On August 21st, 2017, President Trump began a very familiar process toward Pakistan within the geopolitical strategy known to us as The Trump Doctrine: ‘the accurate assignment of responsibility’, by honestly calling out the historic nature of the relationship.
In a remarkable speech on Afghanistan policy, President Trump addressed the nation and stated the continued Pakistani support of the Taliban extremists was only impeding the quest for peace.
The Trump policy goal was not Pakistan eliminating the Taliban, but rather outlining how the Afghanistan solution begins with the Taliban entering negotiations with the Afghan government. Pakistan -supporting the Taliban- continues to undermine that goal.
With little change since August, today President Trump calls out Pakistan:
AUGUST 2017 […] “The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.
“Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies.
“The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices, but Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately.
“No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. (transcript link)
President Trump states truth boldly. If anything President Trump stated was not the truth the Trump Doctrine -placement of strategic ownership- would not work. However, the entire international community knows that Pakistan, including their intelligence service ISI, has a great deal of hidden sympathy toward Islamic extremists within Afghanistan.
Never was that reality more stark than when the international community realized that 9/11 terrorist Osama Bin Laden held refuge inside Pakistan for almost a decade. Within the governing systems inside Pakistan there is a large contingent of Taliban sympathy. This reality has been the 800lb gorilla amid public discussions of international national security for several years.
August 2017 was the first time a U.S. President called it out, publicly.
This is where those who follow Trump closely will note a familiar pattern emerging.
The Taliban in Afghanistan are to Pakistan, as the DPRK is to China.
Remember, the solution to the threat that is Kim Jong-un is to assign direct responsibility toward Beijing. In a similar approach, the solution toward eliminating the threat of extremist violence from the Taliban is to assign direct responsibility toward Pakistan. President Trump began that process in August.
However, those who have followed closely will note there’s additional references.
♦When the threat is Sunni Extremism, the problem was/is the Muslim Brotherhood and the enabling of Qatar. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is the GCC who are confronting Qatar, not the United States.
♦When the threat is Syria’s chemical weapon, the problem was/is the Assad regime and ISIS. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Russia; Russia initially refused to solve it, so Trump bombed the shit out of Assad – Russia/Assad took ownership, the chemical weapon use stopped; further action was not needed by the United States.
♦When the threat is DPRK’s nuclear weapons, the problem was/is Kim Jong-un and the enabling China. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that immediate threat to China. It is Beijing who can force Kim Jong-un to stand down, without war – Not the United States.
See the pattern? In each example President Trump assigns responsibility. However, the important element is the underlying ownership must be based entirely on truth. In each of the examples the truth was/is that Gulf States/Qatar, Assad/Russia, and China/Beijing were manipulating and enabling the problem behavior. By calling out that truth, each enabler was forced to take ownership and corrective action.
The same approach extends here with Afghanistan. However, the solution is not Pakistan eliminating the Taliban per se’; the solution lies in leveraging Pakistan to force the Taliban into negotiations with the legitimate Afghan government. Like the previous examples of Saudi Arabia and China, Trump has now assigned ownership of this objective to Pakistan.
During the final hours of each year there are people, pundits and authors much more eloquent than I who are able to encapsulate the prior twelve months, and all the ramifications therein.
Perhaps part of the reason CTH struggles with philosophical hindsight is because we spend almost all of our time looking, as far as possible, in the opposite direction – always toward the horizon.
Maybe, just maybe, that purposeful decision is part of the reason we find it easier to relate to the strategic goals and planned objectives of President Donald John Trump. Indeed, as someone acutely stated ‘our president seems to have an eery ability to see around corners’. Often, what initially seems as a disconcerting position to take, quickly finds the criticism unfounded as the larger truth is something invisible until we turn the corner.
What a journey we are on.
Decades of economic manipulation by the professional political class has now turned upside-down, and more than ever people are realizing the extent to which our national wealth was been intentionally undermined by global control agents and their purchased enablers in Washington DC. Arguably, the greatest achievement in the past year is the resurgence of Main Street and common sense economic policy. A lot of people hate President Trump because of that simple fact.
The beauty of it is, POTUS Trump doesn’t care.
With or without the support of DC -often by just sheer will, grit and determination- President Trump is going to Make America a Great and balanced economy again. It is no longer an ‘if’ proposition, it’s happening.
POTUS Trump doesn’t care if the benefactors are blue or red, black or green, or any other category of constituency or self- identity; if you are American, you will benefit. Period.
Pretty cool.
Additionally refreshing is knowing all the cabinet members put on their socks every day knowing their mission objective is not political. As the President directs all oppositional fire upon himself, all of the officials stay MAGA-mission-centric. If you think about it, it’s the exact opposite approach of historic reference.
Usually the higher up the politician is within the apparatus, the more they try to retain their own placement and avoid controversial positions. President Trump flips that dynamic and takes all the controversial positions so those underneath his leadership can advance their action toward the larger goal. Whenever Trump takes a rare break, the opposition is able to look around, briefly, and realizes “oh, snap” they’ve lost ground.
Trump’s opposition spends so much time confronting him personally, while looking only at the granules moving at their feet, they fail to notice the tectonic plates have shifted. It’s really quite remarkable. Funny too. As soon a Trump tweets “BOO”, they quickly go back to chasing him…. “curse you villain“! Too funny.
I’ll admit, y’all know, back in 2015 I thought this MAGA approach was possible… yet, I had no idea it would be this level of MAGA successful. We always knew who the decepticons were – but we also thought they would attempt to retain their masks.
Boy howdy was that ever wrong.
As soon as the decepticons realized Donald Trump was actually intent on destroying their 30-year-built Potemkin village, the UniParty dropped all pretense and came screaming out of the shadows right behind us…. man, that was weird at first. It was like living amid the vampire pod-people as our neighbors and not knowing who was actually infected at the checkout line in the grocery store. Fortunately MAGA hats, or MAGA discussion, is like garlic to ’em.
In 2017 their uncontrollable autonomic responses became known as “triggering”.
Funny stuff.
The funniest of all funny things is when you ‘trigger’ someone infected with TDS, their expressed world-view can change instantaneously. Their belief is whatever is opposite of Trump. The most recent example highlights Islamic Terrorists and Iranian Mullahs as the great defenders of institutions cherished by those with anti-Trump sensibilities. Weird people.
He’s one guy, and he has them entirely surrounded.
Perpetually triggered, consistently paranoid and surrounded.
Damned funny, if you ask me.
When it comes to 2018 all I can tell you is, if the decoder ring holds up, this is going to be exciting. Yes, more winning. After a year of increasing success, POTUS Trump appears to have the timing of the whac-a-mole machine down pat.
Before Donald Trump won the presidency we accepted his approach. Trump enters a battle-space, any battle-space, with adversaries 360° around him; and yet somehow he has them surrounded. As President Trump enters year #2, this approach continues.
On a scale of 1 to 10 the average person has a sense of internal purpose around level four. People of intense historic consequence generally exhibit a stronger personal drive which pushes their scaled sense of purpose to around a seven. However, Donald Trump, now President Trump, as exhibited throughout his life’s accomplishments, carries a sense of purpose considerably higher – perhaps the highest in our life time.
During the phase of the industrial revolution the highest captains of Main Street industry were known as “Titans”. The economic Titans accomplished incredible achievements in building and industry.
These giants moved the nation forward. Relentless forward progress. They never stopped moving forward, and they carried a resolve so severe and consequential they never allowed anything to stand in the way of their purpose driven objectives. National politicians knelt at the desks of these nationalist Titans.
“Well, I don’t really have to do any holding together, now that I figured out what Trump is up to. He is shaking things out, but counting on Trump gravity to pull things back together as he moves along.
He is moving “forward” at speeds Obama could not even dream of.
You and I will be anti-Trump trolls one day and MAGA heroes the next. Get used to it. Trump speed is the new normal. Some will call it flip-flopping, but that’s not what it is. Trump is dodging and weaving through reality faster than the reality can react to disrupt his plans.
