Tag Archives: James Rybicki

Aug 10 2020

Sunday Talks: Senator Graham Defends The Senate Role in Trying to Remove President Trump…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 9, 2020 by 

Senator Lindsay Graham appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to profess his public outrage about the senate being lied to by the FBI in 2018. {Go Deep}

In essence what Graham is doing is establishing the defense of the Senate for their role in attempting to remove President Donald Trump. ie. Selective Outrage.

The simple way to identify Graham’s motive is this way:…  The SSCI was aware of this briefing in 2018 right?  So why didn’t any SSCI member step forth after the Horowitz report in 2019 and say they were mislead?… or at any time after the truth of the primary sub-source was evident?   It does not take the public release of briefing material, two years later, to initiate senate outrage if senate outrage was genuine.

Graham wasn’t outraged when the senate knew about it, he becomes outraged when the public knows about it.  See how the application of common sense works?

 

Methinks Graham doth protest too much. The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.

Aug 10 2020

Senator Lindsay Graham Releases FBI Talking Points for SSCI Briefing February 14, 2018 – Graham Positioned to Defend SSCI…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 9, 2020 by 

Today Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham released a set of talking points [full pdf below – AND here] from the FBI during a briefing on February 14, 2018 to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The unknown FBI briefer is informing the SSCI about the reliability of Chris Steele’s primary sub-source, and whether he agrees with the Dossier content & conclusions:

At first blush the impression from the release; and indeed the expressed position as outlined by Graham in the release; is that some unknown entity from the FBI was misleading the SSCI in February of 2018 about Christopher Steele and the perspective of his primary sub-source. However, there’s a deeper story.

Within the release it must be noted the date of the briefing material is February 14, 2018. The unknown FBI briefer is saying, in essence, the primary sub-source doesn’t dispute the Dossier material. Obviously this position is demonstrably false given how the PSS said the Dossier was full of “rumor”, “gossip”, “innuendo” and “bar talk”.

The FBI briefer is misleading the Senate and so today we see the angry position expressed by Graham as he reveals this misleading briefing. However, five days prior to this briefing, on February 9, 2018, the text messages between SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, were released. This frames the accurate context to consider the position of the SSCI and FBI briefer on Feb 14, 2018.

Yes, the FBI briefer was misleading the SSCI… However, the SSCI wanted to be mislead. This is how plausible deniability is built into the process. The SSCI was conducting an investigation of Trump-Russia; if we are honest the SSCI was participating in a process to weaponize the committee to advance a narrative against the interests of the Trump administration; therefore the SSCI and FBI briefer were aligned in common interest.

Lindsay Graham’s outrage over the misleading briefing is nothing more than an attempt to retroactively cover for the SSCI as they continued their role in the plot to remove President Trump throughout 2018 and 2019.  Graham is taking the purposefully built plausible deniability, assembled in 2018, and using it as a distraction today in 2020.

Graham knows the FBI lied, this is not a revelation. The FBI supported the DOJ letter July 12, 2018, that mislead the FISA Court five months after this misleading SSCI briefing. The current level of Graham outrage is ridiculous when considering he could have asked these same questions in April when the DOJ-NSD letter was released.

Who was the FBI official who reviewed the July 12th letter and supported its conclusions? The most likely answer is the same FBI official who did the SSCI briefing on Feb 14th. This is not rocket science dot-connecting.

The FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) conducted the interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source in Jan, March and May 2017. Yet I’ll bet you a donut it was not the FBI-WFO who was briefing congress…. there’s another layer of plausible deniability. This is how the system is set-up. Today, Lindsay Graham is playing an outrage game. Where was this outrage in April?

Here’s the full briefing material [Original pdf Here]

.

This is all connected back to FBI SSA Brian Dugan’s work.  The briefing was a way for the SSCI to establish plausible deniability five days after Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s covert text messages were made public.

This is why the focus on the story behind SSCI Security Director James Wolfe is critical.  All of these granular machinations are connected to the objective to remove President Donald Trump.  The SSCI was supporting and coordinating with the special counsel.

It is all one team effort.

Let’s look at how the IG report frames the primary sub-source, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):

Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.

Those interviews were a year before the Feb 14, 2018, FBI briefing outlined by Lindsay Graham today.

Those interviews were also 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018 DOJ letter to the FISC.   The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation.  Why?

Keep in mind this activity to support the Dossier and by extension the FISA application to the SSCI and FISC was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018 and briefed to congress in February 2018.  Jeff Sessions was Attorney General (firewalled), Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG (providing no special counsel oversight); Christopher Wray was FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy, and Dana Boente is FBI chief-legal-counsel.

