Tag Archives: Glenn Simpson

Sep 22 2020

Clinton Emails and FBI Activity Back in News as NY FBI Agent Talks – Fills-in CTH Background Research…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on September 21, 2020 by 

The Washington Examiner has an interesting article based on a book excerpt by Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett: “October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election.”

CTH readers will remember Devlin Barrett was Lisa Page & Peter Strzok’s favored journalist to receive FBI leaks from Clinton email investigation known as the “mid-year-exam;” during the time when the ‘small group’ was framing the preferred narrative.

According to the article the NY FBI Agent who raised the alarm bells was a man named John Robertson.  Robertson was cited in the IG report, but not named.  According to the recent discoveries…

“Robertson wrote a “Letter to Self” in late October after an Oct. 19, 2016, meeting, during which he implored Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Kramer of the Southern District of New York to push FBI leadership to look at the thousands of emails he had unearthed.”

“I have very deep misgivings about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation into the Hillary Clinton email matter. … Put simply: I don’t believe the handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is that I have completed CYA [Cover Your Ass], and I have done so,” Robertson wrote. “Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be prosecuted.” (read more)

Robertson fills in the background to our earlier research.  CTH identified how the FBI never actually investigated the emails, as the FBI and specifically former FBI Director James Comey, claimed: “due to the wizardry of technology.”

 

Within this earlier interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016.

In his response about why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.

The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.

Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):

Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?

Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”

Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?

Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”

There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop?

Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.

But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI. It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

(pdf source for all messages here)

Notice: “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s attorney to SDNY”.

Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

Key point here: Weiner’s attorneys turned over “emails”.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016? (Comey’s call explanation)

♦Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Fast forward three weeks, and we go back to FBI in DC.

On October 21, 2016, this is the call referenced by James Comey in the Bret Baier interview. Someone from New York called “Main Justice” (the DOJ National Security Division in DC) and notified DOJ-NSD Deputy Asst. Attorney General George Toscas of the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails via the “weiner investigation”.

[I would point out again, he’s not being notified of a laptop, Toscas is notified of “emails”]

George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap.

Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

In his Bret Baier interview FBI Director James Comey says this call is about a search warrant. There is no indication the call is actually about a search warrant. [Nor would there be a need for a search warrant if the call was actually about the emails that Wiener’s attorney dropped off on 9/21].

However, that phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation; and Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks – kicks off an internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself.

Now it’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself. But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.

At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, they are leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.

Important to note here, that at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the emails. The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves. Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it. So what gives?

Moving on – Note to readers. Click the graphics and read the notes on them too:

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation. Jim Rybicki still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause. Read:

While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal, now with the Washington Post), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.

This appears to be how the “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content received from New York. They received the emails September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at it. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue. Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen likely because Main Justice is concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Thanks to Deputy Director McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”. [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, Strzok is grumpy agent because his opinion appears to be insignificant. The decision is reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation. This sends Lisa Page bananas…

…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage. Now that the world is aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

So let’s go back to that Comey interview:

♦What exactly would SDNY need a search warrant for?

♦Anthony Weiner’s lawyer has delivered SDNY actual emails. Why would he do that?

Now lets connect those questions to an earlier report.

According to ABC News Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” that he became the public face of the investigation partly because of a mysterious development which he felt could cast “serious doubt” on Lynch’s independence.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26, 2016)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26th, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing, and what we now know about what was going on amid the FBI “small group” in DC.

On September 28th, 2016, Andrew McCabe was made aware of emails given to New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) directly from Anthony Weiner’s lawyer. Again, the information relayed to DC is not about a Weiner laptop, it’s about actual emails delivered by Weiner’s lawyer. The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop did, reportedly, also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

When Weiner’s lawyer walked into SDNY to deliver his leverage emails, Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, was the United States Attorney.

Again, look at the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to later reporting, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the emails until after October 21st, 2016. However, in late October and early November, there were reports from people with contacts in New York police and New York FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming. Two days later, October 28th, 2016, Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner/Hillary Clinton email issues that was being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the NYPD in the Garner case. As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved. This created a dispute because federal prosecutors (EDNY) and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the EDNY New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25) – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With that move – on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was now in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the NY FBI and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the next day (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined. Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner email investigation matters, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD. And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

And so it was…

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

The emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara was Weiner’s leverage to escape prosecution. Likely those emails were exactly as Eric Prince sources outlined. However, the SDNY responding to upper level leadership buried those emails.

In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe) created the appearance of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation to keep control and ensure the investigative outcomes remained out of the hands of the Eastern District (EDNY) and New York FBI field office. They had no choice.

However, once the FBI opened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.

A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

They never expected her to lose.

Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead Investigator in the Clinton email investigation, never intended to investigate the laptop before the election. The evidence, in his own words, is in the report by the Inspector General. In addition, the IG report includes a jaw dropping contradiction regarding the investigation of the laptop. Strzok says one thing; the FBI’s computer experts say another. It calls into question the entirety of the laptop investigation.

Reading Chapter 11 of the IG Report reinforces an acceptance that not only is there a need for a special counsel, but there is a brutally obvious need for multiple special counsels; each given a specific carve-out investigation that comes directly from the content of the Inspector General report. This issue of the handling of the Weiner/Abedin laptop screams for a special counsel investigation on that facet alone. Why?