I was explaining this to my wife. This is a roller-coaster now. Trump is no longer waiting for people to keep up. He is taking his bewildering art-of-the-deal campaign schtick into geopolitics, and for a lot of people who can’t keep up or hold on, it will be a rough ride.
Trump is no longer playing only with evil and cunning players who are still predictable, easily beatable dopes, like Hillary. He is playing against killers, with his own team of killers, and all the while he has scheming creeps like Hillary, BGI, SPLC, and the neocons gunning for him. Snake Ryan ready to bite when nobody is looking. “Warhead” McCain screaming for Russian blood. Psycho Kim and Samoa Obama plotting some kind of intrigue to take him down. And THOSE are the lightweights.
This is the majors now. Trump has to outwit world-class adversaries and “frenemies” by defining the deals that they will agree to. One minute they will think Trump is their friend – the next minute, a cunning, bitter foe.
And he has to do this with evil cheerleaders like Warhead, Linderace, Dipsy Dowd, Maggie Haterman, and Fake Yapper trashing him or praising him alternately, no matter which way he goes. They can’t keep up, either.
Neither can many around him. I think that half of the problem with advisers crashing into each other is they don’t realize what Trump is doing.
And people will trash you, and they will trash me. Get used to it. I’ve already caught plenty of people mocking me. Well, just wait a week in Trump time. Look stupid and conned by Trump one minute, and you look like a sage three days later.
Trump will not find perfect solutions. He will find OPTIMAL solutions. We cannot ask for more. Trump has stood by and watched Perfect murder Good for 8 years – maybe longer. He’s not gonna do it. He’s going to deliver the best outcome possible, and he’s not waiting for us to feel relaxed about it.
Best presidency ever! Just hang on. More winning is coming, but a lot of people are going to scream that it’s all over at EVERY turn.
The best way through this is to define viewpoints, not people, because people will shift as they change position and velocity in Trump gravity. Bash the neocon, warmonger, and dopey globalist positions – not the people who are going to hold them one moment and come loose from them later.
Trump is Jupiter moving through the asteroid belt. He is going to pull people into his orbit. A few will get slung off into space, but most will come along for the ride of their lives.
I am ON the Trump Train for good, even if I scream that I want off and can’t take it.
In the end, I only want to scream “TOO MUCH WINNING!!!” (link)
….”And we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning… Believe me. And we will win so much, you will get tired of winning; and you will say: please Mr. Trump, we can’t take all of this winning… And I will say to you, NO. …We will win more, and we will keep winning,.. and we will win, and we will keep on winning…. I love you”…
Interesting discussion today between Senator Lindsey Graham and CBS journalist Major Garrett. Senator Graham went through a myriad of issues, from his specific perspective, including: Iran (and current protests), North Korea (nukes), DACA, Robert Mueller and the Russian Dossier.
Many readers might remember back in the summer 2017 (throughout July) when there were indications that President Trump, and allies, were positioning assets and drills for what appeared to be a strategic naval blockade. Well, today Reuters is reporting that South Korea has seized a second oil tanker, flagged under Panama, headed to North Korea.
The cost of smuggling oil into North Korea is getting very high. These oil tankers are very expensive and the cost of commerce in international ocean freight is underwritten by massive global insurance companies. Each of these interdictions’ makes the business end of smuggling much more unstable. Additionally, each of these violations opens up the co-dependent enabler as a target for massive U.S. Treasury Sanctions previously established.
SEOUL (Reuters) – South Korean authorities have seized a Panama-flagged vessel suspected of transferring oil products to North Korea in violation of international sanctions, a customs official said on Sunday.
The seizure was the second to be revealed by South Korea within a few days, as the United Nations steps up efforts to squeeze essential oil supplies to the reclusive North following its nuclear or ballistic missile tests.
The ship, KOTI, was seized at Pyeongtaek-Dangjin port, the official told Reuters, without elaborating, due to the sensitivity of the issue. The port is on the west coast, south of Incheon.
A marine official also confirmed the seizure, which he said was done “recently”.
The KOTI’s estimated time of arrival at the port was Dec. 19, according to VesselFinder Ltd., a tracking service provider,
The ship can carry 5,100 tonnes of oil and has a crew mostly from China and Myanmar, Yonhap News Agency reported, adding that South Korea’s intelligence and customs officials are conducting a joint probe into the vessel.
A Foreign Ministry spokesman confirmed the probe, declining to provide details.
“The government has been in close consultations with related countries and ministries to thoroughly implement the sanctions by the U.N. Security Council,” the spokesman said. (read more)
Everyone suspected the sketchy Steele Dossier was what corrupt FBI and DOJ officials used to get the October 2016 FISA warrant against Trump. FBI and DOJ officials refuse to answer that question publicly.
Despite a hundred different ways congressional investigators have asked the question, and despite numerous on-camera questions to FBI and DOJ officials about the 2016 FISA process, no-one had definitively confirmed the Christopher Steele ‘Russian Dossier’ was the underlying evidence for the 2016 FISA application to gain wiretaps and electronic surveillance upon presidential candidate Donald Trump. UNTIL NOW.
Senator Lindsey Graham just confirmed the sketchy Steele Dossier was used to get the wiretap and surveillance warrant from the FISA court. Brian Kilmead understood what he was hearing was serious, but didn’t quite catch the specific gravity of it. Watch at 04:10:
.
…The back-story to the FISA warrant is the cornerstone. The back-story contains both the FBI and the DOJ scheme. Expose it, remove it, and the entire ‘muh Russia conspiracy’ collapses under the weight of sunlight…
This is critical and important because the specific use of the Steele Dossier underpins the BIG UGLY and exposes the entire top-tier apparatus of the FBI Counterintelligence Division (Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, James Baker, Andrew McCabe) and the DOJ National Security Division (John Carlin, Stuart Evans, Mary McCord and Sally Yates), as well as DOJ Bruce Ohr and FBI lawyer Lisa Page directly to “conspiracy” charges.
The 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation was surveillance on the Trump Campaign and was thinly disguised under the fraudulent auspices of a FISA warrant, sold as a defense of U.S. democracy from Russia, which permitted the wiretaps and surveillance etc.
The DOJ involvement surrounds legal arguments, processing of FISA applications, and use of the legal system to support the FBI operation with actionable legal framing (against Trump). The DOJ National Security Division carried out that collaboration with the FBI.
Tablet Mag did a deep dive into the Fusion-GPS connection to the creation of the Steele Dossier; and more specifically how Fusion-GPS head Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby were instrumental in getting the dossier assembled and into the hands of the White House prior to the DOJ and FBI applying for the FISA warrant – SEE HERE.
Tablet Mag outlines how Mary Jacoby even bragged about getting the “Russiagate” narrative started:
A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous dossier suggests that central elements of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s top-secret “sources” in the Russian government—which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control—but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire.
Understanding the origins of the “Steele dossier” is especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what its supporters would hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected president of the United States.
[…] In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby claimed that her husband deserves the lion’s share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not replied to repeated requests for comment.) “It’s come to my attention that some people still don’t realize what Glenn’s role was in exposing Putin’s control of Donald Trump,” Jacoby wrote. “Let’s be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn.”
This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it goes directly to the nature of what became known as the “Steele dossier,” on which the Russiagate narrative is founded. (read more)
The Tablet-Mag outline shows the distinct trail of the finished Steele Dossier entering into the White House and how President Obama likely saw and reviewed the content.
However, missing from this report is an origination angle even more nefarious.
Remember, previous media reporting -in conjunction with Clinton campaign admissions- have confirmed the DNC and Clinton Campaign financed Fusion-GPS through their lawyers within Perkins Coie. Fusion then hired Nellie Ohr the wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr who thereafter sub-contracted with retired British MI6 agent Christopher Steele to write/research/provide credibility for “the dossier.”
The dates here are important because they tell a story.