Why would the FBI mislead the senate intelligence committee?  Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source?

This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.

In February and July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the SSCI and FISC and even went to far as to say the predicate was still valid.  Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In Feb-July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This SSCI briefing and FISC letter, justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant.

My research shows it was the full control by the special counsel at play.  They needed to protect evidence the Mueller team had already extracted from their fraudulent FISA authority.  That’s the motive.

In February of July 2018 if the FBI, DOJ-NSD or special counsel had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation.

The FBI and DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending.  The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the July 12, 2018, letter.

Remember, in December 2019 the FISC received the IG Horowitz report; and they immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.

Both the February FBI briefing and the July DOJ letter are transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report.  Hence, the FISA court ordered  the DOJ to release the July letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.  Unfortunately the “congressional oversight” aspect was/is aligned with the scheme.

The FISA court was misled; the SSCI was willfully mislead; now everyone can see it.

The content of that FBI briefing and DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application.  The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.

Lindsay Graham is still playing cover-up to protect the Senate.  Nothing more.

Graham could have demanded these same answers in April of this year.  He didn’t.

Jul 10 2020

Ric Grenell Discusses Obama Team Motivation to Disrupt Incoming Trump Administration…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on July 9, 2020 by 

Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell appears on Newsmax TV to discuss his perspectives on the concerted effort of former Obama officials to disrupt the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

As noted by Grenell the Obama team intentionally coordinated a resistance operation against the incoming administration, while their allies in remaining institutions workd furiously on a false Trump-Russia narrative to undercut President Trump.

Jul 1 2020

Why is Romney Supporting Democrats Against his Own Party?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jul 1, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Mit Romney has long been suspected of not being exactly above question. He was the only person in the Republicans to vote to Impeach Trump. The former Republican presidential nominee has isolated himself from Republicans in the Senate, in his home state, and across the country. How his team is going to announce that they no longer support the Republicans and are endorsing Joe Biden. This has been a serious question with respect to Romney that he is not someone who really stands for much of anything other than himself and perhaps like Helmut Kohl which only after his death did we discover he had secreted millions in Swiss accounts that were given to him supposedly for party contributions that were funneled off to personal accounts. The fact that Romney’s people would even support Joe Biden when everyone behind the curtain thinks he is incompetent to be president which is why they are keeping him in the basement most the time, raises serious questions about the integrity of Romney.

Politics is just so disgusting anymore you have to wonder how much more will the people take before they do rise up in a full-blown revolution.

Jul 1 2020

Tucker Carlson Begs Republicans to Stop Being Democrats…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 30, 2020 by 

Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue tonight to beg Republicans to stop being Democrats.   Most of what Carlson outlines is accurate, especially the “Nikki Haley waiting in the wings” to return to the UniParty rules part.

The end solution is the appropriate course.  We The People must take action to force a resounding Trump reelection, and then demand the GOP abandon their leftist alignment.

May 25 2020

Sunday Talks: Former AAG Matt Whitaker Discusses Flynn Case and Sketchy Judge…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on May 24, 2020 by 

Former Acting AG Matt Whitaker appears on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss the latest DOJ and FBI issues surfacing as a result of the Flynn case.  Additionally Matt Whitaker gives his perspective on Judge Emmet Sullivan’s latest efforts.

Sep 26 2019

Further Evidence Intelligence Community Inspector General is Part of Lawfare Alliance…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on September 25, 2019 by 

Details are beginning to surface about the deep state Whistleblower complaint.  It is possible in the next few days the 6-page complaint, which utilized media reports to construct the supportive evidence for the phone call accusation against President Trump, will be made public.

That said, within a heavy propaganda report from the New York Times there are details about the Intelligence Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent (emphasis mine):

[…] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared to be credible and identified two layers of concern.

The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump’s comments to Mr. Zelensky “could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws,” Mr. Atkinson wrote, according to the Justice Department memo. (read more)

Does the “foreign campaign contribution” angle sound familiar?  It should, because that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya.  More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused “campaign contribution” narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.

The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD.  It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok.  It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson.  ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ‘hearsay‘.

Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

.

[Irony Reminder: The DOJ-NSD was purposefully under no IG oversight. 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.]

Put another way, Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

Immediately after the Carter Page FISA warrant is approved, in the period where DOJ-NSD head John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave but not yet left, inside those specific two weeks, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law. The NSD specifically inform the court they are aware of contractors who have been using FISA 702(16)(17) database search queries to extract information on political candidates.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has looked into the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page. Additionally, U.S. Attorney John Durham is said to be looking at the intelligence communities’ use of systems for spying and surveillance.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.

