Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, releases a new batch of text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page (full pdf).

In the text exchange Peter Strzok is ‘INBOX’ and Lisa Page is ‘OUTBOX’

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370009743/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-iNJAqLswhZHrfFuNQfXk

.

Additionally, Chuck Grassley sends a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray (full pdf) with questions about the substance surrounding the Text Messages.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370009680/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-ATGhBTuHjbPvhlu2GbHW

Always remember the batting order: Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was first up; closely coordinating with Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (2nd up); closely coordinating with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (3rd up); all of them coordinating with the DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz (clean up).  This is a long developed plan.

In order to carry out the entire reform operation, communication is made through public letters. Sunlight is part of the strategy.  Questioning each other publicly and answering each other publicly is part of the strategy… the media is not used to this. Deception needs whispers. Deception doesn’t like transparency.

IG Michael Horowitz shares his responsive letter to Grassley, Nunes and Goodlatte (pdf link here).  Pay attention to Page#1 second paragraph, and the last paragraph on page two:

(pdf link)

Beginning Page #1, Paragraph #2: Inspector General Michael Horowitz is openly responding to Senator Grassley, saying the FBI told his office the exact same thing about losing the Strzok and Page text messages.

However, in paragraph #3 Horowitz states as a result of the congressional action; and as a result of Attorney General Jeff Sessions responsive engagement therein; his office received the pressure (help) it needed to get DOJ/FBI forensic tools activated to find the texts.

Reminder:

(LINK to Back Story)

This is exactly why the White Hats (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte and Horowitz) are communicating publicly.  They are using public pressure, ie. outrage therein, upon the DOJ and FBI to force compliance.

The White Hat team are telling us, the public, what is going on.  We are responding to what is going on.  Our response to the sunlight is causing changes in behavior. That internal (amid themselves) and external (with public) communication collaboration is needed because the entities within the DOJ and FBI are working against investigative interests.

Those who have participated with the historic corruption within the DOJ and FBI are trying to stop oversight from exposing their activity.  The oversight is smartly using public sunlight to expose the road-blocks; this approach puts the internal corruption team on their heels.

It is critical to understand how this intensely modern-era communication plan is using social media (and new-media leverage), to working around the traditional U.S. media who align with the Black Hats in the DOJ and FBI.

We noted this strategy early in December.  I’m repeating it here for added emphasis:

The text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strozk and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were originally released to Fox News and CBS. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

The messages reflect a strong bias against President Trump. However, the bigger story is not the anti-Trump bias within the text communication, the BIGGER story is why the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), began even looking at Agent Peter Strozk’s communication in the first place.

Remember, the original mandate by the Inspector General’s office was initiated to review and discover any politicization of the FBI and/or DOJ officials.

After news broke of Strzok’s removal from investigative duty within the FBI counterintelligence unit, what the OIG responding statement said was for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein:

(pdf Link)

In essence the IG began looking for any investigative issues that might show how political bias might have resulted in manipulated or changed investigative outcomes. Potentially those outlined issues are brutally unethical, and most likely unlawful. Emphasis:

“The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review of allegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 election stated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.

The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.”

It was within this IG investigation that SOMETHING pointed the investigative agents in the direction of FBI Agent Peter Strzok. What that something was and is remained an unknown variable in early December as the stories first broke. The outcome of the subsequent OIG inquiry led to Agent Strzok being removed mid-summer from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

There was some precipitating event that led the IG to investigate the communication of FBI Agent Strzok. That precipitating event or behavior is where the real story lies, and not in the downstream collection –and current release– of biased text messages between Strzok and his mistress FBI Attorney Lisa Page who worked for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Against the backdrop of current activity, and knowing there is a newly established special joint task force within the DOJ and FBI to identify leaks, we can reasonably speculate Agent Strzok was caught while the IG was investigating politicization, and the DOJ/FBI leak task force was hunting intelligence “leakers“.

As Judicial Committee Representative Jim Jordan rightly outlined, Agent Strzok would not likely be removed because he had biased text messages with his mistress. So long as that bias did not interfere with his work duty, there is no inherent issue.  Strzok was not in a position of supervision over Lisa Page so they could encounter like rabbits to their black-hats desire if their relationship was known by FBI leaders.  [Though there could be a blackmail angle specifically due to the counterintelligence nature of Strzok’s job.]

If FBI Agent Strzok was a “leaker” to the media, or worse, well, that becomes an entirely different kettle-o-fish. It appears from the text messages both Strzok and Page were leaking to The Washington Post and Politico. Getting caught as a leaker is likely the original reason Strzok was removed and reassigned to the HR post; not necessarily the bias; those discoveries came later.

The bias, writ large, becomes an issue later when there’s evidence of action taken as a result of that bias.  Agent Peter Strzok leaking information to the media; his changing the outcome of an FBI investigation into a political ally, Hillary Clinton; and his investigative involvement in the Trump Russia Conspiracy, via the Steele Dossier and FISA-702 abuse; and his role in targeting political opposition, well, that’s the real issue evident here.

AUGUST 2017 – […] A former FBI agent who worked with Strzok on and off over several years in the bureau’s counterintelligence division said that Strzok’s move to HR means he has now been separated from counterintelligence work altogether.

[…] Strzok’s departure also came one week after The Washington Post reported that Mueller had obtained a search warrant to raid the home of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The Post report cited “people familiar with the search,” prompting questions about whether anyone on Mueller’s team had leaked the existence of the search warrant to the Post. (link)

Which leads us to the next headline story, EARLY DECEMBER 2017, that dovetails into this ideological weaponization by FBI/DOJ/DC officials leaking to the media.

