting in the delivery and support of an honest review of political bias we all know exists.

Alas, when the final version of the IG report was made public, and more stunningly when Christopher Wray held a press conference a few hours later, I realized it was a gross mistake to have projected and outlined optimism.

You might remember FBI Director Christopher Wray immediately said there was “no evidence of bias”; then, moments later, informing everyone that all 25,000 senior FBI officials would go through bias training.

.

Immediately after watching this I thought to myself:

How can the current IG investigation into FISA fraud and FISA Court abuse, outline corruption, malfeasance, manipulation and fraud upon the court, if the DOJ/FBI and currently expressed IG position is that there’s no signs of political bias within the institution?

The results of the second IG investigation (FBI bias), seemed to principally forewarn of the likely result of the next IG investigation into FISA abuse.

Indeed, the FISC abuse is directly related to “spygate” and the 2016 election; and that is directly related to the FBI bias and the weaponization of the FISA process. On June 14th, I immediately withdrew all assumptions, and began looking at each granule thereafter through a much more cynical lens.

However, as stated, there are intelligent people –like Jeff Carlson– who believe Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is indeed working for the cause of justice, on behalf of President Donald Trump.  Therefore, here are some data points that would likely be critical to that position – if it is correct.

On August 4th, 2017, AG Jeff Sessions announces he is putting DAG Rod Rosenstein in charge of a leak investigation. [SEE HERE]  Sometime in October, 2017, AG Jeff Sessions hires Matt Whitaker to be his chief-of-staff.

♦On October 30th, 2017, the FBI informed Senate Intelligence Committee Security officer James Wolfe, they were conducting a leak investigation [Link].  On December 15th, 2017, the FBI confronted Wolfe with evidence of his leaking.

After initially signing a sworn statement denying the activity; when confronted with the evidence, Wolfe admitted he lied & that he leaked information to his girlfriend, journalist Ali Watkins.  James Wolfe quietly resigned from the SSCI before the end of December, 2017.

♦On February 9th of 2018, while the Wolfe indictment was still under seal – and no-one in the public knew what took place within the SSCI in December, a set of text messages between SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and a lawyer/lobbyist named Adam Waldman mysteriously surfaced. [SEE HERE]  The texts showed Warner was trying to set up a covert meeting with Trump Dossier author, Christopher Steele.

♦On February 13, 2018 James Wolfe’s girlfriend Ali Watkins received a statutory notification that her email and telephone data was retrieved by the DOJ as part of their ongoing investigation into classified leaks.  The date of the capture was February 1 through July 31, 2017; and would therefore include the time-frame when the Carter Page FISA application was delivered to the SSCI and leaked by Wolfe on March 17th, 2017.

(Document Link)

It’s important to remember that we don’t find out about any of this activity at the time it was happening.  None of this was public information in March, October or December 2017; or in February 2018.  It is only in hindsight, after the Wolfe indictment was unsealed, June 2018, that we can put the dates and documents together.

(1) The Wolfe Indictment. (2) The Warner Texts. (3) The Watkins notification. (4) The FISA application.  Alone they don’t mean much, and they all came out separately. But put them together and a clear picture emerges.

The FISA Application was delivered to James Wolfe at the SSCI on March 17th, 2017.  SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner reviewed the FISA application at 4:02pm the same day. James Wolfe then leaked the content of that FISA to his journalist girlfriend Ali Watkins on the same day.

Later, in October 2017, Wolfe was notified of a leak investigation. On December 15th, 2017 Wolfe was questioned about the leaks.  Unbeknownst to him the DOJ had already secured one-end of the communication network [DOJ FISA Subpoena of his girlfriends documents] which busted him in the lies.

After Wolfe was busted in December, someone gained authorization to retrieve Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages, and those became public in February 2018.  (Remember, at the time they become public, we don’t know about the Wolfe indictment)

Question: Knowing there was a sealed indictment waiting in the wings, why weren’t Senator Mark Warner’s texts held as substantiating evidence?

It is my suspicion, the interview with James Wolfe (December ’17), is what tipped off the FBI to go look at the text messages of Senator Warner; which we see in Feb. ’18.  It is my suspicion Warner instructed Wolfe to leak the content of the classified FISA application to Wolfe’s media sources; and when confronted Wolfe informed the FBI that’s how it went down.

To bolster my suspicion, prior to his October 2018 plea deal, what did James Wolfe immediately position as his defense?

WASHINGTON (July 27th, 2018) —Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been notified they may be asked for testimony as part of the criminal trial of a veteran Senate staffer accused of lying to the FBI while working for the panel.

Attorneys for James A. Wolfe sent letters to all 15 senators on the committee, notifying them that their testimony may be sought as part of Mr. Wolfe’s defense, according to two people familiar with the matter.  [Wall Street Journal]

Additionally, Wolfe’s lawyers tried –and failed– to get a gag order put on his case.