Atkinson’s conflict-of-self-interest, and/or possible blackmail upon him by deep state actors who most certainly know his compromise, likely influenced his approach to this whistleblower complaint.   That would explain why the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel so strongly rebuked Atkinson’s interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.

In the Justice Department’s OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement.  [See Here]  I would say Atkinson’s decision is directly related to his own risk exposure:

.

Sep 16 2019

Lawfare Group Begins Delegitimizing Supreme Court…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on September 15, 2019 by 

By now everyone is familiar with the Lawfare network; an alliance of ideological political interests inside and outside government who use the law to achieve their objectives.  [Specific Example Here]

During the Obama administration the Lawfare group: (1) weaponized the IRS for political targeting; (2) weaponized the DOJ and FBI for political targeting; (3) weaponized the intelligence community for political activism; (4) created new legal theories around ‘disparate impact’ to weaponize the National Labor Relations Board; and generally used embedded officials to advance far-left political interests across the spectrum of govt.

After they lost the 2016 election the Lawfare group immediately: (1) worked to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump; (2) delegitimize National Security Adviser General Flynn; (3) target, disempower and isolate AG Jeff Session; (4) delegitimize AG Bill Barr and the institution of the FBI outside their control; (5) delegitimize DHS, Border Patrol and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE); and (6) delegitimize any institution or office that would now be removing or overturning their former Lawfare constructs.

What we are seeing today from the Lawfare Alliance appears as a designed effort to continue this overall agenda; now focused on delegitimizing the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the last few months the Supreme Court has been moving toward eliminating the ability of Lawfare allied federal judges from ordering nationwide injunctions.  The latest SCOTUS decision was 7-2 to stop this Lawfare practice.  If activist judges are stopped from blocking executive branch policy, this creates a serious problem for the Lawfare Alliance.

Simultaneously, President Trump is filling vacancies on the federal bench at a strong rate.  President Trump has now appointed 150 federal judges into the judicial bloodstream.  This further impedes the ability of the ideological Lawfare Alliance to achieve their objectives.

With the Supreme Court tenuously holding a 5-4 conservative outlook, and the strong possibility the loss of Justice Ginsburg might create a 6-3 court, the Lawfare group is now lashing out and planning for ways to retain their position.

The next Supreme Court calendar is likely to be devastating to the ideological left.  The court is scheduled to hear arguments on everything from gun rights cases to the Census citizenship question and a likely defeat over Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive action.   Losing on the DACA case would be a catastrophic defeat for the political left, who have weaponized open-immigration for maximum political value.

It’s the DACA ruling in combination with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York [(arguments Monday, Dec. 2) whether the city’s ban on taking a handgun outside city limits violates the Second Amendment] that could lead to major trouble for the Lawfare Alliance.

Ideologically it is possible the Lawfare Alliance will attempt to ignore the Supreme Court DACA ruling by taking a similar approach to their Sanctuary City policies.  That is to say the ultra-far-left political activists will demand ‘blue states’ do not comply with the Supreme Court decision and set up some internal sanctuary network that defies the SCOTUS ruling.   You can imagine this approach would be a problem, as defiant states openly rebuke the Supreme Court.

….So following along with what we know about how Lawfare operates, the current attacks to delegitimize Justice Brett Kavanaugh really give the appearance of entreaties toward delegitimizing the rulings of the court.   Rulings such as the pending DACA decision.

That appears to be the strategic purpose for the Lawfare Group to weaponize their ideological allies in the left-wing media, and to start hyping the SCOTUS antagonism now.

Creating a crisis to achieve their results, is simply how the Lawfare group work…

.

.

 

Sep 14 2019

McCabe’s Lawfare Alliance Working With Media Allies to Frame Defense…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on September 13, 2019 by 

When the reports of a possible indictment for Andrew McCabe surfaced, we noted it would be interesting to see how the Lawfare alliance responds. Today we can see that response.

Andrew McCabe’s defense attorney, Michael Bromwich (also the attorney for ‘beach friend’ Christine Blasey-Ford in the Kavanaugh narrative), leaks his communication with U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, to the New York Times.

Leaks to the NYT and WaPo are how the Lawfare alliance push their narrative.  These are the same DOJ/FBI officials who leaked to the same media when constructing the Russian Conspiracy narrative around the Trump campaign.  [Same exact people]

(NYT) […] In a letter sent late on Thursday, defense lawyers asked whether a grand jury had considered charges against Mr. McCabe, who is being investigated over whether he lied to internal investigators about interactions with news media. The letter came shortly after the Justice Department told Mr. McCabe’s lawyers that it had rejected their pitch to the deputy attorney general to drop the case.

