During the House Judiciary Committee farce debate toward a pre-written impeachment resolution, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan outlines the political motives of House democrats to try and avoid the looming investigation by Attorney General Bill Barr.

.

A full contempt vote normally follows the creation of the contempt resolution; which is an outcome of the debate.  However, to showcase just how ridiculous and political the agenda of Nadler has become, the actual contempt resolution was already written – SEE HERE.

Last night the DOJ informed House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler they would recommend President Trump invoke executive privilege over the Mueller report if Nadler continued in his quest to wrongfully impeach AG William Barr.  Today the White House followed through:

(White House Statement)  “The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands.

The Attorney General has been transparent and accommodating throughout this process, including by releasing the no-collusion, no-conspiracy, no-obstruction Mueller Report to the public and offering to testify before the Committee. These attempts to work with the Committee have been flatly rejected. They didn’t like the results of the report, and now they want a redo.

Faced with Chairman Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.

It is sad that Chairman Nadler is only interested in pandering to the press and pleasing his radical left constituency. The American people deserve a Congress that is focused on solving real problems like the crisis at the border, high prescription drug prices, our country’s crumbling infrastructure, and so much more.”  (link)

Letter from DOJ:

Smart move by DOJ lawyers.  The letter below informs Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler the previous report content was provided without assertion of executive privilege; however, if Nadler follows-through with impeachment plan, executive privilege is now enforced and the totality of the report is withdrawn from congress.

(Source)

The only thing AG Barr was statutorily required to provide was the four-page summary letter he already presented.  Asking President Trump to throw the executive privilege blanket over the full work product effectively shields it from congressional review; AND simultaneously blocks congress from proceeding with any impeachment action.

The assertion of executive privilege effectively removes any lack of production action (ie. the impeachment threat) by Chairman Jerry Nadler.

Essentially AG Barr et al is going old school with classic separation of power. POTUS Trump built a bridge from executive to legislative branch with voluntary production; however, if Nadler wants to be a resistance member then the executive branch will pull back and the customary three-branch separation of power rules will be the standard form of engagement.

Smart play.

On January 22nd, 2018, eleven months prior to the mid-term election, lawyers from the special counsel’s office told Judge Boasberg in a sealed-courtroom why they needed to keep James Comey’s memos from being released.

Special Counsel Attorney Michael Dreeben informed the court the special counsel was charged with investigating an obstruction case against President Trump from the beginning. President Trump was the target of their investigation from the outset.

The previously sealed court transcript was released today – SEE HERE

Despite Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller assuring the President and his lawyers he was not the target of the investigation, they were lying.

As soon as the court was told Trump was the target (hearing January 22, 2018) the court agreed to seal everything relating to the journal of James Comey. [BACKGROUND]

John Solomon has a new article at The Hill centered around this email from State Department official Kathleen Kavalec after her October 11, 2016, interaction with dossier author Christopher Steele.

The substantive point of the article is how the email proves the political motives of Steele two weeks prior to the FBI/DOJ seeking a FISA application using his work product, the dossier.  Despite knowing the bias motive, the FBI/DOJ persisted in using the dossier for a Title-1 FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page on October 21, 2016.

A second issue, perhaps more alarming, surrounds: (1) how the current DOJ and FBI kept the email hidden from congressional investigators; and (2) how the current DOJ and FBI have recently redacted the email, highlighting an ongoing institutional cover-up.

(The Hill) […] Interestingly, one legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council.

[…]  Everything else in the memo was blacked out. The FOIA notes contain this explanation for the redactions: “Classified by FBI on 4/25/2019 — Class: SECRET.”

In other words, the FBI under Director Christopher Wray classified the document as “secret” just a few days ago. To add injury to insult, the FBI added this hopeful note: “Declassify on 12/31/2041.” That would be 25 years after the 2016 election. (read more)

(Source)

L-R: Christopher Steele (Orbis) – Bruce Ohr (DOJ) – Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS)

This is frustrating, but not surprising.  In the updated DOJ court filing today (pdf link here) the DOJ tells the court they want to keep the Comey Journal (memos) hidden from public review {BACKSTORY HERE}:

Hat Tip Techno-Fog: The release of Mueller’s Report… “does not alter the FBI’s position with regard to the remaining redactions in the Comey Memos.”