This is a factual data-set, along with my suspicions as to how/why the FBI went looking into Warner’s text messages.  James Wolfe plead guilty to one-count of lying to the FBI; and no-one has yet made any public comments about it.

Is there a solid framework for an honorable Rod Rosenstein view within this data-set?

Goldman Sachs – Preparing for Waterfall Event?


The rumor mill has been hot concerning Malaysia and Goldman Sachs for the past two years. As it was turning into a criminal investigation Lyod Blankfein coincidently decided to step down at age 63. That was announced last March when he said he would step down by the end of the year. Then in July, Blankfein said his goodbyes. The London Financial News claimed it was an emotional departure.

Was it really a coincidence that Blankfein stepped down which appeared to be running for the exit door and then within three months the news breaks that he was deeply involved in the corruption scandal in Malaysia. As Bloomberg wrote: “Years before Goldman Sachs Group Inc. arranged bond deals now at the heart of globe-spanning corruption probes, the firm’s then-CEO Lloyd Blankfein personally helped forge ties with Malaysia and its new sovereign wealth fund, according to people with knowledge of the matter.”

 

It is interesting how those of us in the industry outside of Goldman Sachs have been waiting to see if the shoe will ever drop and the US Department of Justice will EVER do its job along with the SEC and CFTC. They have all been in the pocket of Goldman Sachs for quite some time. The share actually peaks intraday during March 2018 curiously when Blankfein announced he would leave at the end of the year. The highest monthly closing remains that of January 2018. Since then, the shares of Goldman Sachs have entered a decline and in the process, UNLIKE the Dow Jones Industrial Index, Goldman Sachs elected a Monthly Bearish Reversal. Now a monthly closing BELOW 215 will signal a Waterfall is unfolding with a drop back to 185 for starters. However, we have a Monthly Bearish Reversal at 220.25 and the lowest monthly closing has been 220.57. Clearly, this is hanging in there by the skin of its teeth.

Last year’s closing was 253.15. A simple lower closing at year-end will warn that Goldman Sachs is in trouble. However, even a breach of last year’s low was 206.94 intraday will signal this stock is in SERIOUS trouble. A closing for 2018 below that number will technical warn that this is an outside reversal to the downside. This will signal a drop to the 165-185 zone becomes likely.

The problem remains that Goldman Sachs has way too many people in strategic places to manipulate governments such as Alan Cohen who now serves as advisor to the Chairman of the SEC on emerging risks and regulatory developments, including the impact of Brexit, new European Union regulations (e.g. MiFID II), and issues related to domestic and international clearing and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions. Cohen was a board member at Goldman Sachs after joining the firm in 2004 as the Global Head of Compliance and a member of the management committee, where he supervised a global team that was responsible for compliance across all business and financial products, and in every major international market. That means that Cohen should have been in charge of the Malaysia agreements and as head of Global Compliance, he should have sounded the alarm over any bribes to foreign governments. Goldman Sachs has been long called on dealing desks – Government Sachs.

With Cohen as part of the executive decision process in the SEC, this calls into question whether the SEC can even be trusted to conduct an honest investigation into the Malaysia affair no less Goldman Sachs. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions: one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials.

The penalty is:

(2)(A) Any natural person that is an officer, director, employee, or agent of a domestic concern, or stockholder acting on behalf of such domestic concern, who willfully violates subsection (a) or (i) of this section shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Prosecutions have taken place if you simply pay for a vacation for some official’s children to visit Disneyland. This act makes it criminal for any such offer, gift, payment, or promise. If Cohen remotely knew of the deal and took no action, that is 5 years in prison. The same is for Blankfein. Now considering that Goldman Sachs earned over $500 million as a fee, you can probably assume that ANYONE on the board knew the deal and what the fee was exceptionally many more times what was industry standard.

Actually, I previously wrote back in 2015 about this Malaysian scandal which we all knew about behind the curtain and how it involved Goldman Sachs. In 2016 I wrote that the Federal Reserve was preparing an enforcement action against Goldman Sachs related to confidential government information that was leaked from the Fed to one of its bankers. I also wrote that Swiss prosecutors said they were helping the U.S. on the investigation. The Swiss also opened their own criminal proceedings in August 2015, against two former officials of the fund on a string of corruption charges. Their investigation has since been extended to other officials as well. It is really not a wonder why it has taken three years in the USA to even look at Goldman who has been viewed as walking on water. Don’t forget, it was Blankfein who once said that Goldman Sachs was doing “Gods work” here on Earth.

If the prosecutors in Brooklyn really want to make a name for themselves, they have the key to allegedly unlock Goldman which may lead to the biggest political corruption case ever to have existed which just make the Rothschilds look like kindergarten. So stay alert. This could be far worse than anyone knows for the tentacles go everywhere and extremely deep even into the pockets of the Clinton Foundation.

Trump himself better stay alert for this could be the key that might even ensure the decline and fall of the Democrats and the rise of third-party activity into 2024. The number of politicians who have been for sale around the world allegedly to Goldman Sachs may even be beyond count. Don’t forget, Goldman went as far as to instruct staff they were NOT ALLOWED to donate to Trump. Mueller was also on the paid-speaking circuit in recent years and paid by none other than Goldman Sachs. Hillary got  $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs. It has been known that Hillary got $22 million in speaking fees that were all to buy “influence” in government. She has NEVER been prosecuted for obvious bribes

The Cleaner…


There are ongoing consequential election battles taking place in multiple states that are far more urgent than my meager outlines; and it is not my intent to distract from the more pressing matters of our political surrounding.  However, there is a strong possibility the current election events are symptoms of a larger battle within government.

An enigma:

You see, there’s a bunch of ‘unofficial’ evidence, or data-points, that no-one can explain how or why they came to be visible.  The data did not surface sequentially; but it surely surfaced purposefully from within the apparatus of government. Putting the evidence into a sequence that clarifies the picture is not easy. As a respected person recently shared:

“It’s almost like a separate discipline, sort of like textual forensics or document historiography; I don’t know how to describe it yet.”

In an earlier outline I shared the following questions:

  • How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
  • Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
  • Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
  • Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media?  Why?
  • Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
  • Why be so specific details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?
  • Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
  • Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence coming from?

Well, here’s my answers.

In the James Wolfe indictment, released June 8th, 2018, we find out the Senate Select Committee on intelligence was sent the FISA application on Carter Page.  We don’t find out from the indictment, we only see a description:  [Source Link]

Now, keep in mind this indictment as written ends without any charges of leaking classified documents.  The indictment [Read Here] ends with three counts of giving “false statements to a government agency”, ie. lying to the FBI [18 USC 1001 violation]

If you read the indictment, and the subsequent charges within the indictment, there is absolutely NO REASON, for the extent of the specificity within page #6, lines 17 through 20. As pictured above.  Wolfe was not charged with leaking “classified information”, yet the specific details describe the “top secret” document that was leaked.

A month later, on a Saturday, July 21st, 2018, the redacted FISA Title-1 application used against U.S. person Carter Page is released.  At the time of its release, no-one was looking for it and no-one was requesting the release.

On page #54, 63, 65, 66, and 83 of the heavily redacted FISA application – the FISC Clerk copy stamp appears, drawing attention to the date of distribution, March 17th, 2017. [Source Link]

All dates within the FISA application are redacted, except for the FISC Clerk stamp dates.  Curiously, this March 17, 2017, clerk stamp date is what connects that document to the description of the “top secret” document outlined in the Wolfe indictment.

Against the refusal of the DOJ and FBI to declassify supporting documents to the Nunes memo, this unanticipated weekend release of the FISA application was that much more interesting.  FISA documents are not foia-able; consider the painstaking effort to get the Nunes memo released; in essence this FISA application would have been the easiest document to keep hidden.  Yet, it appeared.

Additionally, another curious unanticipated and never explained document release from February 9th, 2018, overlays with both the Wolfe indictment and the Carter Page FISA application.

In February, 2018, someone, for some reason, released the text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, and a lobbyist/lawyer named Adam Waldman. [Source Link]  The resulting sunlight showed Senator Warner seeking Waldman’s assistance in setting up a private meeting/interview with Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.

On page #5 of the Warner text messages, we see the date March 17th, 2017, again.  The same date the Senate received the FISA application.  This time we see that Warner was going into the Senate “skif” (SCIF) shortly after 4:00pm; (presumably to review the document):

Using 2018 hindsight and putting together the three documents, released six months apart [Feb (Warner), June (Wolfe), July (FISA)] the picture emerges that the Senate Intelligence Committee received the Carter Page FISA application on March 17th, 2017, delivered to James Wolfe and reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner.   From the indictment, we discover the content of this document production was leaked by James Wolfe, to his reporter/girlfriend, Ali Watkins the same day.

The important notations here are: (1) two of the three sets of data were released without any specific purpose (FISA App and Warner texts); (2) no-one knows why two data points were released; (3) no-one knows who released them; (4) the FISC Clerk Stamp appears to have been intentionally left unredacted; (5) the specificity within the page #6 data within the Wolfe indictment was unnecessary for the direct purpose, yet important for the indirect purpose of connecting the data; (6) the Wolfe indictment was unsealed six months after the fact; and (7) NONE of these three sets of data were essential information at the time they were released.

This tells me, someone wanted this information into the bloodstream of public knowledge; yet non of this information was part of an official release; except the Wolfe indictment – yet it too contained unnecessary specificity within the page-6 details when unsealed.

This brings us to the critical question: Who?  Who wanted this out there?

The answer to that question, is uniquely narrow when you think about the documents and the position the person would have to hold in order to influence the release.

Because of the documents in question, the person would need to be inside the DOJ.  Because of the content of the documents, the person would have to be important enough to have access and knowledge of the bigger dynamic at play.  This person would also need to be high enough in the food chain to authorize the FISA release and have some control over the redaction process (leaving the FISC Clerk stamp date visible).  This person would have to be high enough to ‘unofficially’ release the Warner text messages, and yet not be in fear after doing it.

In my opinion, that describes Matt Whitaker – AG Jeff Sessions Chief of Staff.

Additionally, when considering another set of unsourced and very consequential data that followed the plea of Michael Flynn as demanded by the prosecution from Robert Mueller November 30th, 2017.   The public releases on December 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, immediately following the Flynn plea (Strzok FISC buddy Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras), were massive in consequence, and appeared reactionary.

Those early December 2017 releases revealed: the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok removals and suspensions; the text messaging; the connections to Bruce Ohr activity (demotion 1); and the connections to Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS.   No-one ever asked who was the source of that mountain of evidence against the conspiracy group.

Again, in my opinion, that information could only come from someone with deep knowledge of what was going on; and tends to point toward Matt Whitaker.

In short, I think Matt Whitaker was our behind-the-scenes ‘deep throat’; pushing information into the public consciousness that would paint a picture being hidden by opposing voices within the administrative state.  All of the countermeasures became visible after Whitaker was hired in October 2017.

Again, apply common sense, what interests were served; and whose interests were undermined by this information being released?

Whitaker joined Sessions in October 2017; immediately before the FBI investigators zeroed in on the SSCI leaking [See Indictment].

Whitaker came in after the leak task force was in place and investigating.  I believe it was Matt Whitaker who left the disparate breadcrumb trail for us to follow.

Given the nature of how hard Rosenstein and Mueller are/were working to block sunlight and the release of information, as evidenced within their recent threats against declassification by President Trump, these data/evidence points certainly did not come from their collective DOJ camp or the ‘small group’ within the Special Counsel.  Factually the sunlight from the mysterious media information was adverse to their interests.

So here’s my summary:

  • How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages? – Matt Whitaker
  • Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application? – Matt Whitaker
  • Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from? – Matt Whitaker
  • Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? – Matt Whitaker
  • Why? – Push back against the sketchy Mueller framework within the Flynn plea.
  • Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information? – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in an effort to protect the interests of corrupt elements within the SSCI. [ Despite the leak task force identifying the leaker, the content of the Wolfe leak meant Sessions could not be the decision-maker; the recusal firewall was crossed.]
  • Who wrote the initial Wolfe indictment to contain such specific evidence as to outline how he had leaked classified information?  – The task force [Whitaker allies].
  • Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp? – Matt Whitaker as push-back against, and evidence toward, the corrupt elements within the SSCI.
  • Where did all of this “unofficial” evidence come from? – Matt Whitaker, current Acting Attorney General.

Additionally, the Office of the President is not an individual, it is an institution.  There are people, mostly lawyers, responsible for the office of the president who are there specifically to protect the executive office and not necessarily the person within it. By protecting the Office of The President, they protect the president.

Part of that protection involves NOT allowing the President to posses information that could put him in a position of compromise or legal jeopardy.  Therefore, in my opinion, President Trump does not have direct knowledge, nor has he been informed, of any of this.

In my humble opinion, those near the President are telling him to keep publicly expressing his distance from Matt Whitaker specifically because Whitaker is “the cleaner” for the DOJ and FBI.  That’s why we are seeing this:

The President needs factual and honest deniability of knowledge, and or any involvement, in what Matt Whitaker has done (as CoS) and/or will do (as AAG) internally.

That scenario doesn’t make former AG Jeff Sessions out to be good or bad, just recused and unable to deal with the issues over the past 20 months – prior to exit.

The conflict and compromise carried by Rod Rosenstein makes him a risk to the office; that’s why Whitaker was recommended as the ‘cleaner’.

I suspect one of Whitaker’s key tools will be to oversee and then utilize the IG report on FISA abuse to expel those within the DOJ and FBI who participated. [See Here]

The deepest elements of the DC swamp will go bananas to get rid of Whitaker specifically because he is positioned to be the cleaner.

Who has given Whitaker counsel?  Likely Senate Judicary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Will this effort work? I have no idea.

There you have it.  That’s my take.

“Matthew Whitaker”

.

.

The Importance of Matt Whitaker -vs- The Administrative State…


Robert Mueller (the entire team) was put into place by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017.  The specific selection of Robert Mueller was an outcome of recommendations and advice from FBI Chief Legal Counsel, James Baker, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

In hindsight; and specifically against the backdrop of known illegal activity [remember, McCabe is under criminal referral] there was a motive of self-interest within Baker and McCabe, specifically to cover for the 2015/2016/2017 DOJ and FBI activity that preceded the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

From the initial perspective of self-interest, Mueller’s role had/has three essential aspects:

♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation.  Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation.  In this way Mueller provides cover for officials.

♦(2)  Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2016, 2016, 2017.  Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.

♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry.  Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe. In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.

In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.

That leads to a discussion of the role of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

All of the visible activity being conducted by Rosenstein has been going in one direction, and only one direction.  That direction has been an intentional effort to keep as much of the damaging evidence hidden from public review and away from congressional oversight.

Back on October 7, 2017, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes pointed out that Rosenstein’s motives were to keep hidden the documentary evidence he was requesting President Trump to declassify.  Rosenstein communicated to President Trump that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would consider any declassification of documents as “obstruction” within his investigation:

President Trump backed-down from requesting the declassification of documents and agreed to allow the Inspector General report to review and outline the material being discussed.  This is a key point.

The takeaway from this framework tells us that DAG Rod Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, wanted to put the substantive issues under the purview of the IG.   There’s a strategic aspect to this which has remained un-discussed.

However, before getting to the IG motive, allow me to emphasize how much the current corrupt DOJ activity (Rosenstein/Mueller) is not isolated to FISA abuse and documents the usurping officials want to keep hidden.

The agenda to hide corrupt activity also flows outward and can be found in the DOJ behavior surrounding James Wolfe; the busted Senate Intelligence Security Official who was caught leaking the classified FISA application to the media.

Despite overwhelming evidence James Wolfe was not indicted for the more serious charges of leaking classified intelligence.  The decision was made by DAG Rod Rosenstein because AG Jeff Sessions was recused.  An intellectually honest review of what was/is taking place would indicate the *CURRENT* DOJ, controlled by the actions of Rod Rosenstein, needed to hide what was taking place as evidenced in the original indictment.

James Wolfe became a benefactor of current DOJ officials who are protecting the institutions within the administrative state and hiding the fingerprints of the officials, and congressional allies (Vice Chairman Mark Warner), who engaged in activity in 2016 and 2017.

These corrupt DOJ and FBI officials are not protecting Wolfe as much as they are protecting themselves and their institution(s).  This effort transparently includes Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch and current FBI general counsel Dana Boente; as well as all the second level and third level carry-over career officials.

The efforts of Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch, Boente et al, to cover-up the institutional corruption extends far beyond their blocking activity of the declassification requests; and shows up in the lack of substance behind the Wolfe plea agreement when compared to the devastating evidence within the original indictment.

There is a clear pattern.  In addition to the disparity of outcome within the Wolfe indictment/plea deal we exhibit: redactions in material evidence provided to congress; refusal to release material to congress; fighting declassification of documents that would be damaging to the previous officials; refusal to discuss events with congress by officials who hide behind the shield of the Mueller investigation; the list is long.

Additionally, the Mueller control agenda also extends into the two previous IG reports submitted by DOJ Inspector Michael Horowitz.

With Robert Mueller in charge of an ongoing investigation, the two previous IG reports (1. Investigation of McCabe and 2. Clinton email/FBI bias) could not outline anything tangentially connected to the Mueller investigation without first passing through his teams approval and review.

That level of Mueller influence kept the most severe elements of investigative sunlight away from public review.

These officials defending the administrative state are still in place.  We know they are in place because their influential conduct is visible. Three of them are inarguable:

(1) By redacting innocuous, albeit highly damaging information, within the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages and emails.  Officials within the agencies are hiding information and even eliminating the most damaging material.

(2) By controlling what records IG Horowitz has access to; in addition to who he is interviewing. The IG is only as effective as the material he has to review.

(3) By shaping the executive summaries of the two previous IG reports to ensure the specific material within the report is diluted as much as possible in the summary and conclusions.

The collaborative efforts of the current group of corrupt officials, maintaining the administrative state, was also evident in the hit job against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Those former DOJ/FBI officials (Bromwich, McLean, Laufman, etc.), who were/are part of the Blasey-Ford construct, were clearly working with a set of current officials. [This collaborative interest extends to people within government (the legislative branch) and those outside government (media allies).]  We saw surface it live on television.

The appearance of former DOJ lawyer Michael Sussmann working with Perkins Coie and on behalf of the DNC, to feed information to former FBI legal counsel James Baker, only highlights this systemic collaboration and corruption within the DOJ and FBI.   That corruption has not been addressed; it is currently being protected from sunlight.

This landscape is inarguable.  There is no debate as to the visibility within the current administrative state.

In essence, and against the understanding of how these officials manipulated the recusal of AG Jeff Sessions; DAG Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch, FBI Chief Legal Counsel Dana Boente, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the affiliated network of political operatives within the DOJ/FBI; this crew has held free reign to shape everything in the past two years.

That is why there has been ZERO progress.

However, with the resignation of Jeff Sessions and the appointment of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, the Deep State landscape has shifted.