“It is clear that no indictment has been returned,” the lawyers wrote, citing coverage of the case by The New York Times and The Washington Post. A grand jury hearing evidence that was recalled on Thursday after months of inactivity left for the day without any sign of an indictment, The Post reported. None had emerged on Friday. (more)

Here’s the letter:

The purpose for the letter is to push information gained within the Lawfare network into the media narrative.   It is transparently obvious that Lawfare allied lawyers who left the U.S. Attorneys Office in DC are leaking what they know to the Lawfare allied members on McCabe’s defense; this is simply how they operate.

Notice the informality of the letter from Michael Bromwich to U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu.  The tone is part of the overall group dynamic.  This is a social circle of former and current connected legal interests within the Dept. of Justice.

Bromwich cannot directly say he is aware of Grand Jury evidence, because such information would be illegal to acquire.  However, current and former DOJ officials can leak to the Times and Washington Post, and Bromwich can then cite the reporting on those leaks.  Everyone knows the game, the bastardization of justice is all done with an internal wink and a nod.

The Lawfare objective is for the media and McCabe’s defense to push out information about how a grand jury may have not returned an indictment in 2018, a ‘no true bill’ finding.

Pushing this information into the public sphere supports the objective of the defense; however, the Lawfare alliance cannot admit how they gained that information -leaks from allies inside the DOJ- because that would be illegal.

In addition to Andrew McCabe and Michael Bromwich, the Lawfare alliance includes: former FBI legal counsel James Baker, former DOJ-NSD lawyer David Laufman (who also represented Monica McLean, Blasey-Ford’s FBI bestie and narrative engineer friend), former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman; Lawfare head Benamin Wittes; James Comey’s leaking buddie Daniel Richman;  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen;  criminal defense attorney Barry Berke; and a host of current and former FBI and DOJ foot-soldiers.  All of the characters network in the same social circle.

This tribal network then extends outward to their media allies.  The Lawfare team leak to specific contacts they have within media… the media then write the articles to the benefit of the Lawfare network and collaborative political interests.

Fusion GPS is part of the Lawfare network as a distribution hub for research information needed by the journalists who are writing on behalf of the Lawfare need.  Those of you who have followed politics might remember Ezra Klein’s “Journ-o-List”; the email group of 400+ reporters for multiple media outlets who collectively collaborated on stories.

Journ-O-List was a private Google Groups forum for discussing politics and the news media with 400 “left-leaning” journalists, academics and others. Ezra Klein created the online forum in February 2007 while blogging at The American Prospect and shut it down on June 25, 2010 amid wider public exposure. (link)

After they were exposed the media group closed shop on that specific operation, but they never stopped the process.  They simply changed and evolved their methods for group planning, strategy and distribution.   The network and purpose continues.

The Lawfare Alliance feeds information into this media network based on need.

FBI Director James Comey, FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, Comey memo recepient Daniel Richman, Deputy AG Sally Yates, Comey friend Benjamin Wittes, FBI lead agent Peter Strzok, FBI counsel Lisa Page, Mueller lead Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller team of lawyers, all of them -and more- are connected to the Lawfare group; and this network provides the sounding board for all of the weaponized approaches, including the various new legal theories we saw outlined within the Weissmann-Mueller Report.

The Lawfare continuum is very simple. The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan. Weissmann and Mueller delivered their report to evolve the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting. Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal.

And so it goes…

 

Aug 17 2019

Hillary & the Conspiracy of Relentless Suicides


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Aug 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

The real test will be if Ghislaine Maxwell ends up mysteriously dead now that she has been at least seen in Los Angeles. Then the talk that Jeffrey Epstein spent hours alone with a mysterious woman pretty woman in lockup according to another attorney who withheld his name, demonstrates how over the top things can get. Nobody gets in to visit someone in those attorney rooms without being an attorney. The attorney telling the post that knows the fact. They must have the legal identification to get the door.

Also, in the unsealed court documents from a 2015 defamation case filed against Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, besides accusing Maxwell of recruiting her as a minor to have sex with Epstein, she also said that she met Bill Clinton, and Al Gore at Epstein’s Virgin Islands home. She did not accuse them of wrongdoing. Now we even have the father of Global Warming palling around with Epstein. This only confirms my view that there was NO WAY Jeffrey Epstein would stand trial.

Categories: Politics