The origin of the Clinton effort with Fusion-GPS was April 2016. That’s the same month Fusion hired Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr, to gather opposition research on candidate Trump. It would be most likely that Nellie Ohr was in contact with Christopher Steele. DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was later demoted for his unreported contacts with Christopher Steele and Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson in October 2016; the same month the FISA warrant was granted.
However, there was another event in this April 2016 timeline which enhances the trail of the Dossier origination. [Hat Tip Katica] Check this out:
In April 2016 Mary Jacoby shows up on White House visitor logs meeting with President Obama officials. In April 2016 the Clinton Campaign and DNC hired Fusion-GPS to organize the Russia research, that later became known as the “Steele Dossier”.
The wife of Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS), Mary B. Jacoby, with years of Russia-angled reporting –including Donald Trump– visits the White House in April 2016, at the same time as the DNC and Clinton hire Fusion GPS to conduct the opposition research on Donald Trump, surrounding Russia?
This timeline is entirely too obvious to be coincidental.
Expand slightly and consider:
April: Mary Jacoby, wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, visits the White House. The Clinton Campaign and DNC then hire Fusion GPS to conduct ‘Opposition Research’, with a Russian emphasis. Fusion GPS then hires Nellie Ohr who specializes in Russian-centric counterintelligence. Nellie Ohr then contacts MI6 agent Christopher Steele to write a Russian Dossier. A month later, May 2016: Nellie Ohr’s husband inside the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, is then working with FBI counterintelligence head Peter Strzok. By June 2016: Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr and DOJ Attorney Lisa Page then apply for the first FISA warrant.
[June 24th, 2017, Mary Jacoby appears on Facebook taking credit for the origination of the Russiagate narrative.]
This timeline is so transparent it’s deafening.
[More from the Tablet] Simpson and Jacoby had ID’d Manafort as a world-class sleazeball and they were right. A slick Georgetown Law grad running in GOP circles since the Reagan campaign, Manafort used his talents and connections to get paid by some very bad people. I would only add here that, in my personal experience, journalists are not in the habit of forgetting major stories they’ve written, especially stories with a character like Manafort at the center.
So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson and Jacoby’s eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. (more)
Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson – Fusion GPS
If the counterintelligence FISA warrant was obtained through deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant is what led to the wiretapping and surveillance of candidate Donald Trump and General Flynn; and that warrant was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras –who was the judge in Flynn’s case, and is now recused– the entire tenuous FBI and DOJ operation begins to collapse and the outline of a “conspiracy” becomes clearly evident.
The back-story to the FISA warrant is the cornerstone. The back-story contains both the FBI and the DOJ scheme. Expose it, remove it, and the entire ‘muh Russia’ conspiracy fraud collapses under the weight of sunlight.
♦The National Security Division (NSD) inside the DOJ was where all of the collaboration appears to have taken place. The NSD is a sub-division within the DOJ similar to the Counterintelligence Division within the FBI.
Using the National Security Division (NSD) inside the DOJ presents a specifically useful angle for the purposes of hiding duplicitous, unethical and unlawful conduct. Why? Well, here’s where the mirrored entry starts and also where it gets interesting.
(click image to enlarge)
Responding to a 2015 request by the DOJ Office of Inspector General, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the internal watchdog they cannot investigate the National Security Division.
That’s right, there is essentially no oversight on any activity happening inside the NSD.
In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.
The Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (currently Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) is not allowed to investigate anything that happens within the NSD branch of the Department of Justice.
See the ‘useful arrangement‘?
Yeah, Funny that.
So it might not be so coincidental the players used on the DOJ side of “Operation Trump” all seem to come from within the National Security Division.
I digress, but remember, I said pay attention to the September/October 2016 time-frame.
DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was “demoted” in the summer of 2017 after the Inspector General discovered unreported 2016 contacts between Ohr and Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, as well as contact with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, in October 2016. [Also remember Bruce’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS in April 2016 to start the research that ultimately ended with the sketchy dossier.]
Also in October 2016, right around the time the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the FISA Application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job.
It would have specifically been John Carlin’s responsibility to ensure a valid legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Remember also, the July 2016 application was denied, a rarity. Therefore, if the second application used ‘sketchy’ enhancements – for the matter of accountability it no longer mattered because Asst. Attorney General John Carlin was headed to the exits.
Summary of October 2016 so far: ♦Bruce Ohr is meeting with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson and not telling his bosses. ♦The DOJ National Security Division submits FISA application for FBI use (likely using dossier). ♦The Head of DOJ National Security Division, John Carlin, quits.
Wait, it gets better.
I’m not making this up.
Immediately after the second FISA warrant is approved,… in the period where John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave, but not yet left… Inside those specific two weeks,… On September 26th, 2016, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law; and the NSD specifically informs the court they have been using FISA applications to spy on their domestic political opposition.
We don’t discover this September/October 2016 DOJ admission until May 2017.
That’s when the FISA court decision on the self-reporting was released to the public, declassified and we find the details outlined within the court ruling.
The NSD admits the details how, under President Obama, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch Department of Justice used FISA applications to monitor political opponents, unmasked conversations to discover content, and also disclosed this has been happening for SIX YEARS prior to the beginning of the July 2016 joint FBI/DOJ “Trump Operation”.
Now, SERIOUSLY, does anyone doubt what the October 2016 FISA warrant was about?
You can read the 99-page FISA court ruling above –LINK HERE–
Recapping September/October 2016: ♦Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok are secretly meeting with Christopher Steele (Dossier) and Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS). ♦The NSD is submitting a second FISA application to using the Steele Dossier. ♦The Justice Department National Security Division head announces his intention to leave the NSD. ♦And the DOJ-NSD inform the FISA Court they have weaponized prior FISA warrants for political operations.
.
RESOURCES:
The Scale of the DOJ and FBI Corruption – Outlined HERE
♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.
♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.
♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.
♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, and Gang of Eight member, Devin Nunes, has delivered an ultimatum to Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein; demanding the DOJ deliver the documents and evidence surrounding the Steele Dossier to the committee by January 3rd.
There’s an unspoken coordination here which needs to be highlighted. Intelligence Chairman Nunes appears focused specifically on the Dossier, which is to say the DOJ side of the collusion. Judicial Chairman Goodlatte is focused the FBI side.
Nunes demand comes as DAG Rosenstein has already committed to deliver 1.2 million pages of evidence from the year-long DOJ Inspector General investigation to the House Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, on/around January 15th. More than likely the FBI/DOJ requested information is also contained within the upcoming OIG material.
WASHINGTON DC – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is blasting the Department of Justice and the FBI for its “failure to fully produce” documents related to an anti-Trump dossier, saying “at this point it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves.”
In a Thursday letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein obtained by Fox News, Nunes expressed frustration that information and witnesses subpoenaed by the committee in August related to the so-called Steele dossier had not yet been turned over. The salacious dossier includes unverified allegations about President Trump’s connections with Russia that he has denied.
“Unfortunately, DOJ/FBI’s intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part of a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated,” the California Republican wrote to Rosenstein.
Nunes demanded that all records – and available dates for witnesses to testify – be provided to the committee by Jan 3.
“As a result of the numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of subpoena compliance, the committee no longer credits the representations made by DOJ and/or the FBI regarding these matters,” Nunes said.
He called the DOJ’s initial response to the subpoenas “disingenuous at best.”
Nunes said the DOJ informed the House Intelligence Committee several weeks ago that the “basic investigatory documents demanded by the subpoenas…did not exist.”
“As it turns out, not only did documents exist that were directly responsive to the committee’s subpoenas, but they involved senior DOJ and FBI officials who were swiftly reassigned when their roles in matters under the committee’s investigation were brought to light,” Nunes wrote. (continue reading)
The leadership of the DOJ and the FBI are intertwined in the 2016 election operation to support candidate Hillary Clinton and defeat candidate Donald Trump. However, most of the investigative discussions center around the FBI side of the equation. There’s a good reason for that.