For the first IG report on Andrew McCabe, and the Second IG report on FBI misconduct and bias, Jeff Sessions was essentially recused from any input or structural oversight because each of the aforementioned IG investigations crossed over into 2016 campaign review and/or the FBI-DOJ counterintelligence operation (Russia).

On this third IG report, looking into FISA abuse, Matt Whitaker has replaced Jeff Sessions.

♦Background: On March 28th, 2018, the DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz formerly announced an additional investigation of how the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in matters relating to the FISA Title-1 application filed against U.S. person Carter Page.  However, one part of the OIG notification was generously overlooked by a defensive and IC compliant media:

As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source. Additionally, the OIG will review the DOJ’s and FBI’s relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications.  (pdf link)

Two months later on Monday May 21st, driven by demands and questions from President Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein added a significant DOJ mandate to the Inspector General review.  Rosenstein expanded the original FISA review to include looking at whether officials within the intelligence community may have unlawfully used human intelligence assets to “spy” or “surveil” the Trump campaign:

“The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.” (link)

If my hunch is correct, this is one of the key background objectives of having AAG Matthew Whitaker in place.  Whitaker removes the ability of current officials from watering-down the IG report; as they did in the previous two releases.

This puts a timeline in place for President Trump to keep Whitaker around and delay any replacement nomination until after the IG report is published.

The IG process for the FISA report is structural.  Once the interviews and investigation is complete the “IG referencer” phase takes several weeks.  The referencer could be a person or a group of people depending on the size of the report.

The referencer has the responsibility for going through every statement of fact and providing the citation or footnote for the assertion. The person(s) doing the reference review has/have the most arduous of tasks.

The referencer checks every sentence, every assertion, and ensures only provable facts with citations are part of the report. Every assertion of fact must be cited (or footnoted) to include the investigative material that proves the fact.  After the footnotes, citations and all fact assemblies are reconciled a draft report is written. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.

The Draft Report is then reviewed by the DOJ and sent to the principals for review. It is in-between the time frame where the draft is completed, and IG is awaiting the responses from the principals, where interference from any corrupt DOJ official takes place.  This is also when the “Executive Summary” is written, with influence from the administrative state, that tamps-down the findings.  As we saw in IG report #2 (FBI bias) the executive summary completely downplayed the evidence within the report.

The ‘Draft Report review’ phase allows the principals (those who’s behavior, action and conduct, is outlined in the report) to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.  Normally this part of the process takes at least two to three weeks.  Responses from the principals about the facts outlined in the draft report are then reviewed, cleared for addition if appropriate, and included in the final report.

The “executive summary” is added; and then the final report goes to print and is released to the public.

The switch from a recused Jeff Sessions to a non-recused Acting AG in Matthew Whitaker has completely changed the risk dynamic for the corrupt internal officials.  This is why all voices are now focused to remove Whitaker.

Whitaker is now President Trump’s most valuable weapon in the ongoing battle against a bipartisan and corrupt administrative state.

More to follow…

The Realist View of the Midterms


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Your take on the midterm elections is that the Democrats really failed and simply won a symbolic victory?

Thank you

IE

ANSWER: Yes. The Democrats keep making lower highs and deeper lows. They do not review the major trend nor are they willing to revise their central theme.  While the Democrats won the majority in the US House of Representatives can blow their horn really loudly, are a more important shift in domestic power balance has taken place. Trump’s gains in the Senate demonstrate that his election was not a fluke. The FOX poll that showed more Republicans identified with Trump than the Republican Party demonstrates above all the trend is away from both party mantras.

The possible consequences of the Democratic House victory will probably lead to the banter of impeachment, but they will lack the votes in the Senate where a trial would have to take place. That means this will be just a dog and pony show. Mueller will dop his best to try to prosecute Trump for something because4 that is the Deep State goal. We are also likely to see important implications for Trump’s foreign policy. By and large, the Democrats will press their revenge against Russia and the talk is they would love nothing more than war with Russia. They will keep stirring the pot to achieve that goal and they will do their best to try to block anything Trump does regardless if it is good or bad for the country. This is all about winning in 2020 right now.

Democrats may be pushing for changes in the defense budget – including the attempt to block new low-yielding tactical nuclear weapons targeted by the Trump government. There will be more pressure to get results in
Afghanistan or to demand a withdrawal blaming Trump for that mess as well despite the fact he did not start it the confrontation there. The Democrats will also push for an end to the Yemen war and a blockade of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, keep in mind that Trump has a lot of room for foreign affairs, but the US House of Representatives can shed light on fraudulent or failed political initiatives with a spotlight for political brownie points with again an eye on 2020.

The Democrats will speak out against Trump’s “anti-globalism” approach and they will promote support for multilateral institutions and alliances to support the EU against Trump. The US House Democrats see the EU as an important center for pressure on Trump and they will use it. Democrats are also likely to turn to the EU for trying to legislate on climate change against Trump and to support more control and taxes on the people.