Donald Trump Jr. has now written a letter of complaint to the House Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican who is heading the House Intelligence inquiry into Russian election interference. Don Jr’s outline specifically focuses on the erroneous leak to CNN about the content of a received email; and requests an investigation into how the leak took place:

The Washington Times reports:

[…] Republicans suspect that the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat, leaked the erroneous “scoop” to CNN. They say his staff regularly leaks, with CNN being a favorite, with a spin that is not accurate.

Mr. Schiff, who is a big fan of the discredited Trump dossier, appeared on TV afterward. Mr. Futerfas said he misrepresented his client’s testimony.

[…] Mr. Futerfas’s implication is that the leakers let the story catch fire on social media and other venues before correcting it.

“Ranking Member Schiff and his staff do not leak classified or confidential information, and any disclosure of non-public information by the congressional committees undertaking investigations is singularly unhelpful,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “It is imperative that all investigations into Russia’s covert political interference campaign operate with appropriate discretion and refrain from publicizing information for short-sighted political gain.” (read more)

Having some idea of how these DC investigative practices work, it is highly doubtful that Don Jr’s attorney self-initiated that complaint on his client’s behest.

There is a strong possibility the investigative unit, the new leak task-force, and/or the IG office, needs that initiating complaint in order to continue targeting the potential subjects of the leaks.

Given the recent activity surrounding the House Intelligence Committee, there is a better than good likelihood Minority Chairman Adam Schiff is one of the targets; and if the pattern exhibited within the Strzok investigation is followed, Schiff’s communications might also be monitored within the net as it is cast.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was also Lisa Page’s boss. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey.  The Chief Legal Counsel for the entire unit was James Baker.

Notice how things are seeming to gain speed within the daily/weekly discovery cycles?

Amid the latest Democrat dismissive statements surrounding evidence of FBI and DOJ having a ‘secret society’ of anti-Trumpers, and bias in Mueller’s FBI probe, Representative Matt Gaetz discusses events with Tucker Carlson:

According to a Fox News exclusive report the Department of Justice has found the missing text messages between Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page, and is in the process of recovering them.

(FOX NEWS) Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Wednesday night on “Hannity” that the Justice Department has started recovering some of the missing texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, citing DOJ sources.

Federal law enforcement officials had notified congressional committees that a technical glitch affected thousands of FBI cellphones between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017. This meant that 5 months’ worth of texts would be missing from Strzok and Page, both of whom are under scrutiny after it was revealed that the former members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team exchanged anti-Trump texts during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Hannity said sources at the DOJ told him they have begun to recover some of the texts from that time period. Specific content from those texts has not been released.

The missing messages have caused problems for the Justice Department inspector general’s office.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have sent a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz noting that the IG’s office said on Dec. 13 that it had all the messages between Strzok and Page between Nov. 30, 2016, and July 28, 2017.

Lawmakers later learned of the five-month gap.

The lawmakers said they wanted the IG’s office to “reconcile” those two points.

The five-month stretch of missing messages covers a period of time that includes President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the firings of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James Comey and the standing-up of former FBI Director Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 election.  (link)

Stunning development.

But Things Are Not What They Seem !

You’ve likely begun to hear about this letter from DOJ to Devin Nunes.  Please read it and evaluate.  Important Tip:  Notice the DOJ/FBI are referencing the Nunes Memo from a perspective of they know what the underlying documents are:

Notice all the inherent assumptions within the letter?

As a reminder, always question the assumptions.

♦Assumption #1 – The DOJ is presenting this letter to Devin Nunes from the position that the Nunes Memo is underpinned by documentary evidence they have provided. The DOJ provided FISA documents and FBI investigative documents, and they are assuming that’s the underlying material.

♦Assumption #2 – The DOJ is presenting this letter, and it is being interpreted by almost everyone, including Adam Schiff and media, to center around the Nunes Memo being written about, or including, FISA documents.

There is nothing to indicate either of those assumptions are correct.  In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that nothing about those assumptions are correct.

Secondly, how can ranking member Adam Schiff write a rebuttal memo to the Nunes memo, without any knowledge of the underlying evidence behind Nunes claims?

Again, more assumptions are needed.  ie. Schiff has to guess at the underlying evidence based on what he can read from the Nunes memo.  If he does that, he’s going to screw himself.

Here’s what is going on:

Think about the Nunes memo for a moment.

What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”?  From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017.  In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.

No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Devin Nunes, has actually seen the full material.  Therefore people are ‘jumping to conclusions’ based on their own inherent reference points.

People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes.

Now, as I go forward with this you’ll be lost unless you have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERE – Remember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:

[…]  Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI.  It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.

Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.

Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]

♦ Now, HERE IS WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT ON A “Politics only” FILTER.

Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?

Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it.  If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read more – Critical to understand)

Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled by ODNI Dan Coats for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see.

Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him.  Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself.  Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.

Sneaky Schiff used this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”.  It worked.

However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes (and maybe DNI Dan Coats) has any idea what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017.  However, we have an idea from his statements.

It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.  It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information, Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns.

After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.

WATCH:

1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]

Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns.  April 4th, 2017 Susan Rice appears:

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell.  This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘,  to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer.  Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine.  MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice.  Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas)  The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….

So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap).  Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.

See where this is going?

.

See how that works?

.

Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material.   That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.

This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing.  Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017  MSNBC statement for additional context:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

.

That right there is the story.  With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.

The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.

If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.

Reverse the safety.   No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama.  They had no choice.

Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking.  She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence.  She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.

Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes.  The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value.  The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.

The interview goes much further.  There is a lot of news in this interview.  There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB.  Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific:  James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review:

.

Summary:  In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, this PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.

Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located.  No-one else does, including Adam Schiff.

Now do you see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?

With help from a few friends:

Hi Adam,