Jerome Corsi is famous for his research, analysis and theories surrounding the life story of President Obama.  In most mainstream media circles Corsi was labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’.  Then again, some conspiracies are not theory; and seeing the Washington Post take lead against Corsi only cements Mueller’s deep state allies are feeding the info.

As word spreads about Robert Mueller snaring Corsi inside his investigative quicksand, don’t be surprised to find people wondering if Corsi’s work into the background of Obama isn’t the real motive behind snare deployment.

(WaPo) Conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, according to Corsi and another person with knowledge of the talks.

The talks with Corsi — an associate of President Trump and GOP operative Roger Stone — could bring Mueller’s team closer to determining whether Trump or his advisers were linked to WikiLeaks’ release of hacked Democratic emails in 2016, a key part of his long-running inquiry.

Corsi provided research on Democratic figures during the campaign to Stone, a longtime Trump adviser. For months, the special counsel has been scrutinizing Stone’s activities in an effort to determine whether he coordinated with WikiLeaks. Stone and WikiLeaks have repeatedly denied any such coordination.

[…] Corsi confirmed the plea negotiations after they were first reported by The Washington Post on Friday. “It’s true. Your story is accurate,” he said, declining to comment further except to say there may be further developments next week.

David Gray, an attorney for Corsi, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller. An attorney for Trump declined to comment.  (read more)

…Got me a taxidermy ally back in Hawaii who gonna have a field day when he sees what I bring em’…

Ex CIA Director Michael Hayden is one of the anti-Trump derp state intelligence officials who was under consideration to have his security clearance revoked by the President.

Hayden is currently employed by CNN to deliver consistent anti-Trump declarations from within the apparatus of the intelligence community.  He is a frequent guest of Jake Tapper on CNN.

(Via CNN) Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA and National Security Agency, suffered a stroke earlier this week, his family said Friday.

In a statement, the family said Hayden, 73, suffered the stroke at his home and was hospitalized but did not provide details about the stroke’s severity.

“He is receiving expert medical care for which the family is grateful,” the statement said.

CIA Director Gina Haspel offered wishes on behalf of the agency Friday afternoon for a “speedy recovery.”

“Mike’s long career of public service & commitment to national security continue to be an inspiration to all intelligence officers. Our thoughts are with Mike, Jeanine, & their family,” Haspel said on Twitter. (read more)

CIA

✔ @CIA

DCIA Haspel: On behalf of the men & women of CIA, I want to wish Gen. Hayden a speedy recovery. Mike’s long career of public service & commitment to national security continue to be an inspiration to all intelligence officers. Our thoughts are with Mike, Jeanine, & their family.

A key point to finding truth in any theory is to apply the scientific method to the research; ie. question the assumption, reverse the hypothesis.

Throughout the research into the Machiavellian constructs of “Spygate” and the subsequent Mueller investigation, there have always been larger questions behind the stories.  It is a fact that most of the evidence surfaced after General Michael Flynn entered a plea agreement with special counsel Mueller on November 30th, 2017.

Why were the original Page/Strzok text messages released to the public in December 2017, and January 2018?  Perhaps more importantly: Who did the redactions within the text messages prior to their release? And why were those redactions ever made?

There’s a bunch of ‘unofficial’ evidence, or data-points, that no-one can explain how or why they came to be visible.  The data did not surface sequentially; but it surely surfaced purposefully from within the apparatus of government.

Just like the questions about who redacted information inside the 600 pages text messages between DOJ/FBI Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI investigator Peter Strzok; putting the downstream data-points together leads to a series of questions that remain the subject of much speculation through today:

• How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
• Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
• Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
• Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media?  Why?
• Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
• Why be so specific details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?
• Who made the decision (FISA ap) NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
• Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence/information coming from?
• Why?

For a long time CTH has looked at these questions from the position that the information was adverse to the interests of the DOJ; therefore we operated on the assumption that someone within the apparatus of government was leaving a trail of information with good intention.  However, over time – and with the absence of any accountability being delivered, there is also another motive that deserves attention and review.

There is a flip-side motive to these releases.

It is entirely possible this information was made public in an effort to tip-off a wide net of corrupt officials who participated in the largest abuse of power in history.