Well, consider this from page #388 (emphasis mine):

Midyear agents obtained a copy of the Weiner laptop from NYO immediately after the search warrant was signed on October 30.

The laptop was taken directly to Quantico where the FBI’s Operational Technology Division (OTD) began processing the laptop. The Lead Analyst told us that given the volume of emails on the laptop and the difficulty with de-duplicating the emails that “at least for the first few days, the scale of what we’re doing seem[ed] really, really big.”

Strzok told us that OTD was able “to do some amazing things” to “rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that the Midyear team would have to individually review. Strzok stated that only after that technological breakthrough did he begin to think it was “possible we might wrap up before the election.” (pg 388)

The key takeaway here is two-fold. First, the laptop is in the custody of the FBI; that’s important moving forward (I’ll explain later). Also, specifically important, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the lead investigative authority in the Hillary Clinton MYE (Mid-Year-Exam), is explaining to the IG how they were able to process an exhaustive volume of emails (350,000) and Blackberry communications (344,000) in a few days; [Oct 30 to Nov 5]

Note: “OTD was able “to do some amazing things to rapidly de-duplicate” the emails on the laptop.”

OK, you got that?

Now lets look at the very next page, #389 (again, emphasis mine):

[…] The FBI determined that Abedin forwarded two of the confirmed classified emails to Weiner. The FBI reviewed 6,827 emails that were either to or from Clinton and assessed 3,077 of those emails to be “potentially work-related.”

The FBI analysis of the review noted that “[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation” and therefore the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation. (pg 389)

See the problem? See the contradiction?

Strzok is saying due to some amazing wizardry the FBI forensics team was able to de-duplicate the emails. However, FBI forensics is saying they were NOT able to de-duplicate the emails.

Both of these statements cannot be true. And therein lies the underlying evidence to support a belief the laptop content was never actually reviewed. But it gets worse, much worse….

To show how it’s FBI Agent Peter Strzok that is lying; go back to chapter #9 and re-read what the New York case agent was saying about the content of the laptop.

The New York FBI analysis supports the FBI forensic statement in that no de-duplication was possible because the metadata was not consistent. The New York FBI Weiner case agent ran into this metadata issue when using extraction software on the laptop.

CHAPTER 9: The case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation was certified as a Digital Extraction Technician and, as such, had the training and skills to extract digital evidence from electronic devices.

The case agent told the OIG that he began processing Weiner’s devices upon receipt on September 26. The case agent stated that he noticed “within hours” that there were “over 300,000 emails on the laptop.”

The case agent told us that on either the evening of September 26 or the morning of September 27, he noticed the software program on his workstation was having trouble processing the data on the laptop. (pg 274)

The New York Case Agent then describes how inconsistent metadata within the computer files for the emails and Blackberry communications, made it impossible for successful extraction. The FBI NY case agent and the Quantico FBI forensics agent agree on the metadata issue and the inability to use their software programs for extraction and layered comparison for the purposes of de-duplication.

Both NY and Quantico contradict the statement to the IG by FBI Agent Peter Strzok. However, that contradiction, while presented in a factual assertion by the IG, is entirely overlooked and never reconciled within the inspector general report. That irreconcilable statement also sheds more sunlight on the motives of Strzok.

Next up, there were only three FBI people undertaking the October Clinton email review. To learn who they are we jump back to Chapter #11, page #389.

The Midyear team flagged all potentially work-related emails encountered during the review process and compared those to emails that they had previously reviewed in other datasets. Any work-related emails that were unique, meaning that they did not appear in any other dataset, were individually reviewed by the Lead Analyst, [Peter] Strzok, and FBI Attorney 1 [Tashina Gauhar] for evidentiary value. (pg 389)

Pete Strzok, Tash Gauhar and the formerly unknown lead analyst we now know to be Sally Moyer. That’s it. Three people.

This is the crew that created the “wizardry” that FBI Director James Comey says allowed him to tell congress with confidence that 1,355,980 electronic files (pg 389), containing 350,000 emails and 344,000 Blackberry communications were reviewed between October 30th and the morning of November 6th, 2016.

Three people.

Pete, Tash, and Sally the lead analyst. Uh huh.

Sure.

The Inspector General just presents the facts; that’s obviously what he did. Then it’s up to FBI and DOJ leadership to accept the facts, interpret them, and apply their meaning.

No bias?

But FBI is committed to bias training?

FUBAR.

There is an actual hero in all of this though. It’s that unnamed FBI Case Agent in New York who wouldn’t drop the laptop issue and forced the FBI in DC to take action on the laptop. Even the IG points this out (chapter #9, page 331):

We found that what changed between September 29 and October 27 that finally prompted the FBI to take action was not new information about what was on the Weiner laptop but rather the inquiries from the SDNY prosecutors and then from the Department. The only thing of significance that had changed was the calendar and the fact that people outside of the FBI were inquiring about the status of the Weiner laptop. (pg 331)

Those SDNY prosecutors only called Main Justice in DC because the New York case agent went in to see them and said he wasn’t going to be the scape goat for a buried investigation (chapter #9, pg 303) “The case agent told us that he scheduled a meeting on October 19 with the two SDNY AUSAs assigned to the Weiner investigation because he felt like he had nowhere else to turn.” … “The AUSAs both told us that the case agent appeared to be very stressed and worried that somehow he would be blamed in the end if no action was taken.”

