George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley discusses Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision not to appoint a second special council; and the stunningly powerful move to have a federal prosecutor (Huber) working together with Inspector General Horowitz.  WATCH:

.

In response to a litany of congressional requests demanding a second ‘special counsel’, Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously told media (largely ignored) he appointed a prosecutor from “outside DC” to look at all the issues surrounding the corrupt FBI and DOJ:

MARCH 8th, 2018 – “Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations. I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation.

Also I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process, we’re not afraid to look at that. The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong; but he has almost 500, employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors; and they are looking at the FISA process. We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that. And I’ll consider their request.” (link w/video)

Despite AG Sessions repeated assurances that he had already assigned a DOJ prosecutor to work with IG Michael Horowitz, on the myriad of issues surrounding corruption within the FBI and DOJ – to include the FISA court abuses, congressional voices kept demanding a second special counsel.

Continuing the drumbeat, last night HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes restated the political demand for another Special Counsel.  Today AG Jeff Sessions reveals the name of the prosecutor assigned to the task, John Huber from Utah, included in a letter to congress.

Washington (CNN) Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed Thursday that Utah’s top federal prosecutor, John Huber, has been examining a cluster of Republican-driven accusations against the FBI and has decided that no second special counsel is needed — at least for now.

Huber has been looking into allegations that the FBI abused its powers in surveilling a former Trump campaign adviser, and more should have been done to investigate Hillary Clinton’s ties to a Russian nuclear energy agency, but his identity had remained a secret.

[…] It also comes one day after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog office confirmed it would review how the FBI obtained a warrant to monitor Trump foreign policy aide Carter Page, as well as the bureau’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier.

Huber, who currently serves as the US attorney in Utah, may now find himself thrust into the middle of a fierce partisan struggle — with Republicans arguing anything short of a special counsel is insufficient because the Justice Department cannot investigate its own people, and Democrats maintaining that any allegations of bias are an unfounded ploy to distract from Mueller’s investigation into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials.

Originally appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015, Huber, along with many other US attorneys, resigned after President Donald Trump took office early last year, but was reappointed by Trump shortly thereafter. (read more)

Here’s the full letter to congress:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/375121590/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-GoAFKgH7XOxqLjkADswn

It is not accidental this announcement from AG Jeff Sessions happens on the same day that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe began a legal defense fund.

Combine these developments together with the OIG news release from yesterday and you can see things are about to break loose.

Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved.

The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.

The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases.  (more)

Horowitz is releasing an investigative report on his review of “phase #1” very soon.  This is the Clinton email investigation, the pre-planned exoneration, the media leaks, and the political corruption to attain the objectives therein.  Again refer to the original January 2017 (pre-inauguration) public information release:

It is in the course of this original investigation, and the surrounding interviews, where the evidence of Phase-2 (spy on Trump) and Phase-3 (Russia Collusion) was discovered.  Hence the outcome of the IG report will predictably follow the same sequence.

Here’s the important part to remember – The evidence already exists.  The documentation, interviews and gathering of evidence of what happened in Phase-2 and Phase-3 already exists.  However, the IG has never announced the opening of that investigation avenue. (Because 2, and 3, were an outcropping of original intent)

Horowitz is not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence.  He is now announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.

In essence he’s announcing the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered.   Horowitz already has the material.

Curious timing.  One day after the Department of Justice announced felony charges against FBI Agent Terry J. Albury for leaking confidential information to the media, fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe launches a legal defense fund.

(Reuters Story Link)

Andrew McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and DAG Rod Rosenstein on the recommendation from the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility.  The recommendation followed an Inspector General referral which outlined how deputy McCabe had constructed leaks to the media, and instructed his team (Mike Kortan, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page etc.) to contact media outlets, feeding them information in an effort to shape the stories of financial connections between McCabe’s family and Hillary Clinton.

When confronted by the IG about his involvement leaking stories to the media, Andrew McCabe lied.  His initial denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence provided by the cohorts he instructed, prompted the IG referral to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility.  The OPR recommended McCabe’s termination to DAG Rod Rosenstein.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing investigations into the FBI and DOJ along with the numerous tentacles that have surfaced in the last several months.

.

Remember, less than 10% of the American public have any idea the scale and scope of the Obama administration using the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign… including the FISA(702) abuse and the manipulations within the FISA Title-1 surveillance application(s).

Additionally, to add a little context to the latest IG announcement of an investigation into FISA Court abuse by the DOJ and FBI, remember it was only a few short months ago when the institutional media were labeling any discussion therein as “conspiracy theory.”

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/375057764/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-NYmo48DEK5qpIU5c62Yb

.

“WHY” – The first video highlights the historic backdrop of DOJ/FBI FISA court abuses:

.