The FBI side of the conspiracy is pretty straight forward. FBI Director James Comey, FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker, FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap, and FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok all played a participatory role in the Trump Operation.
The 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation was surveillance on the Trump Campaign and was thinly disguised under the fraudulent auspices of a FISA warrant, sold as a defense of U.S. democracy from Russia, which permitted the wiretaps and surveillance etc.
Two DOJ people (central to the FBI) relayed and acted as facilitators between the FBI side and the DOJ side: DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and FBI/DOJ lawyer Lisa Page. Outlines of their collaborative efforts, and the trails they left behind, have filled the headlines recently.
On the Department of Justice side of the operation, specifically the DOJ leadership involvement, things are less clearly outlined. Again, there’s a reason for that.
The DOJ involvement surrounds legal arguments, processing of FISA applications, and use of the legal system to support the FBI with actionable legal framing (against Trump) mostly after their candidate, Hillary Clinton, was defeated.
In essence, in a bastardized manipulation of Law and Order, the FBI created disorder and the DOJ weaponized that manufactured disorder to launch a legal attack against their ideological political opposition, President-elect Donald Trump. Unlawfulness and Disorder.
However, to best understand the DOJ side, it’s helpful to look at a specific time, September and October 2016. That’s when the second FISA application was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), using the information from the FBI counterintelligence operation (Steele Dossier etc.) as the basis for that application.
As of this writing the FBI and DOJ are refusing to answer foundational questions about that second FISA application and the subsequent FISA warrant that was used as a justification for the Wiretaps and Surveillance that began on the Trump Campaign.
The dates here seem intentionally cloudy because, according to James Comey testimony, the FBI counterintelligence operation began in July 2016, around the same time the Steele Dossier was given to the FBI and simultaneous to the first FISA application being denied.
The second FISA application was approved in/around October 2016. All current media outlines overlook the obvious question of whether the wiretaps and surveillance began in July 2016 without a warrant.
Given the nature of the illegality involved with the entire effort it would be naive to think the FBI waited until October for wiretaps to become legal when their own admissions state they began the operation in July, three months prior.
The story of October 2016 has more interesting aspects. But first, we must gain a greater understanding of the division within the DOJ that was involved.
♦The National Security Division (NSD) inside the DOJ was where all of the collaboration appears to have taken place. The NSD is a sub-division within the DOJ similar to the Counterintelligence Division within the FBI.
Using the National Security Division (NSD) inside the DOJ presents a specifically useful angle for the purposes of hiding duplicitous, unethical and unlawful conduct. Why? Well, here’s where the mirrored entry starts and also where it gets interesting.
(click image to enlarge)
Responding to a 2015 request by the DOJ Office of Inspector General, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the internal watchdog they cannot investigate the National Security Division.
That’s right, there is essentially no oversight on any activity happening inside the NSD.
In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.
The Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (currently Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) is not allowed to investigate anything that happens within the NSD branch of the Department of Justice.
See the ‘useful arrangement‘?
Yeah, Funny that.
So it might not be so coincidental the players used on the DOJ side of “Operation Trump” all seem to come from within the National Security Division.
I digress, but remember, I said pay attention to the September/October 2016 time-frame.
DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was “demoted” in the summer of 2017 after the Inspector General discovered unreported 2016 contacts between Ohr and Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, as well as contact with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, in October 2016. [Also remember Bruce’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS in April 2016 to start the research that ultimately ended with the sketchy dossier.]
Also in October 2016, right around the time the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the FISA Application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job.
It would have specifically been John Carlin’s responsibility to ensure a valid legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Remember also, the July 2016 application was denied, a rarity. Therefore, if the second application used ‘sketchy’ enhancements – for the matter of accountability it no longer mattered because Asst. Attorney General John Carlin was headed to the exits.
Summary of October 2016 so far: ♦Bruce Ohr is meeting with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson and not telling his bosses. ♦The DOJ National Security Division submits FISA application for FBI use (likely using dossier). ♦The Head of DOJ National Security Division, John Carlin, quits.
Wait, it gets better.
I’m not making this up.
Immediately after the second FISA warrant is approved,… in the period where John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave, but not yet left… Inside those specific two weeks,… On September 26th, 2016, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law; and the NSD specifically informs the court they have been using FISA applications to spy on their domestic political opposition.
However, we don’t discover this September 26th 2016 DOJ admission until May 2017. That’s when the FISA court decision on the self-reporting was released to the public, declassified and we find the details outlined within the court ruling.
The NSD admits the details how, under President Obama, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch Department of Justice used FISA applications to spy on political opponents, unmasked conversations to discover content, and also disclosed this has been happening for SIX YEARS prior to the beginning of the July 2016 joint FBI/DOJ “Trump Operation”.
Now, SERIOUSLY, does anyone doubt what the October 2016 FISA warrant was about?
You can read the 99-page FISA court ruling above –LINK HERE– and you can watch the explanation of 99-page FISC ruling above as shared by Judicial Watch below:
.
Recapping September/October 2016: ♦Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok are secretly meeting with Christopher Steele (Dossier) and Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS). ♦The NSD is submitting a second FISA application to spy on candidate Trump. ♦The Justice Department National Security Division head announces his intention to leave the NSD. ♦And the DOJ-NSD inform the FISA Court they have weaponized prior FISA warrants for political operations.
Now, retain your blood pressure and watch National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Office of Intelligence, Stuart Evans testify to congress on June 27th 2017:
Additionally, if I’m going to drag you into the rabbit hole where the corruptocrats speak in riddles – you might want to help me guess an answer this question:
@00:26 Who is: “I took a senior member of the National Security Division”?
.
The date Sally Yates is describing is January 26th, 2017 – when she went to see White House Counsel Don McGhan to discuss Mike Flynn’s January 24th ambush interview with FBI agent Peter Strzok.
My hunch is the “senior member of the National Security Division” was Mary McCord.
I seem to vaguely remember something from WikiLeaks emails about four political women who would ensure Hillary Clinton’s victory…
♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.
♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.
♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.
♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.
Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell appears on Lou Dobbs show to discuss President Trump’s Twitter response toward the FBI and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s plan to retire. Farrell outlines several things within this interview that CTH has been tracking on background.
.
First, there is a possibility the person Farrell describes at 02:50 might be John P. Carlin, the former head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division who left in October 2016, right after the controversial FISA warrant was issued.
John Carlin landed a job with law firm Morrison & Foerster leading their global risk and crisis management practice.
CNBC Video of John Carlin discussing President Trump and the Mueller investigation from mid-June 2017 is available HERE.
♦Second, while CTH understands the concern Farrell carries surrounding the final IG outcome, there’s no substantive reason to assign an intent of dilution toward his efforts, yet.
However, that said, the concern that Chris Farrell describes surrounding DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz explains why oversight Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has requested production of the IG investigative documentation from the OIG; which is due on/around Jan 15th, 2018.
Regardless of the structure within the finished report from Horowitz, Chairman Goodlatte appears positioning his committee investigators to review the evidence and likely launch a Special Prosecutor criminal probe based on the current investigative evidence; a reported 1.2 million pages of investigative documentation so far.
Catching up. If you watched the prior two updates from Brett McGurk you’ll note he does an exceptional job explaining how the administration is coordinating with multiple partners to defeat ISIS. The Trump administration plan was labeled the “D-ISIS” strategy.
Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Brett McGurk provides an update on D-ISIS Campaign, at the Department of State on December 21, 2017.
.
(Transcript) MR MCGURK: Yeah. Sum up the campaign against ISIS over the past – over the past year and where we are, and kind of a little bit on where we’re going. And we’ll have more to say about that in the coming year, particularly over the coming weeks.