On October 20, 2016, the AUSAs met with their supervisors at SDNY and informed them of their conversation with the Weiner case agent. The AUSAs stated that they told their supervisors the substantive information reported by the case agent, the case agent’s concerns that no one at the FBI had expressed interest in this information, and their concern that the case agent was stressed out and might act out in some way. (pg 304)

Why would the New York Case Agent be worried?

Consider Page 274, footnote #165:

fn 165: No electronic record exists of the case agent’s initial review of the Weiner laptop. The case agent told us that at some point in mid-October 2016 the NYO ASAC instructed the case agent to wipe his work station. The case agent explained that the ASAC was concerned about the presence of potentially classified information on the case agent’s work station, which was not authorized to process classified information.

The case agent told us that he followed the ASAC’s instructions, but that this request concerned him because the audit trail of his initial processing of the laptop would no longer be available. The case agent clarified that none of the evidence on the Weiner laptop was impacted by this, explaining that the FBI retained the Weiner laptop and only the image that had been copied onto his work station was deleted. The ASAC recalled that the case agent “worked through the security department to address the concern” of classified information on an unclassified system. He told us that he did not recall how the issue was resolved.

 

⇑ These Cannot Both Be True ⇓

Sep 20 2020

WRAY IS WRONG AS FBI DIRECTOR


President Trump fire this FBI Director as soon as possible

Jeff Crouere image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—September 19, 2020

WRAY IS WRONG AS FBI DIRECTOR

In May of 2017, President Trump did the right thing and fired FBI Director James Comey, the individual at the center of the attempt to overturn the 2016 election results. Comey orchestrated the spying efforts on President Trump and his campaign, which included the FBI improperly applying for four separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to eavesdrop on campaign aide Carter Page. He also authorized a politically motivated investigation into Lt. General Michael Flynn and encouraged the entrapment of Flynn by his FBI agents in an infamous White House interview.

Clearly, Comey was a disastrous FBI Director; however, the President made a terrible choice when he replaced him with Christopher Wray, a bureaucrat who has not reformed the agency in any meaningful way. He also seems to be incapable of identifying the real threats that are facing the country.

Wray is doing the bidding of the Democrats and following their talking points

In testimony on Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee, Wray made a series of remarkable claims. He stated that Antifa is not a group but is more of “an ideology or maybe a movement.” He also refused to identify Chinese efforts to interrupt the 2020 election and again focused attention on activities from Russia.

With these remarks, Wray is doing the bidding of the Democrats and following their talking points. Regarding Antifa violence, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), claimed it was a “myth.”

Nadler has been in his congressional cocoon for too long. Antifa has been active for several years, but since the death of George Floyd on May 25, it has intensified its activities around the country. Millions of Americans have seen the frequent and disturbing video footage of rioting and looting throughout the country. According to U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), “there have been more than 550 declared riots, many stoked by extremists, Antifa and the BLM (Black Lives Matter) organization.”

In his comments to Wray at the committee meeting, Crenshaw also noted the rioters have done an extensive amount of damage. He stated that “between one and two billion dollars of insurance claims will be paid out. That doesn’t come close to measuring the actual and true damage to people’s lives, not even close.”

Crenshaw is right as many of our urban areas, such as New York, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland among others have been devastated by a series of violent protests. In the past few months, scores of monuments have been destroyed, and significant damage has been done to businesses and public buildings. The group has also attacked innocent civilians and targeted police officers. As Crenshaw asserted in this rebuttal to Wray, Antifa matches the definition of a domestic terrorist organization.

Wray unwilling to acknowledge the obvious

Incredibly, Wray does not believe there is an organization that is directing these numerous riots across the country. He was unwilling to acknowledge the obvious. As Crenshaw explained to the misguided FBI Director, Antifa, “coordinates regionally and nationally, wears a standardized uniform. It collects funds to buy high powered lasers to blind federal officers, builds homemade explosive devices, feeds their rioters since they clearly aren’t working, and then bails out those who’ve been arrested. This is an ideology that has trained its members, makes shield wall phalanxes to attack federal officers. It formed an autonomous zone in an American city and besieged a federal courthouse in another. So, I mean, it just seems to be more than an ideology.”

Of course, it is much more than a philosophical movement and the FBI should be arresting the primary contributors and organizers of Antifa, but, instead, most of the charges that have been brought against the rioters have been for minor offenses.  America is still waiting for the FBI to treat Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, which is what President Trump has declared many times.

While the President may view Antifa as our major domestic threat, FBI Director Wray declared that white supremacists comprise the largest share of racially motivated terrorism in our country. He also warned the committee about the involvement of Russia in the 2020 election. Wray maintained that “we certainly have seen very active, very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020…to both sow divisiveness and discord and…to denigrate Vice President Biden.”

The President was also troubled by Wray’s focus on Russian electoral interference

Wray’s testimony seemed tailor-made for an upcoming commercial for former Vice President Joe Biden. President Trump was clearly upset at Wray’s comments. Regarding Wray’s view of Antifa, the President said, “The fact is Antifa is a bad group. They’re bad, and when a man doesn’t say that that bothers me. I wonder why he’s not saying that?”