“HOW” – The second video highlights the specific example of how the DOJ and FBI used false information to the FISA Court to secure a fraudulent ‘Title-1’ surveillance warrant:

.

“WHO” – The third video highlights who the primary players were within the scheme:

.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has released a public statement stating the OIG intention to investigate the fraudulent FBI FISA Title-1 surveillance application submitted to the court against U.S. person Carter Page; and the surrounding issues of the FBI using Christopher Steele to underwrite their evidence therein:

(OIG link)

There are likely to be voices wondering why this OIG investigative avenue is only just now being announced and/or explored.  However, a careful review and reminder of the process explains what is happening.

Inspector General Horowitz initial investigation focused on the politicization of the FBI and DOJ surrounding the Clinton investigation.  However, that original announcement also included the disclaimer that he would follow “other issues that may arise”.   To say there were “other issues”, that indeed did “arise”, would be the understatement of the decade.

After looking at the myriad of issues and releases since MSM attention began noticing the IG investigation on December 2nd, 2017, there’s been a very specific pathway evident.  Hence yesterday, in anticipation of the first part of the IG report being released next month, we shared the following:

Horowitz has assembled all of the information for his report but the scope of the report is so exhaustive it will most likely be released in segments according to the subject material and the myriad of issues involved.

The first section of the IG report, encompassing the DOJ/FBI political activity -specifically surrounding leaks to the media and fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe- will likely come out first in April.

The McCabe release should be followed by a release of the IG findings on the topic of FBI and DOJ conduct, and the politicization therein, within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The issues with the DOJ/FBI representations to the FISA Court, the October 21st DOJ/FBI application therein and other issues, will flow thereafter; there may be sub-chapter reports released supplemental to the FISA investigation surrounding Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS and/or the private contractors and abuse of FBI and DOJ databases.  (more)

Most of the critical principals attached to the FISA Title-1 application, and the downstream issues, are still within the DOJ.  This is a key point to reference.

The same cannot be said for the principal members of the “small group” surrounding the FBI/DOJ politicization of the Clinton investigation.   Look at the “small group” officials who quit the DOJ and FBI.  Those officials are closely connected to the Clinton operation, but not necessarily the Trump-Spying-Operation: Sally Yates (DOJ), Mary McCord (DOJ), David Laufner (DOJ), along with James Comey (FBI), Andrew McCabe (FBI), Jim Rybicki (FBI), Michael Kortan (FBI).  These are the principals involved in the Clinton operation.

Yes, there is some aggregate overlap amid the top tier (Lynch, Yates, Comey, McCabe) but that’s to be expected.  Remember the BIG PICTURE of corruption was actually three phases:

• First, exonerate candidate Hillary Clinton. [email investigation]
• Second, conduct surveillance on candidate Trump. [fisa application]
• Third, the insurance policy. [fabricated Russia Collusion investigation]

The second phase of the FBI/DOJ small group plan was the “Trump Operation”, and the third phase was the “Insurance Policy”.  For phase two and three there was increased specialty.  Also, phase #3 involved the larger IC (CIA, ODNI, etc.)

FBI Agent Peter Strzok was involved in all three phases along with his co-hort Lisa Page.  However, James Baker, Bruce Ohr and Bill Priestap were more involved in phase-2 (counterintelligence operation, surveillance etc.), and phase-3 (muh Russia Conspiracy) the insurance policy.  Those officials are still employed within the FBI; and as we have shared, likely cooperating.

Horowitz is releasing an investigative report on his review of “phase #1” very soon.  This is the Clinton email investigation, the pre-planned exoneration, the media leaks, and the political corruption to attain the objectives therein.  Again refer to the original January 2017 (pre-inauguration) public information release:

It is in the course of this original investigation, and the surrounding interviews, where the evidence of Phase-2 (spy on Trump) and Phase-3 (Russia Collusion) was discovered.  Hence the outcome of the IG report will predictably follow the same sequence.

Here’s the important part to remember – The evidence already exists.  The documentation, interviews and gathering of evidence of what happened in Phase-2 and Phase-3 already exists.  However, the IG has never announced the opening of that investigation avenue. (Because 2, and 3, were an outcropping of original intent)

Horowitz is not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence.  He is now announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.

In essence he’s announcing the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered.   Horowitz already has the material.

We can just as likely anticipate another DOJ OIG notice of review for an investigation into how the DOJ and FBI collaborated to manufacture the “vast Russian Conspiracy/Collusion” narrative.  However, that phase-3 “insurance policy” also involves the CIA (Brennan), ODNI (Clapper), and additional elements of the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.  As a consequence Phase-3 accountability is better handled by congress.

Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo.  99.99% of the interview is country club Senator Graham repeating the same South Carolina white wine spritzer talking points he’s famous for.  That is to say lots of words amounting to nothing. The gastric equivalence of cucumber and mayonnaise triangle sandwiches on crust-less Wonder bread with a side of celery.