I think it’s worth recalling ISIS used to be controlling basically a state, 100,000 square kilometers, the size of the UK; planning and plotting and carrying out major terrorist attacks against our partner homelands; inspiring attacks here in the homeland; responsible for the violent murder and – violent murder of American citizens James Foley, Steve Sotloff, Peter Abdul-Rahman, as well as the death of Kayla Mueller; committing acts of genocide against the Yezidis as they swept into Iraq, and other minority groups; displacing Christians from their – from their ancient homelands; and destroying our common heritage. We’ve really never seen anything like it, 40,000 foreign fighters from 110 countries around the world pouring into this so-called phony caliphate.
So in January, when the new administration came in, when President Trump came in and Secretary Tillerson came in, we faced real critical challenges in terms of major plotting attacks against us and against our partner homelands coming from Syria and Iraq. And they were aspiring to kind of major, 9/11-type attacks. That’s what they really aspire to do. And so long as they had these safe havens and sanctuaries, particularly cities, a city like Raqqa, and at the time they still controlled half of Mosul, it was really hard to root them out.
So really, three key decisions were made right off the bat as soon as President Trump came into office. Number one, he issued a directive within, I think, his third day for all of us to really look to accelerate the overall defeat of ISIS. He delegated authorities immediately to Secretary Mattis and our commanders in the field. When Secretary Tillerson came in, he made clear to all of us that if everything’s a priority, nothing’s a priority, and our priority is the defeat of ISIS. One of his first major events here at the State Department was gathering almost 70 countries here at the State Department from our global coalition; it’s now one of the largest coalitions of its kind ever assembled in history, with 74 members. And we all gathered here in March really to map out the next phase of the campaign over what is now the last 10 months, particularly Mosul and Raqqa.
The Secretary also made the decision very early on to deploy a small team of experts from the State Department into Syria to work with our military partners as we got into the campaign in Tabqa and Raqqa, which I’ll talk about. We established task forces here at the State Department and the Department of Defense to coordinate the interagency in a way that had not been coordinated before. And we developed an overall global campaign plan called the Defeat ISIS Strategic Plan, which has been approved by the President. So prioritize the defeat of ISIS. If everything’s important, nothing’s important. And accelerate the campaign. And I’ll bring you into the campaign and describe kind of how this has gone over the last year.
Second, when he looked at the situation in Syria, decided we have to set conditions for a political settlement in Syria by de-escalating the overall conflict. This is a conflict that killed 400,000 people, displaced 11 million people, and obviously the situation – we had to look to ways to bring it under control. We had tried things like national ceasefires; they hadn’t worked. So we really – we really took a new approach.
Looked at different parts of the country. Tried to establish de-escalation zones, ceasefire areas, and really pragmatic, pretty hard-nosed diplomacy with the Russians. And looked at Syria in terms of phases. Number one, you have to defeat the physical caliphate of ISIS; so long as you have a caliphate in the middle of Syria, it’s really hard to get a realistic, meaningful political process underway. And you had to overall de-escalate the overall conflict to move ahead on the political process based in Geneva under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. I’ll talk a little bit about that.
Finally, holding Assad accountable for his chemical weapons use and proliferation. I think the April 6 strike ordered by the President – we actually happened to be in some negotiations with the Russians while all this was going on – had a pretty dramatic effect, I think, on the overall situation, our ability to exert some leverage on the overall situation in Syria. So those three key decisions, I think, have made a difference and have helped us speed some things up. I think I have a map. Okay.
So let me just kind of brief on this map. It’s the current situation, and just a situation – if you can all see it. Everything in green on this map, everything in green used to be controlled by ISIS, so over 100,000 square kilometers.
Everything in light green was controlled by – I’m sorry – everything in light green – everything in dark green, the dark green, was controlled by ISIS in January of this year. Everything in light green and dark green has been taken away from ISIS; it’s about 98 percent of their former caliphate. And significantly, 50 percent of all the territory that ISIS has lost, they have lost in the last 11 months, since January.
So 50 percent of all the territorial losses against ISIS have come in the last 11 months over the course of 2017. Seven point seven million people used to be living under ISIS are no longer living under ISIS, and 5 million of those people were liberated over the course of this past year. So when we came into office, there was still about 5 million people under ISIS; they are no longer under ISIS.
Returnees – we’ve talked about this in the past. The pace picked up. In Iraq we have returned 2.7 million Iraqis back to their homes. Again, that is a historically unprecedented rate of returns in a conflict like this – 1.4 million of those returnees in this past year. In Syria, for the first time – the Syria situation still remains totally unacceptable.
All the violence and the loss of life is attributable to Bashar al-Assad and his regime. But in Syria, for this – this year, for the first time, we did see significant returns, about 715,000 according to UN data, actually returning to their homes; 50,000 from outside Syria. And I think the focus on de-escalation had a contribution to that.
So based upon all that, I can kind of bring you into the – what we did over the last year and how this really came together. So there’s a number one on the map, which – oh, I guess this doesn’t work with the TV.
There’s a number one – there’s a number one on the map at Tabqa, which I can point to right here.
Tabqa – the battle of Tabqa began on March 21st, but what’s significant about it is kind of how it began. And I happened to be in Syria right around this time, and the force we’re working with, the Syrian Democratic Forces, identified an opportunity, but they had to launch almost immediately. They said, if we can launch within days to hop over a body of water about 10 kilometers and catch ISIS by surprise, they thought that they could seize Tabqa, the Tabqa dam, and the Tabqa airport.
So our commanders, having the delegated authority, wasted no time, put this operation together. It launched on March 21st, ended on May 11th. And I visited Tabqa shortly after the battle, and it wasn’t just the battle; it was the first time we also had State Department personnel working together to kind of help facilitate the humanitarian and stabilization aftermath of the conflict. So they worked to clear landmines, get humanitarian aid into the city. And the population before the war in Tabqa was 70,000; the population today, about 110,000 since ISIS has left. And without Tabqa, had Tabqa not been seized, Raqqa would not have been able to be taken because Tabqa really kind of helped close the noose on Raqqa. So that delegation of authorities made a specific, immediate difference in that very significant battle.
Second was Raqqa. So shortly after the Tabqa battle concluded in May, we looked at, again, all the options for Raqqa. You’ve reported on this, many of you. We looked at every possible way to do Raqqa.
A couple options were presented to the President, and really the option that he determined was the most viable option was the option to use our partner force, the Syrian Democratic Forces. And a couple reasons for that: the other option would have required really tens of thousands of American troops on the ground, and that’s a model that we do not want to return to. So the battle of Raqqa began on June 6, D-Day as it’s known, but it began on June 6, and it concluded about five months later.
Very, very difficult street-by-street fighting. I was in Raqqa about three weeks ago and you could see the aftermath of this battle. Our force that we work with, the Syrian Democratic Forces, about 400 were killed in the battle, about 700 wounded. No Americans were lost in this battle. We did lose one coalition special forces operator from our – one of our coalition partners.
Displacement. In the battle of Raqqa, in the province, about 264,000 people were displaced, and in the early phase of the battle, you could actually see the displacement. We actually really had to catch up. But having our team of experts on the ground, we immediately flooded resources into Syria and were able to manage the humanitarian displaced population from Raqqa fairly well. About 34,000 now have returned.
One reason why it’ll take a while to get people back into their homes of Raqqa is that ISIS has – basically, every single standing structure in Raqqa has an IED in it. We’re finding that as our teams that we have – we’ve trained about 125 Syrians now together with experts to really clear the streets of these areas that have been cleared, and it takes a lot of time. We’re finding an IED in almost every freestanding structure.
So ISIS, as they lose territory, kind of salt the earth to make sure that life cannot return. We do believe the outlying neighborhoods of Raqqa, which are fairly well intact, we will see significant returns to the center of the city. Having seen it with my own eyes, it is fairly well destroyed. I think it’ll be a very long time before people are able to return there.
We are in the business, as we’ve said before, of stabilizing these areas, clearing landmines, humanitarian – basic water, basic health, electricity. We are not engaged in nation-building exercises and long-term reconstruction.
Let me point to number three. This is right here.