The President was also troubled by Wray’s focus on Russian electoral interference instead of the numerous activities being conducted by the dictatorial communist Chinese regime. According to the President, “the big problem is China, and why he doesn’t want to say that that certainly bothers me.”

The President should not be perplexed by FBI Director Wray’s performance. He is a bureaucrat who is not a reformer. Wray has not made the personnel or policy changes that should have been forthcoming after Comey’s firing. He seems more concerned about maintaining his standing with Democrats in Congress and the media, so he will never validate the President’s viewpoint. On issue after issue, Wray has been a total disappointment.

In his comments to the media, the President noted that he was “looking at a lot of different things” regarding the future of Wray as FBI Director. There should be only one move to consider, firing this FBI Director as soon as possible.

Sep 18 2020

Sidney Powell Discusses Special Counsel Role in Continuing Corrupt DOJ and FBI Effort….


Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on September 17, 2020 by 

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell appears with Liz MacDonald to discuss the ongoing corrupt evidence surfacing against a variety of DOJ and FBI officials to include the special counsel effort to scrub their phone records.

Within the interview Ms. Powell highlights the arc of the investigative effort from the origin of ‘Spygate’ through the term of the special counsel led by Andrew Weissmann, and into the Senate effort to cloud and conceal their own participation.  WATCH:

.

We at CTH are not going to let this issue go, regardless of whether Bill Barr, John Durham or Bill Aldenberg take direct action to address it.

Newly released records [SEE HERE] from a FOIA show the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel team “accidentally” wiped at least 27 iPhones of data early in 2018.  Curiously timed at the same time the special counsel was attempting to cover for their coordination with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner.

Mueller’s lead investigator Andrew Weissmann accidentally wiped two phones himself; through a lengthy process of entering the wrong passcode several times over a period of three hours; removing data to show his activity during the special counsel. Weissmann claimed to have entered the wrong password (takes ten attempts) and that erased all the data. Greg Andre, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s criminal division, made the same claim.

 

Wiping your phone to hide damaging information only works if the other phone you are communicating with wipes the same data. Guess what happened? Yup, exactly that.

James Quarles III who worked with Mueller in private practice at the Washington office of Wilmer-Hale, claimed his iPhone magically erased itself.

Before joining the special counsel team Rush Atkinson worked under Andrew Weissmann in the DOJ’s criminal fraud section where he specialized in financial fraud. Atkinson claims he too entered the wrong password ten times and accidentally erased all the data.

At least twelve other people assigned to the special counsel investigation had similar “phone wiped/erased” issues which blocked the inspector general from his review.

One “accidental” method used repeatedly was to place the iPhone in airplane mode and then lock it without providing the password. Retrieval attempts then erased all data, and returned to factory settings after unsuccessful passcode entries.

[PDF Link Available Here]

As we have previously mentioned the two-year Weissmann/Mueller special counsel, May 2017 through April 2019, was a continuum of the corrupt DOJ and FBI efforts that originated prior to the 2016 election. Many of the internal FBI and DOJ officials just transferred from the Clinton email investigation, into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and then into the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel investigation.

The corrupt activity within the special counsel tenure was actually worse than the corrupt activity that preceded it.

To give you an idea how difficult it is to wipe the iPhone, watch this video.

This was not done “accidentally”:

.

After the reports of the phone wiping surfaced the republican led Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) refused to provide documents to republican senators from their Russia investigation. Citing archaic justification within senate parliamentary rules current Chairman Marco Rubio (R) and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner are refusing to allow Senator Johnson and Senator Grassley to review the evidence the SSCI assembled to create their report on Russian election interference.

The reason and motives for the denial are simple, yet the majority of Americans have no idea…. The SSCI was the legislative entity, both republicans and democrats, who participated in the unlawful effort to remove President Trump from office. The risk of exposure is exactly why Mitch McConnell put Senator Marco Rubio on the committee as chairman to replace Richard Burr. The Senate was participating in the soft-coup.

WASHINGTON DC – The Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Intelligence Committee rejected a broad request from two Republican Senate leaders seeking access to the panel’s records to assist in their investigation into the Trump-Russia investigators.

Acting Chairman Marco Rubio of Florida and Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia rejected a late August letter from Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who said that they “respect the authority” of the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect its interests, adding that “ultimately, we have the right as United States Senators” to access the records.

“We note that your request of the Committee is made pursuant to Senate Rule 26, but fails to account for the unique authorities and obligations invested in this Committee through Senate Resolution 400 and respected over decades of Senate and Committee practice,” Rubio and Warner responded. “Accordingly, we must reject the absolutist interpretation of Rule 26 that you propose. If this Committee elects to share materials that it has collected and generated in the course of its investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, it will do so pursuant to these long-standing Committee rules, and specifically, the joint agreement of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.”

Rubio and Warner added: “Independent of whether that agreement is forthcoming, our position on this matter obviously does not preclude you from pursuing your own investigation, using your own authorities, as you see fit, within the confines of your committees’ jurisdictions.” (read more)

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this sunlight avoidance enough.

Back on March 17, 2017, the SSCI secretly received the FISA application used on Carter Page from FBI supervisory special agent Brian Dugan. The ‘review and return’ application was delivered to Senate Security Director James Wolfe, who then placed it in the Senate SCIF to be reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (and possibly Chairman Richard Burr). It appears no other senators were informed of this production.