The Democrats will take an even tougher attitude towards Russia. They want revenge against Putin and believe if they had not leaked their emails which showed the truth, Hillary would have been in the White House and they would have control also the Senate. This is the fictional world they live in these days. Hence, the will continue to pus for investigations into Trump / Republicans related to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. This is something they are DESPERATE to prove for they really think this will deliver them the White House in 2020.

The will also issue compulsory summonses for Trump’s tax returns so they can make them public for the 2020 elections. Don’t forget they are Socialists at heart so to them bashing people with money is their ticket to the White House in their mind.

Nevertheless, the Democrats will have a major impact on US policy in China and Russia. They will be yelling and screaming about everything. They would love nothing more than to obstruct Trump on every level and create war if they really can. They do see China’s trade as a problem. Ironically, they are actually closer to Trump’s view on trade with China than on any other topic.

Don’t forget, we will now have Nacy Pelosi at the helm. This is the woman who actully said: “I don’t know what was so great about the great depression

Comprehending The DOJ/FBI Administrative State Battle…


There is a significant issue of understanding and comprehension that must be addressed for anyone interested in actually learning about what is happening, and what has happened.

The issue surrounds recusal.

Effective March 2nd, 2017, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused from any involvement in DOJ issues, investigations and decision-making, that surrounded the “Russia Probe” or “Russia Investigation”.  FULL STOP.

Setting aside the for/against argument around the decision by Sessions, the resusal meant that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused from any involvement in the Mueller investigation.  FULL STOP.

Within this dynamic DAG Rod Rosenstein was/is the central DOJ decision-maker for anything surrounding the Mueller investigation and larger Russia investigation. FULL STOP.

Does that make sense?

If yes, continue….

On August 4th, 2017, AG Jeff Sessions and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats made an announcement they were initiating a “Classified Intelligence Leak Task Force.” [DOJ LINK]

The “just don’t do it” program, as launched by an obviously angered Sessions, included three measures. They were:

♦First, I directed my Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—whose district in Maryland encompassed the NSA headquarters and who has personally led these kinds of investigations— and FBI Director Christopher Wray to oversee all classified leak investigations and actively monitor the progress of each and every case.

♦Second, I directed the National Security Division and U.S. Attorneys to prioritize cases involving unauthorized disclosures. The Department will not hesitate to bring lawful and appropriate criminal charges against those who abuse the nation’s trust.

♦Third, as I said, we tripled the number of active leak investigations. In response, the FBI has increased resources devoted to leak cases and created a new counterintelligence unit to manage these cases. Simultaneously, the Department is reviewing policies that impact leak investigations.

The DC-based intelligence leaking community was put on notice.

Does that make sense?

If yes, continue….

As a result of that August 4, 2017, announcement we discover an effort by the DOJ and ODNI to launch a task force to track down the leakers within the intelligence apparatus who have been revealing unauthorized, often ‘classified, information to the media.

Later, we discover in hindsight, that in October 2017, not coincidentally when AG Jeff Sessions hires Matthew Whitaker as his chief-of-staff, the leak task force, as part of ONE of their investigative reviews, zeros-in on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

As a result of that singular FBI/DOJ/ODNI investigation into the SSCI, the head SSCI security official James Wolfe was identified as a leaker of classified information. [Indictment Available Here which has all the details]

Are you familiar?

If yes, continue….

When you review this specific SSCI investigation; and overlay the outcome therein (Wolfe); against the backdrop of the Sessions recusal; this is what you discover:

For the leak task force objectives, Sessions is involved, briefed.

As the leak task force focuses in on the SSCI Sessions is still involved, briefed.

When the leak task force identifies the specific evidence of what was leaked; ie. the FISA Application against Carter Page – which is part of the Russia Investigation; *NOW* Jeff Sessions is removed; no longer briefed.

*NOW* the recusal firewall is crossed.

Do you see how that works?

If yes, continue….

When the leaking by James Wolfe is discovered to be information specifically related to the FBI and DOJ Counterintelligence Operation (the Russia investigation); the resulting evidence now causes the decision-making to jump from AG Jeff Sessions, to DAG Rod Rosenstein.  (Sessions is now in his recusal bubble)

Does that make sense?

This is an example of how the recusal firewall works.  This example is specifically focused on a factual classified leak investigation within the DOJ and FBI.   The most important part of this example is to show how the decision-making oversight shifts from Jeff Sessions to Rod Rosenstein just by the nature of the evidence within the events.

I cannot emphasize enough how important this distinction is; because it is the source of mountains of misunderstanding, misinformation, and disinformation.  If you don’t understand how the recusal issues impacted the events of the past 18 months you are going to be completely lost as I expand on some stunning revelations.