And this is where you can see the red on the map, and that is where ISIS still has some small safe havens. I point to it because there is still very significant fighting going on. And I just want to emphasize this point: This isn’t over. The fact that we’ve made a lot of progress this year, nobody who works on these problems would tell you that we’re popping champagne corks or anything. This is not over. This has a long way to go.
Even on the ground in Syria, there’s probably some months of operations left in this area. Heavy fighting is ongoing; 31 airstrikes, coalition airstrikes in the last week alone. And we killed three very, very senior ISIS leaders right in that area in the last week, and we’re capturing, actually, as we speak, a number of fighters trying to flee.
Last week, a significant milestone: The Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces linked up at the border, just kind of tightening the noose on ISIS. And this area also has been critical in terms of deconflicting operations with the Russians, something we’ve talked about throughout the year. We’ve kind of drawn some lines on the map with the Russians about where their forces would be, where we would be.
This is a professional military-to-military engagement focused on deconfliction. We’re not coordinating operations but making sure we don’t have any accidents. That’s extremely tense from time to time, but overall that has gone quite well and accelerated the pace of operations. So the engagement with the Russians has actually, I think, contributed to the demise of ISIS at least in the caliphate.
I’m going to go down to the – just southeast Syria. I’ll start moving a little faster. But right here is a garrison called al-Tanf. We have a small U.S. military presence there. We’re working with the local force. There are still ISIS in the area. There was an operation – we actually engaged with a column, our military personnel, with our partner force just last week in a very heavy engagement.
But another reason why our presence is important there is there is an IDP camp right on the Jordanian border. About 40,000 people are there, and we want to get aid to that camp. We want to get aid to that camp from the Syrian side, and we’re working – we’re pushing, particularly through the Russians, to come up with a common plan to get aid to that camp. And we have called on the Russians to be cooperative in that effort, and we were pleased that earlier this week the UN Security Council resolution renewed resolutions known as 2165 that authorizes cross-border assistance into Syria. That was quite an important development as we manage the humanitarian situation in Syria.
So that’s Tanf. We are present at Tanf, and we’re going to be present at Tanf to make sure ISIS cannot return and also to manage this difficult humanitarian situation. We will also remain present in the other areas of Syria to make sure that ISIS cannot return and to make sure that we can help with the stabilization effort so people can return to their homes.
The final point on Syria is in the southwest. It’s number five.
I point to that because this is the southwest – it’s a de-escalation zone that we negotiated with Jordan and with Russia earlier this year. I think I described it as a painstaking negotiation over many months. That was very true, and it was finalized on July 7th in a meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I think it’s been – it’s not without problems, but it has been a – one of the most successful ceasefires to date. I think we’ve saved a significant number of lives, returning Syrians to their homes.
We’re monitoring the ceasefire every day in Amman. About a thousand Syrians are now returning every month, according to UN data, from Jordan, the first time we’ve seen that trend – that’s something positive, we want to keep it moving – and about a thousand every week displaced from Syria returning to their homes in this area. So total, about 5,000 a month.
We worked to re – kind of strengthen the ceasefire earlier this year – or just last month when we finalized what’s called a memorandum of principles, greater definition to the ceasefire. Key principle: The existing arrangements in these areas can remain in place, so opposition structures remain in place pending a long-term political settlement to the civil war through the Geneva process; and also a commitment, very importantly, to remove foreign forces from sensitive areas of this zone. And what that means are Iranian-backed forces, Iranian-backed militias should not be in this area. That’s something that the Russians have signed onto. And also, we need to remove foreign jihadi-like presence from this area, and there remains a persistent ISIS cell, which is the red blotch just on the corner of the map.
And President Trump and President Putin in Da Nang issued a very important joint statement which memorialized that memorandum of principles in the southwest and also the steps going forward on the political process.
Let me jump quickly to Iraq. I’ll go very quickly. Mosul.
When we came in in January, east Mosul was liberated on January 26th. The battle of west Mosul had not even begun, and we knew that would be an enormously daunting task. We have trained a total of 123,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces. The battle of Mosul, the cooperation between the Iraqi Security Forces and the Peshmerga, was something that was historic, something we still want to build upon even as there’s tension between Baghdad and Erbil, and something that carried over into the battle of west Mosul.
The battle of west Mosul began on February 19th and concluded on July 10th. It really consumed the first half of this year. It was the main focus of Secretary Tillerson’s gathering so many members of our coalition here in March, where we raised about $2.2 billion, and a lot of that money went immediately into the campaign of Mosul. What’s remarkable about the Mosul campaign is that of a million displaced from Mosul, the worst-case scenario that we had planned for, nearly every single Moslawi that was displaced received humanitarian assistance and aid.
So even with a million displaced, we did not have a massive humanitarian crisis because of the planning that went into this, and that meeting in March was quite significant. In Mosul today we have about 500 stabilization projects are ongoing, and we are still working very closely with our coalition to make sure that we have adequate resources for that.
Finally on the map I want to just talk about two developments here in the bottom. This is the Arar border crossing with Saudi Arabia.
I point to the border crossing, but what’s really significant there is that President Trump and the Secretary very early on, within the first weeks, identified an opportunity to really open – reformalize an opening of ties between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
The Secretary had an important conversation with Foreign Minister Jubeir. Foreign Minister Jubeir visited Baghdad on February 25th, the first visit of a Saudi foreign minister in 30 years, and from there, chipping away, we really kind of really opened up this relationship.
Speaking personally as – I’ve worked in three administrations; I remember President Bush going a number of times directly to King Abdullah to really encourage this, the argument being that we want to re-anchor Iraq in the Arab world, diversify its regional relationships. Very important, something the Iraqis want; we think it’s in our national security interest. And finally, this broke open.
I visited the – I visited that border crossing in August when it opened and it was quite a remarkable scene. And then on October 22nd, Secretary Tillerson met in Riyadh with King Salman and Prime Minister Abadi to formally launch the Iraqi-Saudi Coordinating Committee. We now have, for the first time in 30 years, direct flights moving between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, two border openings, and this continues to move forward. So that was a real significant breakthrough that we saw this year.
I’d just point finally to the other border crossing, the Turaibil border crossing with Jordan. That’s a multi-billion-dollar-a-year commerce route, and we’ve also worked very hard to open that because our ally Jordan is really first and foremost in our minds when we manage this very difficult situation.
Looking forward a little bit into next year, Kuwait will host a very – two very important conferences in February, one together with the World Bank and the EU on a reconstruction event for Iraq to help reconstruct some of these areas; and secondly, our coalition will gather, similar to the event we had here in March, in Kuwait in the February time frame.
Finally, when it comes to ISIS, we’re not just focused on the physical space of the caliphate, though that was the calling card; it was what held the organization together. We are also, as you know – talked about this a number of times from this podium – foreign fighters, counterfinance, countermessaging is a constant, 24/7 effort from here.
On foreign fighters, it – really an incredible effort, global effort, from all members of our coalition. And working with one of our newest members of the coalition, INTERPOL, we now have from 60 countries about 40,000 names in a database of known ISIS-affiliated fighters who try – have tried to travel or did travel to Iraq and Syria. And the UN Security Council today, we believe, will pass a very important resolution, really strengthening the Resolution 2178 that passed a few years ago. And our colleagues here, Nathan Sales and the CT bureau, doing a terrific job on that. So we hope to have more news on that later in the day.
Counter-finance – we’ve completely decimated ISIS finances by targeting their oil and gas reserves, and they really have no ability to raise significant revenue from what used to be their state-like holdings in Iraq and Syria. But they do still find ways to move money around, and Sigal Mandelker and our colleagues at the Treasury Department working constantly to identify these networks, sanction them, and root them out.
In counter-messaging, just a remarkable improvement from what we used to see, and I give the private sector here tremendous credit – Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. Very difficult to start a Twitter account now with an ISIS-affiliated message. You’re taken down really almost instantaneously; almost a million accounts have been taken down. And we’re working closely in the region with Saudi Arabia, UAE, all of our partners, and in East Asia with Malaysia and others to counter ISIS’s ideology.