Consider four specific data-sets of information that were made public:

1. The redacted Strzok/Page text messages (released Dec ’17, Jan ’18).
2. The Text messages from SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (released Feb ’18)
3. The unnecessary details within the James Wolfe indictment (released June ’18)
4. The surprise release of the Carter Page FISA application (released July ’18)

The important notations here are: (1) three of the four sets of data were released without any specific purpose (LP/PS Text messages, Warner texts, FISA App); (2) no-one knows why those three data points were released; (3) no-one knows who released them; (4) no-one knows who redacted the text messages; (5) the FISC Clerk Stamp (FISA) appears to have been intentionally left unredacted; (6) the specificity within the page #6 data within the Wolfe indictment was unnecessary for the direct purpose, yet important for the indirect purpose of connecting the data; (7) the Wolfe indictment was unsealed six months after he was caught (Dec ’17); and (8) NONE of these four sets of data were essential information at the time they were released.

This tells me, someone wanted this information into the bloodstream of public knowledge; yet none of this information was part of an official release; except the Wolfe indictment – yet it contained unnecessary specificity within the page-6 details when unsealed.

This brings us to the critical question: Who?  Who wanted this out there?

The answer to that question is uniquely narrow when you think about the documents and who held proprietary ownership to authorize the release.

Because of the documents in question, the granting authority would need to be inside the DOJ.  Because of the content of the documents, the approver would have to be important enough to have access and knowledge of the bigger dynamic at play.  This person or group would also need to be high enough in the food chain to authorize the FISA release and have control over the redaction decision process (leaving the FISC Clerk stamp date visible).  This person/group would have to be high enough to ‘unofficially’ release the Warner text messages (example), and yet not worried about administrative punishment after doing it.

In essence, these release decisions -and the filtering of specifics therein- were made at the highest levels of authority within the Department of Justice.

Now, we move toward the motive question.

If you think about a corrupt institution containing stakeholders with both good and bad motives, there’s a solid argument to be made -especially based on hindsight- that bad actors within the organization were pushing this information into the public bloodstream in an effort to tip-off cooperating/participating bad actors who had a role within the conspiracy.   In essence, all damaging evidence against their endeavor was made public to allow each person to create their defense.

In this deep state scenario, the granular details (evidence) of what investigating officials were uncovering was intentionally, albeit unofficially, pushed out.  Because of the nature of the material, only those corrupt entities who participated would know the specific value and importance of each release.  They would know what investigators had against them.

One example is the Wolfe indictment.  By outlining exactly how Senate Security Officer James Wolfe was caught leaking classified and top secret intelligence, but not charging him with the unlawful activity outlined therein, all of those who were participating in the leak schemes could cover their tracks and modify their activity.

Another example is the Page/Strzok messages.  By pushing those messages out, those who were involved in the conspiracy could evaluate their risk and frame their defense.  Those bad actors would likely know what is under the redactions because they directly participated.

By releasing details of the secret back-channel communication between Senator Mark Warner and lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman again the participants would have an opportunity to construct alternative explanations for the contacts and communication. The SSCI would also know the scope of what investigators knew about the evidence.

By making the Carter Page FISA application public, all of the (foreign and domestic) entities who participated in the larger ‘Spygate’ construct would also have a head’s-up on how their involvement was used.  Simultaneously, by leaving the FISC Clerk Stamp visible those who participated in the leaks – would be tipped off to a leak hunt method (date changes).

Within the flip-side-motive scenario we find a strong likelihood the bad actors inside the conspiracy have been able to formulate their defense strategy for more than a year.  In essence the conspiracy crew, and their lawfare defenders, have known the evidence against them. The very specific evidence.

Secondly, if this unnerving perspective is accurate, in addition to explaining why we have not witnessed any accountability this would almost certainly indicate special counsel Robert Mueller and AAG Rod Rosenstein hold a duplicitous (institutionally saving) intent.

♦(1) Create a Special Counsel investigation – By creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation.  Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation.  In this way Mueller provides cover for officials.

♦(2)  Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2016, 2016, 2017.  Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.

♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry.  Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe. In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.

♦(4) Use the authority within the investigation, and the control parameters therein, to keep those involved in the original conspiracy informed about any evidence against them.

In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.

Former FBI Director James Comey exhibits hubris, sanctimony and stunning amount of arrogance today as he announces his intention to defy a congressional subpoena.