James Wolfe then leaked the FISA application to reporter Ali Watkins. All indications are that Wolfe leaked the application to Watkins as directed by Warner, possibly with Burr’s full knowledge.

FBI Agent Brian Dugan then completed a nine-month leak investigation resulting in James Wolfe admitting to the leak. The leak was Dugan’s FBI equity. Due to the severity of the leak; and specifically because the leak encompassed the FISA application; in/around mid-January 2018 the special counsel in Main Justice was notified of Dugan’s findings and the investigative file was shared with the Weissmann team.

The Weissman team then took apart the investigative file and began running cover for the corrupt background story that included the participation by Senator Mark Warner. Part of that file surfaced when the text messages between Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman were made public on Feb 9, 2018.

In a pre-planned operation, as soon as the explosive Warner/Waldman texts were released Senator Marco Rubio rushed to the microphones to fraudulently state that Warner had informed the committee during his early spring (2017) contacts with Waldman and Chris Steele. This claim by Rubio was a lie. Rubio was running cover for Warner as part of his own affiliation with the origin of the Fusion-GPS opposition research and the subsequent transfer of information to the Clinton campaign and ultimately through Chris Steele to the corrupt FBI investigative unit. [Later to the Weissmann/Mueller crew]

Rubio’s motive to downplay the ramifications of the Warner effort, and the subsequent Wolfe leak, directly ties to his own involvement with the Fusion-GPS effort. Remember, at the time of this obfuscation (late ’17 and early ’18) no-one yet knew the Fusion-GPS fraudulent story (which became the Steele dossier) was originally funded by the Super-PAC funding the Rubio campaign.

Go look at when the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel deleted their iPhone records and history. The scrubbing took place mid-January 2018 as soon as they realized the previously unknown leak investigation by Washington Field Office FBI agent Brian Dugan had bumped into the special counsel operation that was coordinating with the SSCI.

The special counsel warned Warner; took action to remove specific evidence assembled by Dugan (which included the Warner/Waldman text messages); created a fictitious cover story for the SSCI to use; extracted the Dugan version of the FISA application he used to catch Wolfe (which they later released under the guise of FOIA); then sent a deconstructed (now useless) investigative file back to DC USAO Jessie Liu who had nothing left except to present a DC grand jury with James Wolfe lying to investigators.

That corrupt, unlawful and coordinated cover-up effort lies at the heart of why the SSCI will not share any information with GOP senators today.

Senators Johnson and Grassley were asking for the FISA application in 2018, not knowing the original and first renewal were previously provided to the SSCI on March 17, 2017.

When congress (House Intel, House Judiciary, Senate Judiciary and Senate Homeland Security) were writing to FISA Court presiding judge Rosemary Collyer seeking a copy of the FISA application from the court they had no idea one early copy was already provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Chairman Burr and Vice-Chair Warner kept their review and use secret; but the information about their reception came out because James Wolfe leaked it and FBI agent Brian Dugan was awaiting that leak.

FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer never told any of the chairmen about the March 2017 copy of the application that was provided to Brian Dugan to deliver to the SSCI.

Throughout the attempt to remove President Trump from office, which included the impeachment effort, the SSCI was participating and assisting; now they are in cover-up mode. That’s the reason why Mitch McConnell put Marco Rubio in charge of that committee.

There’s a reason why senior staff from Senator Ron Johnson’s committee and senior staff from Chuck Grassley’s committee are asking for SSCI documents. It might not come out before the election, but it will come out…

BACKSTORY: (Read Here – and All Citations)

The sequence is critical:

1. Adam Waldman text messages. (release date Feb 9, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#

2. Justice Dept. Letter to journalist Ali Watkins (release date Feb 13, 2018)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4498451-Justice-Department-Records-Seizure.html

3. James Wolfe indictment (release date June 8, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/381310366/James-Wolfe-Indictment-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Leaker#

4. FISC / Senate Judiciary Letter (public release April, 2020 – event date July 12, 2018) The letter from DOJ-NSD (Mueller Special Proseuctors) to the FISC is important.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-doj-letter-to-fisc&download=1

5. Carter Page FISA application (release date July 21, 2018) Only need the first application section. 83 pages of original application.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384380664/2016-FISA-Application-on-Carter-Page#

6. Government Sentencing Wolfe Case memo and recommendation for upward departure and/or variance. Filed December 11, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/395499292/James-Wolfe-DOJ-Sentencing-Memo-December-11

7. Govt. Reply to Defendant (Wolfe) sentencing memo (date Dec 14, 2018) Govt. Exhibit #13 (two page attestation is critical).

https://www.scribd.com/document/395775597/Wolfe-Case-DOJ-Response-to-Defense-Sentencing-Memo

Misc:

July 27, 2018, – Wall Street Journal – Wolfe lawyers threaten SSCI subpoenas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-intelligence-committee-aides-lawyers-want-testimony-from-senators-1532692801?mod=e2tw

Dec 11, 2018 – Politico – Senators seek Leniency:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/senate-intelligence-committee-leaking-james-wolfe-1059162

.

Sep 17 2020

Is A Cover Up over Clinton’s 2000 Interference in Russia’s elections still Going On?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Sep 17, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; You said that not even Fox News will report the story that the US interfered in the 2000 Russian election. Do you have any idea why?