So ISIS will be around for a while, so this is a – we have a long way to go. But we did make some progress this year, and I wanted to kind of bring you into it a little bit, decisions we made early and then how they played out. And with that, I’m happy to take some questions.
MS NAUERT: Matt, do you want to start?
♦QUESTION: I’m just curious. It sounds to me – well, it doesn’t sound to me – you said it – that changes from the policy of the previous administration are responsible for this success. You were in charge of implementing the policy of the previous administration. Why if – why – was it doomed to fail? And why did you – why did the previous administration continue to do what it was doing when you mention these three or four changes to it that seem to have brought success?
MR MCGURK: Yeah, thanks, Matt. I think I’d answer it this way. I think this isn’t a – it’s not a political statement. It’s the fact that we had to do a lot to get the foundation for our campaign set. A transition in wartime from one party to another – you look historically, it can always be a difficult endeavor. I actually give great credit – think an untold story – the transition actually on these issues was very smooth. The transition team here at State did a great job and we met regularly with the transition team and said look, there’s about three or four key decisions that, if they’re made early – and we did say at the time we think we can actually defeat the physical caliphate – we actually moved faster than we thought – but three or four key decisions.
Some of them were decisions that the former administration didn’t want to take at the end of their time in office so passed forward. But I will just say it takes – it takes focus and attention and prioritization from the top, and that’s what we got on day one from the President, and when the Secretary came in, and from Secretary Mattis. And those decisions were made. The delegations made a difference. The decision on Raqqa – we looked at the entire – we looked at all options. And the decision the President made in May was quite significant and —
♦QUESTION: Are you saying the previous administration, there wasn’t that involvement, that it wasn’t that big a priority for the senior members of the last administration?
MR MCGURK: That’s certainly not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that decisions that were made early in the new administration to accelerate the campaign – these are big decisions; it’s not something you just go and make. But they were made early and they had a major impact. And I think the – I think it speaks for itself.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS NAUERT: Next question. Nick.
♦QUESTION: Brett, could you just – I just have a couple of numerical questions and then one sort of bigger question. The first is do you have a current tally for the number of civilian deaths as a result of coalition airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria?
MR MCGURK: So as you know, we study this quite carefully. I’d really defer you to the – our CJTF colleagues who study this quite carefully. I can’t give you a number here. But let me give you an example on Raqqa. So I’ve read some reports that in Raqqa, at the end of the day, like thousands of ISIS fighters escaped. So I was just in Raqqa, and here’s what ISIS was doing in the final days of that battle. Down to about two neighborhoods, probably about 300 ISIS fighters left. Whenever they would go outside to move from one fighting position for another, they would take a child with them or a bunch of civilians with them, basically using them as human shields. That’s how they fought in Mosul. That’s how they fought in Raqqa. That’s how they fought in al-Qaim. That’s how they fought throughout the campaign.
So this is extremely, extremely difficult. Our Syrian partner forces and Iraqi forces, and particularly the Iraqis, took a number of casualties and Iraqi soldiers died because in Mosul in particular the humanitarian priority was put at the top of the campaign plan. So a number of times we did not do an airstrike, did not do certain military activities, because of the risk to civilians.
In Raqqa, these two neighborhoods saturated with remaining civilians and a limited number of ISIS fighters – it’s when local tribes from the area came and said we have to actually evacuate all of these civilians. And so that local deal was made. We think about 4,000 civilians – and we track this extremely closely – and a very small number, a very small number of foreign fighters, about 300 total, ISIS fighters. But the truth of the matter, these guys are using – they came to Syria and Iraq and they purport to be representing the Sunni population, then they use the Sunni population as human shields.
So I’m sorry I can’t give you a specific figure, but I just wanted to kind of – I’ve been in some of the centers – in Syria I was in one during the Raqqa battle – of how these decisions are being made. And it is extremely difficult when you confront an enemy like this.
♦QUESTION: Just two quick follow-ups. One is you talked about geographically reducing ISIS control. Do you have numbers of fighters who remain, who were able to flee? And then second, the Pentagon today accused Russia of intentionally violating the deconfliction agreements with the U.S., particularly with air forces. Do you have any comment on that?
MR MCGURK: So with deconfliction, I’d have to defer to DOD. There was an incident on December 13th that – again, whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, don’t know. There have been direct, very high-level senior engagements between our military colleagues and theirs, and we have not had a significant incident like that since, so the deconfliction line overall has held. We had some – in June – look, in June we shot down a Syrian plane just south of Tabqa when they crossed the line that we had agreed upon. So this is serious. This is really, really serious business. But for the most part, the deconfliction lines have held.
In terms of overall fighters, we think there’s about – I hate to put numbers on it, but in some of these areas where they still are, about 3,000 or so. That’s kind of our assessment. In terms of an exodus of ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq, it’s our best estimate – and all we can do is give our best estimate from our Intelligence Community – but think that there has not been a significant exodus of foreign fighters from Iraq.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MCGURK: I hate to – I have it in my head, I just hate to even say. So I’d defer to some of my colleagues on that.
MS NAUERT: Dave Clark from AFP.
♦QUESTION: Hi. Thanks very much for doing this. Beyond the red areas marked on that map, there are lots of other areas in the world – Libya, West Africa, the Philippines, Afghanistan – where groups that have raised the ISIS banner have sprung up. Are these groups in tight communication? Is it a movement? Is it –is there that command and control, or is this just an inspirational kind of branding exercise from local insurgents? And will the campaign continue until you’ve ridded the whole world of people with the ISIS flag?
MR MCGURK: So look, it’s a great question. And it used to be a very well-connected organization being run out of Raqqa, with direct communication to Boko Haram, which then part of it split and became ISIS in Nigeria; direct communication to Libya, direct communication to Sinai, direct communication to Afghanistan. We’ve pretty much severed a lot of that, particularly from Syria. But look, ISIS became a brand, and a lot of pre-existing terrorist groups – you’ve seen this in the Sinai, for example – start to raise the flag of ISIS, mainly to recruit foreign fighters and other things.
But make no doubt that the defeat ISIS strategic plan that I mentioned is not an Iraq-Syria plan, it’s a global campaign plan. So we use different tools in different parts of the world. But certainly in Mindanao and in Philippines, when they popped up and tried to establish themselves, we worked very closely with Australia, with members of the coalition, with the Philippine armed forces, to root them out.
So this is going to go on for some time. And the main priority number one is protecting our homeland; but second, make sure that they cannot have sanctuary to recruit and attract foreign fighters.
♦QUESTION: Now just let me do a follow-up on that. So the Russians are saying that ISIS is defeated in Syria; you’re saying there’s still some 3,000 or so there. Does that reflect different understanding of the intelligence, or is that a political thing and they want to have an excuse to kick you out of Syria now – job’s done, leave us and Assad alone?
MR MCGURK: Well, as I said, look, we’re advancing our own national security interests in Syria. We’re going to stay in Syria to make sure there’s an enduring defeat of ISIS, to make sure we can stabilize these areas. That’s very clear. No, ISIS is not – is not totally defeated in Syria. As I mentioned, I think I gave you the number of airstrikes we’ve done in the last week alone, so that’s very clear.
And another key statistic: Every coalition-enabled – meaning our coalition – enabled operation against ISIS, ISIS has never been able to come back and reclaim a territory that we helped liberate. Frankly, the Russians can’t say that. In Palmyra they did the kind of concert. They got a lot of attention. Then ISIS actually came back and retook Palmyra. We’re having some problems on the south side of the river, in which Syrian armed forces claim to have liberated these areas and we see ISIS trying to come back. It’s not happening in the areas that we helped liberate because we do a lot of extensive planning for what comes afterwards.
So bottom line, to answer your question, no. ISIS is not totally finished in Syria. We still have a lot of work to do.
MS NAUERT: Nick from Fox News.