However, there is a reminder at 09:50 of a key and important point that tries to surface yet continues to get whacked down by the annoying duplicity of swamp creatures and a media that completely ignores the obvious.  Lindsey Graham claims Christopher Steele lied and told the FBI he never talked to media.

We do not know this to be true, and neither does he.

.

It is far more likely the FBI:… #1) Ignored Chris Steele talking to media because they needed his Clinton-Steele dossier for a false FISA application; and #2) the FBI later told congress they didn’t know about Steele talking to media, but they really did; and #3) the FBI falsified FD-302 reports of their interview with Chris Steele to cover their tracks.

Here’s how we know:

Christopher Steele had no motive to lie to the FBI about his media contacts.

The FBI had tons of motive to lie about their knowing Steele talked to the media.

It’s just common sense.

Christopher Steele wasn’t meeting in secret with the media, it was well known.  He was traveling around to meet them in August and September 2016.  Why would he lie to the FBI about such transparently well known action in October?  Answer: He wouldn’t.

Toward the end of December, the FBI provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, with FBI investigative documents (likely FD-302’s) from their contacts with Christopher Steele.  According to most reasonable timing we can discover Steele met with FBI officials sometime around October 1st, 2016.

From the U.K. lawsuit against Christopher Steele (pdf here), Steele admits to having shopped the Clinton-Steele dossier to U.S. media outlets “in person” in late September (New York Times, WaPo, New Yorker and CNN), and mid-October, 2016 (New York Times, WaPo, and Yahoo News), per instructions from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS):

(Source – Page #8, pdf)

Additionally, in late October, 2016, Christopher Steele briefed Mother Jones via Skype.

According to the HPSCI intelligence memo, the FBI sought a FISA application based on the Steele Dossier on October 21st, 2016.  From the evidenced  UK court records at least two briefings with reporters, containing five outlets, took place prior to the FBI using the Clinton-Steele dossier in their FISA application.

The “late September” briefings with the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker and CNN took place prior to Christopher Steele meeting with FBI officials early October.

The implication therein is that the FBI had to know prior to their October 21st, 2016, court application that the information they were presenting to the FISA court was being heavily shopped to media outlets. This would be immediately disqualifying.

However, in the released HPSCI memo, it is noted that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about those media engagements taking place.  See:

The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016.  Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses?  Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“.

The FD-302’s (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, could contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped; – OR – show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement; – OR – the FBI could have manipulated the FD-302’s.

These important questions loom over the FBI classified documents behind the Grassley criminal referral.

In an effort to get the answer to those questions into sunlight; and with the understanding that Chairman Grassley has the FBI documents; Grassley produced a memo for declassification that facilitates understanding how the FBI claims it used the Clinton-Steele dossier during their investigation.

On January 5th, 2018,  The Grassley Memo approach surfaced. Grassley issues a statement on the reason for the criminal referral. He lets us know that he ALSO has a classified memo that he is trying to get released! Unlike Nunes he needs to go through DOJ:

January 24th, 2018, Grassley Speech: “Hiding From Tough Questions” – In his 17 minute speech Grassley reveals important details about his investigation into Steele and the FBI.

Thanks to the brilliant work of DaveNYviii we can walk through this carefully, and watch the outline in a logical sequence.

FIRST – The Criminal Referral:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

SECOND – The Discrepancies:

“If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The FBI, via Agent Peter Strzok, was already caught (text messages with his co-hort Lisa Page) admitting to falsifying FD-302 material during this exact time frame.

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

•”Jim” is likely James Baker, the disgraced Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.  He was busted out of a job right before congressional questioning.

•”Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

•”Dave” was likely David Laufman the Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence.  Laufman sat in on the questioning of Hillary Clinton and resigned RIGHT AFTER these Strzok/Page text messages were released. [SEE HERE]

•And “Mike” was almost certainly Mike Kortan, the FBI Communications Director who also resigned right after the Nunes memo was released, when confronted by FBI Director Christopher Wray about an unauthorized FBI statement which attempted to undermine the HPSCI memo content. [See HERE and HERE]

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, in addition to Lisa Page the DOJ attorney assigned to the staff of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were all legally aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated by the FBI to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

REFERENCE and RESOURCES:

• FBI September 2nd, 2016, Press Release HERE
• FBI Investigative Outline released September 2nd, 2016, HERE
• FBI Investigators Notes (302’s) as Released Sept., 2nd, 2016, HERE
• Chairman Bob Goodlatte Interview Video – HERE
• September 2nd, 2016, CTH Article Discussing FBI Release HERE

File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860635/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-HWBLlhbfv51rhuuPdJ8r

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860731/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-u0DDwNVYNippWK8p67Xs

.