This understanding of “resusal” may seem like a small and common sense issue; but more than 80% (estimated) of people following the DOJ and FBI corruption story don’t understand it.   However, when you understand it the role of, and previous action by, Matthew Whitaker and Rod Rosenstein makes almost immediate sense.

Overseeing the leak investigations was part of AG Jeff Sessions office; that specifically would include his chief-of-staff Matthew Whitaker.  However, as soon as one of those leak investigations crossed the recusal firewall, all subsequent action is then decided by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

I must ask again, before I can expand further, if readers understand this dynamic?

Please answer in the comments section.

Thanks

View image on Twitter

TheLastRefuge @TheLastRefuge2

IMHO one of the more *consequential* background objectives of Whitaker has nothing to do with Mueller; and more to do with Horowitz. As in: stopping a DOJ/FBI administrative state officials from doing what they did with the prior IG report (June ’18) on DOJ/FBI bias & misconduct.

Sunday Talks: Michael Mukasey Defends Administrative State – States: Whitaker Must Recuse Himself…


Pay close attention.  WARNING: There is a battle within the administrative state that most of you are aware of.  Within this interview; and amid the larger conversation; the critical question to ask yourself is:

Is Rod Rosenstein working for the cause of justice; or is he an entrenched ideologue put in place to defend the interests of the administrative state?

President Trump’s appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general sparks outrage from Democrats, collaborative media and all professional administrative state advocates; who say he should recuse himself from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.  Here’s reaction from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Countermeasures and Questions…


Contextual Background HERE and Background HERE

Adverse Action:  On March 15th, 2017 ODNI Dan Coats was confirmed.  On March 16th, 2017 the ODNI instructed the FISA court clerk to provide him with the Carter Page FISA application (not the DOJ file version); which was delivered March 17th, 2017 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). [It was immediately leaked]

Question: Who would likely be in a position to request, demand or influence the ODNI to produce the FISA application?  Most sensible, valid and likely answer would be: Gang-of-Eight oversight SSCI Chair Richard Burr/Vice-Chair Mark Warner.

Countermeasure: On April 26th, 2017, ODNI Dan Coats publicly releases a 99-page FISC opinion on systemic DOJ and FBI FISA-702(16)(17) abuse.

Question: Why?  Why make the Rosemary Collyer report public?  No-one was looking for it, and the statutory oversight of the report is the House Judiciary/House Intelligence.

Adverse Action:  On November 30th, 2017, Michael Flynn accepted a plea deal with Robert Mueller; under very sketchy circumstances.

Countermeasure: Immediately thereafter, December 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd, and more on the 4th, a public release of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages; information about their removal(s); along with information about Bruce Ohr (demotion 1) and wife Nellie Ohr connection to Fusion-GPS.

Question: Where did that initial mass push of information come from?  Who released it? Why did they release it?

Adverse Action: Early February, 2018, media and democrats attack HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes over process for releasing “Nunes Memo”.

Countermeasure: February 9th, 2018, text messages between Senator Mark Warner and Lobbyist/Lawyer Adam Waldman, revealing conversations and intentions for secret contact with Christopher Steele are released to the public.

Question:  Who released them?  Who made them public? How do we find out about it? Why were they made public?

Adverse Action: June, 2018, DOJ outlines evidence of extensive document leaking from Senate Security Official James Wolfe.  However, indictment downplays charges against James Wolfe, despite severity of cited and evidenced unlawful activity.

Countermeasure: July, 2018, Public FISA application release.  Including a singularly unredacted FISC clerk date stamp (March 17th) within the release.  That stamp connects the details of the Wolfe indictment evidence to the FISA court submission to the SSCI.

Question(s):  #1. Why release the Carter Page FISA application at all?  No-one was looking for it. The FISC isn’t foia-able; it was the easiest document to keep hidden under national security grounds; yet, it just appeared and was released.  Why?  Who released it?

#2. With all other dates redacted, why not redact the one date that connects the FISA to the Wolfe leak?  Who made the decision to leave that key date visible?

Adverse Action:  June 14, 2018, FBI downplays IG report on bias within institution. FBI Director Christopher Wray announces “no evidence of bias” in Clinton investigation.

Countermeasure: Release of the FISA application (July 21, 2018).

Question: Again, who released the FISA application?  Why?

.

.

In short, what has always been puzzling; and in the bigger picture visible; is that the institutions are protecting themselves with “Adverse Action”. However, immediately following each adverse action, we see a mysterious countermeasure of sunlight from an unknown origin. And we never stop to ask: where does the sunlight comes from?

  • How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
  • Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
  • Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
  • Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media?  Why?
  • Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
  • Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
  • Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence coming from?

We gleefully chew over all the details, but in the bigger picture – where is/was all of this public information, the countermeasures, the evidence that exposes the corruption, coming from?

….And oddly, there’s never been a visible sign any effort was made to stop the public countermeasure outflow.

More later.