♦QUESTION: This is somewhat related. But do you see indications that the Russians are now eager to get out of Syria? And do you think – and maybe this is premature, but if so, do you think that could fast-track the Geneva process?
MR MCGURK: So we have agreed with the Russians that the only way – the only way – to bring an end to this conflict is through Geneva, through 2254. We’ve also made clear as a coalition that there will be no international reconstruction assistance for regime-controlled areas of Syria absent that political process really moving ahead in a credible way that can ultimately lead to a political transition. We also happen to believe that the end point of that political process, which is UN-sponsored parliamentary and presidential elections, so it’s all Syrians vote – that means the entire diaspora votes. The 5 million people who were displaced from Syria can vote and the Russians have now signed up to that. We believe that if you get to that point – and that’ll take some time – that Bashar al-Assad will no longer be in power in Damascus. The Russians might have a different view.
I’ve seen the announcement that they – okay, ISIS has wrapped up and they’re going to withdraw from Syria, but that really remains to be seen. I think they will retain a fairly significant presence. And again, we will engage with them where our interests align and we will make very clear to them where our interests don’t align. So when it comes to Syria, you have to have some engagement with the Russians. There’s a military-to-military deconfliction channel. And on the diplomatic side, we’re engaged with them regularly.
MS NAUERT: Just a couple more questions. (Inaudible). Thanks, (inaudible).
♦QUESTION: I’m curious about the relationship between the U.S. and the YPG because obviously, that’s a major sticking point here, and I think a few weeks ago, Jonathan Cohen said that the relationship was temporary and tactical. We’ve seen Trump tell Erdogan that there are going to be adjustments made to that relationship. So can you give us – shine some light as to what those adjustments are going to be going forward?
MR MCGURK: So after the battle of Raqqa – so Raqqa, again, such an intense urban, like, assault – that’s why it required a presidential decision because we had to give some equipment – and it’s limited, extremely limited – all of which was very transparent to our NATO ally, Turkey – but that decision had to be made if we were going to do Raqqa, and it was. Now that that major phase of operations is over, there will be adjustments in the level of military support.
We will continue to remain in Syria and to work with local hold forces. The Raqqa internal security force is a force that we’re training to make sure that we can hold the ground and continue to work with the Syrian Democratic Forces. But as the years goes on, there will be adjustments to the type of support, just given the way the campaign is proceeding. I think that’s very natural. That was always part of the plan. That was what we briefed to the Turks before Raqqa and that’s what we’ve told them now. So that’ll kind of continue throughout the year.
But as we remain in Syria, we’ll continue to work with local actors. We want local people to be in charge of their areas and we will retain our policy of full transparency with Turkey.
MS NAUERT: Okay. And the last question, Robbie from Foreign Policy.
♦QUESTION: Yeah. I was wondering if you could give your thoughts on the peace process Russia is attempting to open up in Sochi. How will that impact the negotiations in Geneva? Is there any conditions in which the U.S. would support those talks?
MR MCGURK: So it kind of remains to be seen. We’ve heard Sochi was going to happen last month, then it was going to happen this month, now it might happen in January, now it might happen in February. We’ve engaged with the Russians on this about exactly what they have in mind and they have said that Sochi would be kind of a gathering of Syrian figures, and then what happens in Sochi would feed directly into Geneva. If that’s the case, that’s something that might actually support the Geneva process. What we would not support and what would have absolutely no legitimacy would be a parallel process that’s parallel entirely to Geneva.
Geneva is the locus of where the political settlement has to be struck. That’s not only U.S. policy; that’s now something the Russians have very clearly signed up to in the Da Nang statement. So I would just have to say it really remains to be seen.
We also have, I have to say, some real skepticism of anything in which the Iranians are a guarantor of a process. So the Astana process, for example, in which the Iranians play a guarantor role for de-escalation zones – one reason we’ve not participated in Astana, we observe, is because that just kind of lacks credibility. So we’ll continue to remain engaged with the Russians and we want to settle the Syrian civil war through a constitutional reform process leading to UN-supervised elections in Geneva. And that is the key to unlocking reconstruction assistance in Syria writ large. So we’ve been very consistent with the Russians on this. In Da Nang, they signed up to the overall roadmap, and so we’ll have to see. This will be a key focus here over the coming year.
Final point, just to sum up. When we looked at the situation in January, it was hard to see how you could have a really credible political process until you remove the physical caliphate and you bring the overall levels of violence down. And that’s why over 2017, we were so focused on defeating the caliphate and de-escalating the overall civil war. And that sets the conditions now for a more meaningful political process in Geneva. Staffan de Mistura was just here yesterday. We met with him about the next steps. And this will be a very intense focus of ours over the course of the next year, so we look forward to briefing you on that. Okay.
To put a fine point on the anticipatory fireworks for mid-January, let us remind ourselves of what can be anticipated when everyone gets back to DC from the holiday break.
Following a week of growing pressure and sunlight, last week Asst. FBI Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe used The Washington Post -the PR transmission media of the Deep State Intelligence Community- to announce his career saving terms. Essentially McCabe presented the deal that he would leave office in March, in exchange for no returning fire.
President Trump, immediately spotting the intent of the public resignation announcement, responded by saying on Twitter: “NO DEAL“.
On January 15th, 2018, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz will deliver approximately 1.2 million pages of documentation and evidence gathered in the year-long investigation into the politicization of the DOJ and FBI, by senior leadership and upper-level career leadership lawyers and bureaucrats.
IG Horowitz, having utilized the OIG’s vast 500+ investigative agents, is giving that preliminary evidence -in advance of pending full report- to the congressional committee in charge of DOJ/FBI oversight: House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. –OUTLINED HERE–
So by mid-January the House Judiciary Committee will have massive investigative documentation surrounding Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and all of the top-tier team members around them for all of their principle activity throughout the past few years; with emphasis on 2016.
Put another way, Andrew McCabe, is going to be in FULL SUNLIGHT on or around January 15th, 2018, for any misconduct.
That explains the transparent reason for McCabe offering terms. However, the content of that year-long investigation is also the transparent reason for President Trump refusing McCabe’s terms.
In addition to McCabe, and depending on how well they have covered their political tracks, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and all of the top officials -lawyers mostly- within the FBI and DOJ will be part of that investigative release.
Depending on IG release content, there will also be downstream officials who will have likely taken action, or positioned themselves with prior public releases of intelligence information (ie. narratives), containing historic support toward the actions taken by those top-tier FBI and DOJ officials.
Those downstream Deep State positions include CIA John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, and all of the officials contained in known communication therein:
In addition to Horowitz, and generally overlooked by media, there has been another internal FBI and DOJ task force quietly gathering information over the Intelligence Community, including those qualified to receive “classified intelligence” within congress, since July/August 2016.
There’s no doubt the “Leak Task Force” has been monitoring all of the committee actions and releases by people they are suspecting of leaks. There’s a solid argument to be made that several leaks that led to false media reporting were actually part of task-force sting operations intended to expose those leakers.
Thankfully, no-one was paying much attention to either the IG investigation or the leak task-force until recently. The MSM completely overlooked their existence until early December reports on FBI conduct indicated the IG had not only collected information, but the investigative discoveries actually led to damage-control reactions by the DOJ and FBI.
Examples of damage-control include reassignments of: FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok; FBI/DOJ lawyer, Lisa Page; DOJ Deputy Attorney, Bruce Ohr; and FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker.
These moves, especially the reassignment of FBI’s top lawyer James Baker, indicate the severity of the information gathered by the Inspector General. These are not insignificant personnel shifts. They indicate a much bigger issue is within the IG investigation that currently visible. Hence, current reactions from former officials begin to make sense.
♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.
♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.
♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.
♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz Revenge Motive – Outlined Here
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
On August 21st, 2017, President Trump began a very familiar process toward Pakistan within the geopolitical strategy known to us as The Trump Doctrine: ‘the accurate assignment of responsibility’, by honestly calling out the historic nature of the relationship.
Centinel2012 