(link to pdf)

The DOJ has authorized the release of the Jaunary 22, 2018, transcript from the ex parte hearing.  So we will get to see the original discussion which should include the FBI descriptions of the Comey Journal and their reasoning (to the judge) for keeping the collection of memos hidden.

Keep in mind DC Court Judge James E. Boasberg is also a FISA judge.

As pointed out by Techno-Fog the media will get the transcript release first.  However, we will work earnestly to deliver it as soon as possible after release:

Reminder below of what this is about:

The documents surfaced as part of the FOIA case [Backstory Here] where DC Court Judge James E. Boasberg -an Obama appointee and also a FISA judge- asked the FBI to file an opinion about the release of Comey memos to the public.  There were two original issues: (1) can the memos be released? and (2) can prior sealed FBI filings, arguing to keep the memos hidden, be released?

Below is the original declaration outlining to the court on October 13th, 2017, why the Comey memos must be sealed.  It is inside this exhibit where we discover there are many more memos than previously understood, and the content of those memos is far more exhaustive because James Comey documented the FBI investigation.

In essence Comey created these memos to cover his ass. (pg 13):

FBI Agent Archey then goes on to explain what is inside the memos: It is in this section where we discover that Comey made notes of his meetings and conversations with investigators.

Along with writing notes of the meetings and conversations, apparently Comey also made notes of the sources and methods associated with the investigation.  Why would Comey generate classified information in these notes (sources and methods) unless he was just covering his ass because he knew the investigation itself was a risk…

The content of the memos seems rather exhaustive; it appears Comey is keeping a diary for use in the event this operation went sideways. (page #14, exhibit B)

All of those investigative elements would likely be contained in official FBI files and notes by the investigative agents.  There is no need for a contemporaneous personal account of meeting content unless Comey was constructing memos for his own protection. These memos appear to be motivated by the same mindset that caused Susan Rice to generate her email to self on inauguration day.

In the next section FBI Agent David Archey explains the scale of the memos.  There are obviously far more than previously discussed or disclosed publicly.  Additionally, look carefully at the way the second part is worded.

Archey is saying Comey’s written recollections should be withheld because it might affect the testimony of people familiar with the “memorialized conversations”. (page #15, Exhibit B)

This is an October 2017 filing, Comey was fired May 9th.  FBI Agent Archey is outlining Trump as the target who might adjust his testimony.  Again, more evidence of the special counsel focus being motivated by the obstruction case they were hoping to build. [Reminder, Comey was still FBI director at the time these memos were written]

The next section gets to the heart of why the FBI wants to keep the Comey memos hidden and not released.

In this section Archey outlines how FBI Director James Comey wrote down who the sources were; what code-names were assigned; how those confidential sources engaged with FISA coverage initiated by the FBI; what foreign governments were assisting with their effort; and what the plans were for the investigation.

Again, why memorialize all of this classified information unless the memos were intended as CYA protection for himself?

There’s also really good news in here.  Think about it.  Now we know the entire anti-Trump operation is memorialized in writing.  There is documentary evidence of the entire operation, from the perspective of James Comey, within these memos.  We did not know that before this moment.

Therefore, it looks like President Trump can add the Comey Memos to the pre-existing declassification list.  At any time, President Trump now has an additional set of documents he knows to exist that his office can ask to be released.

If the FBI was running an honest and genuine investigation; what do they have to fear from the release of the Comey Memos now that the investigation is over.

It didn’t work out too well the last time New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen asked Attorney General Bill Barr about the term ‘spying’.  This time the intentionally obtuse senator questions the term “spying” on the Trump campaign by conflating a Title III criminal investigation (which never happened), with Title I counterintelligence investigation (which did happen).

Senator Shaheen uses a criminal example, operations against the mob, to ask FBI Director Wray about ‘spying’.  As expected, Director Wray delivers the reply she was seeking.

.

At this point in the ongoing slow boil of FBI corruption it has become obvious why DAG Rod Rosenstein recommended Chris Wray for the position in 2017.  Wray picked up, right were James Comey left-off.  What the heck kind of answer is this?

…”I don’t think I personally have any evidence of that sort”.