EK

ANSWER: No not really. Perhaps it would admit things that the US government does not want to admit that even under the Clinton Administration which let the bankers do whatever they wanted from exempting student loans from bankruptcy to repealing Glass Stegall which enabled the bankers to see the mortgaged back security time bombs. I do not know. The movie Forecaster has been banned in the USA. Netflix wanted it but then the last minute the board said no. They seem to have gotten a phone call. Amazon will stream it but only outside the USA. Why?

Here is Hillary here in 2020 still claiming the Russians interfered when that has been totally been unsupported and the entire Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary. She then erased all her emails. A Trump victory will mean the Democrats will still claim only because of Russia when it was the Clintons who allowed the bankers to blackmail Yeltsin, forced him to step down, but he turned to Putin. Look at Bill’s expression. He trashed her book and that became public. Hillary will never admit people did not trust her. In her mind, it was Putin BECAUSE she stood by while the bankers tried to take over all the resources of Russia – gold, diamonds, and oil.

Safra, head of Republic National Bank, was assassinated by Russians (see Vanity Fair). But they tried to cover that up blaming his nurse, who was then released simply saying he never received a fair trial. The guy the bankers were trying to install as president was Berezovsky, which fled to Britain but later hanged himself.

So I have no idea why Fox News will not report this issue, especially when the Democrats are already claiming Trump can’t win without Russian interference. I do not know. It seems there is a coverup still in play.

Sep 17 2020

Recently Released FISA Court Response to DOJ Reveals Direction of Durham Probe – DOJ Requested FISC Approvals…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house  on September 16, 2020 by 

A very interesting release by ODNI John Ratcliffe [LINK] highlights a June 25, 2020 response from the FISA court to the DOJ.  There are five issues queried by the DOJ seeking guidance from the FISC.  Each issue points to a specific path being taken by the DOJ in general… and the John Durham probe specifically.

Today, the ODNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, releases a June 25, 2020, opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) evaluating and approving limited circumstances under which the Government may temporarily retain, use, or disclose information that was unlawfully acquired pursuant to a FISC order. (more)

Important note:  We are looking at this in hindsight.  The response from the FISC was dated June 25, 2020, so the request for opinion from the court was before June 25th.

The court opinion tells us for the first time, the DOJ is admitting/stating that ALL FOUR of the Carter Page FISA applications were corrupt upon origination.   This is a big deal. In previous filing with the court (January 2020) DOJ only refuted the predication for the second and third renewal.

Within the FISC reply we see the DOJ stating all four submissions contained material omissions and violations of “the duty of candor” (ie. lying)  by the FBI investigative unit and the DOJ team that assembled the application(s).

As we look closely at the response we see some very specific language that tells a story.

 

Apparently the DOJ asked the FISA court for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application.  The DOJ is asking for legal guidance to assist them in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.

The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application.  The five topics are very interesting:

  1.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands.  FISC gives legal opinion.
  2.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation.  The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.
  3.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD).  FISC gives opinion and advice.
  4.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.
  5.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.

The opinion from the FISC is only 20 pages long [direct pdf here], and if you skip the citations it’s a pretty straight forward answer from Judge Boasberg to review.  I would strongly urge everyone to take a few minutes and read it… carefully…. to see what John Durham was asking.

Pages #6 and #7 talk specifically about the different requirements for retention and distribution and outlines a cautious approach toward distribution.  One of the disconcerting parts of this segment seems to be the FISA court subtly guiding the DOJ away from using non-minimized raw FISA material in prosecution of intentional malfeasance.   On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly.

The court does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct.  Rather the response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. A little weird.

Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production.  The court says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all.   However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page.

I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy.  In this segment the court is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”.  The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.  READ:

Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system.  The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system.  Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.

Why?

It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file.   Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.

Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA security were not violated.

Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested.  However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ must observe.

Here’s the full reply and opinion.  Strongly suggest the time to review:

.

 

Sep 16 2020

Jim Jordan Discusses Senate Homeland Security Committee Effort to Subpoena Key “Spygate” Officials…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on September 15, 2020 by 

Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Jim Jordan, discusses the effort by Senator Ron Johnson to subpoena a list of key names from the ‘spygate’ scandal.

Additionally, Jordan discusses the effort by Adam Schiff to create another fake whistle-blower scandal this time using Brian Murphy from the Dept. of Homeland Security. Jordan clarifies some common misinformation.

 

Sep 15 2020

Ric Grenell Explains “The Big Ugly” – Outsider Trump is an Existential Threat…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on September 14, 2020 by 

Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell explained last night why DC hates President Donald Trump and the stakes in the 2020 election.  WATCH: 

 

Sep 15 2020

Blazing Sunlight – Senate Intel Committee Refuses to Give GOP Senators Documents From Russia Investigation…


Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on September 14, 2020 by 

Of all the *tells* that have surfaced in the past four years, this is the biggest.  This is the one that reveals just how corrupt and duplicitous the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence really is.   Do not pass over this information without pausing and evaluating just how explosive this refusal is amid the largest, most corrupt scheme in political history.

The republican led Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) is refusing to provide documents to republican senators from their Russia investigation.  Citing archaic justification within senate parliamentary rules current Chairman Marco Rubio (R) and Vice-Chairman Mark Warner are refusing to allow Senator Johnson and Senator Grassley to review the evidence the SSCI assembled to create their report on Russian election interference.

The reason and motives for the denial are simple, yet the majority of Americans have no idea…. The SSCI was the legislative entity, both republicans and democrats, who participated in the unlawful effort to remove President Trump from office.  The risk of exposure is exactly why Mitch McConnell put Senator Marco Rubio on the committee as chairman to replace Richard Burr.  The Senate was participating in the soft-coup.

WASHINGTON DC –  The Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Intelligence Committee rejected a broad request from two Republican Senate leaders seeking access to the panel’s records to assist in their investigation into the Trump-Russia investigators.

Acting Chairman Marco Rubio of Florida and Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia rejected a late August letter from Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who said that they “respect the authority” of the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect its interests, adding that “ultimately, we have the right as United States Senators” to access the records.

“We note that your request of the Committee is made pursuant to Senate Rule 26, but fails to account for the unique authorities and obligations invested in this Committee through Senate Resolution 400 and respected over decades of Senate and Committee practice,” Rubio and Warner responded. “Accordingly, we must reject the absolutist interpretation of Rule 26 that you propose. If this Committee elects to share materials that it has collected and generated in the course of its investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, it will do so pursuant to these long-standing Committee rules, and specifically, the joint agreement of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.”

Rubio and Warner added: “Independent of whether that agreement is forthcoming, our position on this matter obviously does not preclude you from pursuing your own investigation, using your own authorities, as you see fit, within the confines of your committees’ jurisdictions.”  (read more)

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this sunlight avoidance enough.

Back on March 17, 2017, the SSCI secretly received the FISA application used on Carter Page from FBI supervisory special agent Brian Dugan.   The ‘review and return’ application was delivered to Senate Security Director James Wolfe, who then placed it in the senate scif to be reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (and possibly Chairman Richard Burr).  It appears no other senators were informed of this production.

James Wolfe then leaked the FISA application to reporter Ali Watkins.  All indications are that Wolfe leaked the application to Watkins as directed by Warner, possibly with Burr’s full knowledge.

FBI Agent Brian Dugan then completed a nine-month leak investigation resulting in James Wolfe admitting to the leak.  The leak was Dugan’s FBI equity.  Due to the severity of the leak; and specifically because the leak encompassed the FISA application; in/around mid-January 2018 the special counsel in Main Justice was notified of Dugan’s findings and the investigative file was shared with the Weissmann team.

The Weissman team then took apart the investigative file and began running cover for the corrupt background story that included the participation by Senator Mark Warner.  Part of that file surfaced when the text messages between Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman were made public on Feb 9, 2018.

In a pre-planned operation, as soon as the explosive Warner/Waldman texts were released Senator Marco Rubio rushed to the microphones to fraudulently state that Warner had informed the committee during his early spring (2017) contacts with Waldman and Chris Steele.  This claim by Rubio was a lie.  Rubio was running cover for Warner as part of his own affiliation with the origin of the Fusion-GPS opposition research and the subsequent transfer of information to the Clinton campaign and ultimately through Chris Steele to the corrupt FBI investigative unit.  [Later to the Weissmann/Mueller crew]

Rubio’s motive to downplay the ramifications of the Warner effort, and the subsequent Wolfe leak, directly ties to his own involvement with the Fusion-GPS effort.   Remember, at the time of this obfuscation (late ’17 and early ’18) no-one yet knew the Fusion-GPS fraudulent story (which became the Steele dossier) was originally funded by the Super-PAC funding the Rubio campaign.

Go look at when the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel deleted their iPhone records and history.  The scrubbing took place mid-January 2018 as soon as they realized the previously unknown leak investigation by Washington Field Office FBI agent Brian Dugan had bumped into the special counsel operation that was coordinating with the SSCI.

The special counsel warned Warner; took action to remove specific evidence assembled by Dugan (which included the Warner/Waldman text messages); created a fictitious cover story for the SSCI to use; extracted the Dugan version of the FISA application he used to catch Wolfe (which they later released under the guise of FOIA); then sent a deconstructed (now useless) investigative file back to DC USAO Jessie Liu who had nothing left except to present a DC grand jury with James Wolfe lying to investigators.

That corrupt, unlawful and coordinated cover-up effort lies at the heart of why the SSCI will not share any information with GOP senators today.

Senators Johnson and Grassley were asking for the FISA application in 2018, not knowing the original and first renewal were previously provided to the SSCI on March 17, 2017.

When congress (House Intel, House Judiciary, Senate Judiciary and Senate Homeland Security) were writing to FISA Court presiding judge Rosemary Collyer seeking a copy of the FISA application from the court they had no idea one early copy was already provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Chairman Burr and Vice-Chair Warner kept their review and use secret; but the information about their reception came out because James Wolfe leaked it and FBI agent Brian Dugan was awaiting that leak.

FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer never told any of the chairmen about the March 2017 copy of the application that was provided to Brian Dugan to deliver to the SSCI.

Throughout the attempt to remove President Trump from office, which included the impeachment effort, the SSCI was participating and assisting; now they are in cover-up mode.  That’s the reason why Mitch McConnell put Marco Rubio in charge of that committee.

There’s a reason why senior staff from Senator Ron Johnson’s committee and senior staff from Chuck Grassley’s committee are asking for SSCI documents.  It might not come out before the election, but it will come out…

BACKSTORY:  (Read Here – and All Citations)

The sequence is critical:

1.  Adam Waldman text messages. (release date Feb 9, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#

2. Justice Dept. Letter to journalist Ali Watkins (release date Feb 13, 2018)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4498451-Justice-Department-Records-Seizure.html

3.  James Wolfe indictment (release date June 8, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/381310366/James-Wolfe-Indictment-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Leaker#

4.  FISC / Senate Judiciary Letter (public release April, 2020 – event date July 12, 2018) The letter from DOJ-NSD (Mueller Special Proseuctors) to the FISC is important.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-doj-letter-to-fisc&download=1

5.  Carter Page FISA application (release date July 21, 2018)  Only need the first application section. 83 pages of original application.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384380664/2016-FISA-Application-on-Carter-Page#

6.  Government Sentencing Wolfe Case memo and recommendation for upward departure and/or variance. Filed December 11, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/395499292/James-Wolfe-DOJ-Sentencing-Memo-December-11

7.  Govt. Reply to Defendant (Wolfe) sentencing memo (date Dec 14, 2018)  Govt. Exhibit #13 (two page attestation is critical).

https://www.scribd.com/document/395775597/Wolfe-Case-DOJ-Response-to-Defense-Sentencing-Memo

Misc:

July 27, 2018,  – Wall Street Journal  – Wolfe lawyers threaten SSCI subpoenas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-intelligence-committee-aides-lawyers-want-testimony-from-senators-1532692801?mod=e2tw

Dec 11, 2018 – Politico – Senators seek Leniency:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/senate-intelligence-committee-leaking-james-wolfe-1059162

.

Sep 12 2020

Tom Fitton: “There Needs to be A Criminal Investigation of the Special Counsel”…


Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on September 11, 2020 by 

There are a lot of tenuous characters who report on the machinations of the swamp, Lou Dobbs and Tom Fitton are not part of that media system.  In this interview both Dobbs and Fitton deliver brutal honesty, call the baby ugly, and discuss the best approach that President Trump should take to deliver sunlight upon the schemes. WATCH:

.

Tom Fitton is exactly correct. There needs to be a criminal investigation of Andrew Weissmann and the entire special counsel crew for their conduct in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

The corrupt FBI and DOJ activity in 2015/2016 pales in comparison to the corrupt activity within the special counsel when they held the reigns in Main Justice.

 

Sep 12 2020

Durham DC Investigative “Functionary” Returns to Private Sector Work…


Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on September 11, 2020 by 

Stories of a top aide to USAO John Durham, Nora Dannehy (good Irish family), leaving the investigative unit have hit the media narrative cycle.   However, here’s a slightly different perspective about her departure you won’t see anywhere else.

CONNECTICUT – Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, a top aide to U.S. Attorney John H. Durham in his Russia investigation, has quietly resigned from the U.S. Justice Department probe – at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done, colleagues said. (read more)

That highlighted narrative segment is horse-pucky.

Unbeknownst to Ms. Dannehy, we met, we crossed paths in DC.  It was an serendipitous outcome of putting my physical presence in a position to interact.  From our encounter Ms. Dannehy seemed to be a functionary of the investigative process; located in DC as an outcome of her task assignment.

Dannehy, very familiar with the DC national security networks; and carrying a top-secret clearance level; had a role to play where she reached into compartmented silos, retrieved information, conducted interviews and then sent the raw data along with summaries back up the investigative pipeline. Ergo, she seemed to be an investigative “functionary.”

Although she was/is obviously a badge carrying member of the Orange-Man-Bad committee (most of them cannot hide that inherent disposition), she seemed competent and detached emotionally from the work.  That said, obviously this ‘Durham’ investigation touches on several ‘third-rails’ that could negatively impact the financial prospects of any DC insider if their assigned role undermined the position of the administrative state that functions to pay the network.   Did that play a role?  If I were a betting man….

♦ Here’s the way it looks to me.  The Durham probe, actually more like the Aldenberg probe, has slightly shifted direction.  Additional inquires are now being made into the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel conduct.  That explains why the ‘Woods File’ story surfaced; and that explains why the iPhone scrubbing FOIA info was produced; it’s an insiders control-game and it continues.

With any slight shift toward questioning the unquestionable, stuff happens.  Mueller, and his DC enabled career of “public service”, is a protected entity (a third rail of sorts).  Any shift into the disposition of that enterprise is a disconcerting and troubling shift for all of those who operate within the DC administrative state.

It’s a weird inside the bubble dynamic.  Any review of the individual elements within the bubble brings out a certain level of defensive angst from every element inside the bubble.  The system protects itself.  Any slight defect or investigative penetration of the membrane is considered a risk. [Think: ‘first rule of fight club‘ etc.]

If, as I suspect, a series of investigative paths starts to merge upon the operation of the special counsel, any networked official who is dependent on the system is going to want to avoid participating….  Especially if their private sector financial attachment is connected to their ability to reenter the bubble to engage the trough; just like Ms. Dannehy.

In this scenario a bail-out from assignment only reflects an individual choosing to stop traveling in the rabbit hole out of a sense of self-preservation.  That outlook doesn’t define any time-frame within the investigation; nor does it attribute a coming interim report as a consequence of the investigative travels so far.  It’s simply a functionary making a decision to exit and retain private sector access to the same system.  Nothing more.

Warmest best.

PS. Hello fellas.