In essence, Comey openly announces his belief in a two-tiered justice system. One standard for the politically connected who float above the law; and another standard for you, me and everyone else:

The background motives of Comey’s refusal are transparent. He knows the dangerous questions cannot be asked/answered in an open or public setting. Additionally, it also seems a little rich for Comey to claim “selective leaking“, when he is an admitted selective leaker.

Both Benjamin Wittes and Daniel Richman received information (and special access to the FBI databases) from James Comey when he was FBI Director with specific instructions to leak that information to the media.

Apparently James Comey believes the awakened electorate don’t know the game he is playing.

He’s wrong.

An article published originally in the U.K. Telegraph, and republished via Yahoo News outlines growing fear within the U.K. government and British intelligence officers surrounding President Trump discovering how far they were involved within “Spygate”.

The facts are not uncommon to anyone who has done research into the events of 2015 and 2016; however, the interesting aspect surrounds the current level of anxiety which indicates something is soon to become very public.

The central concern of the British officials surrounds President Trump declassifying evidence that will outline a coordinated effort by a weaponized U.S. intelligence apparatus to use their foreign counterparts for two aspects:  (1) to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016; and (2) to help carryout an entrapment scheme that would become the baseline for the FBI’s counterintelligence operation which evolved into Mueller’s Russian election interference investigation (aka. the “insurance policy”).

According to the Telegraph outline the current U.K. Prime Minister is intentionally being kept out of the communication loop because British intelligence are fearful President Trump might ask about her knowledge.  Keeping Theresa May blind to the U.K operations against Trump provides plausible deniability if questioned.  Additionally, all British embassy staff in the U.S. have been told to say absolutely nothing if questioned.

All of the activity described within the article outlines a significant sense of concern, within the highest elements of U.K. government, that President Trump will discover how far they went to see him eliminated in the 2016 presidential election.

Of course none of this is surprising.

In 2016 candidate Trump supported Brexit; the professional political class in the U.K. were vehemently against it.  Additionally, candidate Trump was openly challenging the structure of NATO and demanding changes to the alliance.  This was antithetical to the interests of the U.K. government and likely sent shockwaves through their collectivist system when candidate Trump won the GOP nomination.  The Brits had a strong motive to see Trump destroyed and aligned with weaponized U.S. intelligence toward that end.

As President, Mr. Trump, has held true to his campaign promises and forced the British -and the EU writ large- to be more responsible for their own military security.  President Trump has challenged the post-WW2 NATO structures and forced the EU to pay more for their defense.  Many member nations are vocally unhappy with this shifted landscape because it means less money for liberal/socialist causes. [Note: Including Canada]

Lastly, the U.K. and E.U. (mostly German anxiety) are facing a much tougher trade objective as outlined by President Trump.  The trade conflict is costing them billions in addition to their increased need to spend on their own defense via NATO to keep Trump off their back.  He might be just one man, but President Trump has them surrounded.

President Trump is not allowing the same one-way benefits within the U.S. trade relationship with the EU; and as he highlighted with the use of tariffs, he is not hesitant to smash the EU economy (mostly Germany) with crippling auto-tariffs if needed.

Trump is leveraging access to the U.S. markets as pressure on the Europeans to comply with U.S. demands.  The Europeans, including the British, are not used to this level of confrontation from the U.S.  Their economic frames of reference surround acquiescence from prior American presidents.   They are increasingly unnerved and the horrible President Trump simply doesn’t care.

And then there’s the newly emphasized Iran sanctions… the economic MOAB that threatens any/all European interests who might dare to get caught doing business with the Iranian regime.  President Trump has shown he is not the least bit hesitant to pull the trigger on Treasury penalties against any nation or multinational interest who would defy the sanctions.

So yeah,…. as if the landscape wasn’t tenuous enough already. Imagine what’s going on behind the scenes where the high-brow British government are wondering what Deplorable Trump will do if their own intelligence officials are forced to admit they attempted to interfere in his election.

Oh dear…  ‘Have another crumpet’!

Documentary Filmmaker Ami Horowitz was embedded within the Central American migration force as they traveled through Mexico toward the U.S. southern border.  Horowitz discusses his experience, and the reality of events within the group, during an interview this evening: