The Souvenirs of Public Political Executions?


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I believe you mentioned at one of the conferences that the Chinese dragged a member of their high court out into the square and set him on fire in his judicial robs.  Am I correct in that statement? When was that exactly?

MS

ANSWER: You are not far off. Zang Tang (? – 116BC) drafted the laws under Emperor Wudi (Wu-ti) ( 漢武帝) (141-86BC), and made treasonous thoughts (CONSPIRACY) the death penalty, was eventually he himself compelled to commit suicide as his view of the law led him to be the most hated among all of the ministers under Wudi. Yet the minister Chao Cuo (? – 154BC) under the previous emperor Ching-ti (Liu Ch’i)(157-141BC), earned the hatred of other ministers after he introduced 30 new laws. The outrage was so intense, he was dragged out and executed in his judicial robes in the town marketplace. There was far greater resistance toward changing the laws in China than there was in Rome. These incidents of publicly executing ministers who tried to make the laws even harsher were not unique but became far more common in China compared to the West.

Still, that is not the worse of such events to drag public officials out and execute them. Back in 1672, the Dutch killed and even ate their Prime Minister. I wonder if some people who hate Trump that much would not do the same today and CNN would probably broadcast it as a special event. Back then, the Dutch House of Orange was the nearest the republic had to royalty. They were at war with England and France and the effective Prime Minister was Johan de Witt. He was seen as being supported by the merchants who profited by war.

Johan de Witt visited his brother who had been arrested on trumped-up charges of plotting to assassinate Willem of Orange. During a visit with his brother in prison, on August 20th, 1672, a mob gathered outside the prison and then stormed it taking both brothers who they then hanged and then mutilated carving them up. Willem never prosecuted anyone for this event which made it appear he sanctioned it.

Nevertheless, what has been handed down in history is accounts that some among the mob were taking parts of the bodies, and eating them. One man is even said to have eaten Johan’s eyeball. This may sound very gruesome. Nonetheless, the culture at that point in time was extremely cruel.  It was a common practice for people to keep souvenirs of public executions. There were accounts that the beheading of King Charles I of England was accompanied by people dipping their handkerchiefs in the blood of the king.

 

Curious Note – Robert Mueller Interviewed NSA Mike Rogers Immediately Prior To Rosenstein Renewing Third FISA Extension…


Throughout 2015, and until April 28th, 2016, there were unknown “outside government” contractors with access to the FBI/NSA database. Those outside government agents were conducting unlawful searches of the FISA database. The 99-page FISA Court opinion by presiding justice Rosemary Collyer proves this with absolute certainty. CTH has long suspected those outside agents were doing political opposition research; and were allowed to do so as part of the political misuse of the intelligence apparatus.

Pg 83. “FBI gave raw Section 702–acquired information to a private entity that was not a federal agency and whose personnel were not sufficiently supervised by a federal agency for compliance minimization procedures.”

(2017 FISA Court Opinion – 99 Page Brief)

With the revelation of Daniel Richman, a close friend of James Comey, being an “special access employee” of the FBI, hired by Comey, CTH anticipates Richman will be discovered as one of those previously described “outside government” unpaid contractors with access to the FISA database. The new information of Richman, along with what we know of Fusion-GPS, is an example of the hidden connective tissue between the Lawfare group (outside government) and the “small group” of DOJ and FBI officials inside government.

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers ordered a FISA-702 audit, and shut down the contractor access to FISA-702(16)(17) [“to/from”(16), “about”(17)] systems on April 28th, 2016.  Those contractors -together with their inside allies- doing oppo-research, moved to make the unofficial use of the database, official.

Toward this end, Fusion GPS (an FBI contractor) hired Nellie Ohr (wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr) in May 2016. And by July 2016 the collective group of insiders and outsiders had assembled enough sketchy data-points/information to frame the outline needed for an official investigation. This is the origin of the July 2016 FBI Counterintelligence operation.

The left-wing alliance doing the work (insiders and outsiders contributing) was successful in morphing opposition research into an official FBI counterintelligence operation; that began at the same time as the GOP convention in July 2016. This is the broad-stroke outline, demonstrably provable through exhaustive research.

A year later, sometime in late June of 2017, a month after the appointment of Robert Mueller, the special counsel met with Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. The New York Times cited the meeting in an article posted on June 14th of 2017.

Mr. Mueller wants to question Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence; Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency; and Richard Ledgett, the former N.S.A. deputy director. (LINK)

Remember, DNI Dan Coats and NSA Mike Rogers were working together in March and April of 2017.  It was thanks to Dan Coats we have access to the critical declassified FISA report (Rosemary Collyer) in April of 2017.  Coats declassified the content, albeit with redactions – it is from this release of information that much is learned in 2017.

Depending on who was questioning; and considering that these are apex intelligence members who would be interviewed by only senior members of the special counsel, likely Robert Mueller himself; and considering Robert Mueller was one of the key architects of the FISA court (post 9-11); there is almost NO WAY Dan Coats and Mike Rogers would not inform Mueller of the DOJ and FBI FISA issues and the political corruption therein.

This conversation between Coats, Rogers and Mueller, is likely around the end of June, or beginning of July, 2017…..  Now, consider and overlay:

One of the most frequent questions about Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein circles around his decision to reauthorize the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used against Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign. In this outline we take the timeline and overlay new information that helps to understand what was going on:

  • Why did Rosenstein renew that sketchy FISA warrant July 18th, 2017?
  • Why did Mueller request clarity two weeks later on August 2nd, 2017?

To understand the dynamic we must remind ourselves what was known at key dates in the investigative decision-making. None of this is intended to exhibit an opinion toward the motives of those making decisions; however, in hindsight we can clearly outline what was known and what was not known at the time these decisions were made.

Recently we have gained clarity toward the scope of investigative evidence held by Robert Mueller. Thanks to some debriefing interviews by ‘witness’ Michael Caputo we more thoroughly understand what evidence is held by Robert Mueller; and, more importantly the scale of that evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion about how it was obtained.

It appears Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of Russian interference and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion, right where the FBI counterintelligence operation left-off. This is additionally supported by reviewing the original investigative instructions as outlined by Rod Rosenstein the day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel:

The key phrase here is: “to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election”… Here, Rosenstein is clearly instructing Robert Mueller to pick-up the former Counterintelligence Investigation previously headed by FBI Asst. Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and his #2 FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The date of this appointment is May 17th, 2017. Approximately a week after President Trump fired James Comey on May 9th.

(LINK)

So there we have the three areas of direct authority: ¹Links or coordination between the Russian Government and the campaign of Donald Trump. ²Matters that may arise from the investigation of the Russian government and the campaign of Donald Trump. And ³other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). [<- ie. ‘Jurisdiction‘]

So there’s the instructions to Robert Mueller and his team on May 17th, 2017.

As an outcome of this May 2017 reassignment of investigative authority, Mueller now takes over from Bill Priestap. The Special Counsel takes over the investigation from the FBI.

The lead FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, is in immediate communication with Robert Mueller’s point person Aaron Zelby via email; and FBI agent Peter Strzok eventually finds himself part of the Special Counsel investigative team.

It is important to remember, at the time all of this is taking place, no-one inside the DOJ Inspector General’s office (DOJ-OIG) or the Internal Investigation Division (INSD) of the FBI is aware of the evidence that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ assigned Special Counsel Lisa Page have been part of a group shaping a months long “insurance policy” against the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump. Nor is anyone aware that Andrew McCabe, Michael Kortan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok are leaking frequently to their media allies. Those discoveries come later.

In May 2017 Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein would not know the history of what activity was happening inside the FBI “small group” scheme; however they would likely know of the FISA abuse in 2016 as outlined by NSA Director Mike Rogers.

It was ten months before the Special Counsel was assigned when Page and Strzok were messaging each-other about the “insurance policy” discussed in Andrew McCabe’s office. The Page/Strzok messages were on August 18th, 2016.

That “insurance policy” is widely believed to have been short-hand to describe an effort to conduct surveillance on candidate Trump, which could later ensure a strategic plan to disrupt and possibly eliminate Trump if elected, via the Russia collusion narrative.

That plan needed legal FBI authority to conduct surveillance – which could be used to weaponize intelligence. That plan culminated in the Carter Page Title-1 FISA warrant as the deployment mechanism, on October 21st, 2016.

Apparently, without knowledge of the underlying sketchy context inside the application (Steele Dossier) of the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant, on July 18th, 2017, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein renews the FISA warrant as the 3rd continuance of an investigative tool. This time to be used by Robert Mueller. And with this intensely broad and intrusive surveillance authority Mueller’s investigative unit now has the legal authority to capture the records of everyone within two-hops of Carter Page. That includes the entire Trump campaign and likely almost all of the Trump administration.

This explains why Michael Caputo said: “Mueller has everything, on every person related to the campaign.” Including calls, emails, text messages, the works.

However, between the start of the Mueller special counsel (May) and the date of the FISA renewal (July 18), OIG and INSD investigators began to discover issues as a result of an internal leak investigation. [OIG Report on McCabe] Questions to FBI Communication Director Mike Kortan, Andrew McCabe, and his lawyer Lisa Page resulted in contradictions within their statements.

  • •May 2017 McCabe denies leaking for WSJ story (to FBI).
  • •July 2017 McCabe denies again (to IG Horowitz).
  • •July 20th, 2017 Horowitz gets Strzok/Page text messages. Proving McCabe constructed the WSJ story and lied to FBI investigators and Inspector General.

Immediately after Rosenstein reauthorizes the FISA warrant (7/18/17), Lisa Page turns over text messages to support her version of events. OIG and INSD investigators get the Page/Strzok messages on July 20th, 2017:

[Congressional Report – Page 18, Item #3, second paragraph] “The DOJ OIG obtained the initial batch of text messages on July 20, 2017.”

Now things get interesting.

As a result of those messages delivered July 20, soon thereafter the IG informs Robert Mueller there are big issues with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were/are both on the special counsel team. Obviously INSD and OIG investigators are pouring through the messages.

As a result of that IG notification Robert Mueller removes Peter Strzok. It is reported that Lisa Page left a few weeks before. In “Appendix C” we discover the final text from Lisa Page to Strzok took place on June 25th, 2017: “Don’t ever text me again“. This final message follows Strzok’s heavily redacted text message June 22nd about not being able to reach out. So we can assume, with reasonable accuracy, Lisa Page was a non-factor in the Robert Mueller investigation around late June and Peter Strzok is removed sometime shortly after Mueller gets the details about their compromise late July/beginning August.

It is likely Rod Rosenstein is informed of the same issue(s) soon after he reauthorized the FISA warrant, July 18th. Prior to that initial IG notification; and prior to OIG and FBI Inspection Division review of the scale of the issue; no-one outside the “small group” new about the scheme, or the “insurance policy”.

However, at the beginning of August 2017 both Rosenstein and Mueller now have some idea something is seriously wrong within the prior corrupt FBI investigation that was using the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant Rosenstein just renewed two weeks earlier.

So what happened next?

Well look at the date of this “newest special counsel instruction“:

(full pdf available here)

In hindsight it is now clear why Robert Mueller would be reaching out to Rod Rosenstein and telling the Asst. Attorney General that, against the revelations of what the prior FBI investigative unit was doing; and with Mueller having interviewed Admiral Mike Rogers earlier; Rosenstein better provide Mueller increased clarity as to the specifics of what he is authorized to review.

By the very end of July, 2017, the released investigative evidence is clear – both Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller become aware of the initial issues with Page and Strzok, and likely how those issues were quickly escalating as the IG and INSD discover through reviews of evidence and in-person interviews the outline of a broad conspiracy.

It’s no surprise that Mueller takes pause and requests clear instructions in writing; but we still don’t know what’s behind that massive redaction.

SUMMARY: An honest review of the timeline shows the third FISA renewal happened right before Rosenstein and Mueller became aware of the first signs of the corruption. Additionally, a clear hindsight review of the content within the application, vis-a-vis the fraudulent use of the Clinton-Steele dossier, shows a clear reason why it was never reauthorized again; and easily why Carter Page was never charged with anything.

Once the IG and INSD investigators had the time to go deeper into the internal investigation, this is around the point when Utah federal prosecutor John Huber is brought into the findings surfacing within the IG and INSD investigation. Huber’s task likely to review all of the discoveries for potentially criminal conduct, grand jury evidence and possible criminal indictments if warranted.

However, all of that said, none of this explains why Asst. AG Rosenstein did not shut down the special counsel investigation in/around Sept. or October 2017 as soon as the scale of internal corruption was known. Unless the extraneous Flynn, Papadopolous and Manafort findings, some of which likely stemmed from the use of the FISA extensions in the period from May through October, became the agenda for continuance.

Here’s where everyone wants to know motive(s) behind Mueller, Rosenstein and the corresponding investigators. Truthfully, this is also where an argument can be made in both directions.

So, you decide for yourself.

Broward County Officials Forced To Admit School Shooter Nikolas Cruz Was in Diversionary Program….


The Broward County school and law enforcement officials have finally admitted Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was indeed a participant in the “Promise Program”; a corrupt diversionary program intended to keep students out of the legal system.  Until today school and county officials had denied Cruz’s participation.

FLORIDA – Broward school district officials admitted Sunday that the confessed Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School gunman was assigned to a controversial disciplinary program, after the superintendent repeatedly claimed Nikolas Cruz had “no connection” to the alternative punishment designed to limit on-campus arrests.

[…] When asked for a response, a spokeswoman for Superintendent Robert Runcie stated on Friday that district administrators were aggressively analyzing Cruz’s records.

[…] The Broward Sheriff’s Office has also said Cruz didn’t attend PROMISE.

“The school board reports that there was no PROMISE program participation,” BSO representative Jack Dale said during a recent meeting of a new state commission tasked with investigating the shooting.  (read more)

Nothing good comes from this admission now. Heck, it’s not an admission – they just got caught lying.  Notice who was lying: “the sheriff’s office and the school board.”  Think about it. Nice display of adult moral values for the students, no?

Nothing will change. The program continues today.  Illegal acts are still being covered up, and ever-increasing unlawful behavior is still being hidden in an effort to attain more favorable school statistics, and the subsequent money. Nothing will change there, nothing.

It didn’t change when Trayvon Martin was involved; they covered-up for him.  It won’t change just because Nikolas Cruz was involved.  Unfortunate, but the corruption runs too deep…. Way, way too deep.

Dr Gorka: Declassifying Comey memo “is just the beginning”


Refresh on How DOJ and FBI “Small Group” Officials Intentionally Worked To Clear Hillary Clinton…


The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General review of DOJ and FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation has been ongoing for over 17 months. That’s a long time for a single investigation, and with good reason. The scale of the misconduct is staggering.

John Spiropoulos, a former TV news reporter at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, has created a series of video reports as a reminder on the background on the crime, the coverup and the corruption.  Here’s the series:

Part II:

.

Part III:

.

Part IV:

.

Part V:

.

BINGO – Two Interviews Highlight Current Democrat Media Objective – George Stephanopoulos and Jonathan Turley…


Remember the January 2012 ABC Presidential primary debate when out of nowhere George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney: if access to contraception was protected under the constitution?   [Please watch to remind yourself.]  In 2012 no-one knew what the heck that was about… the question literally came out of left-field.  Less than a week later the Democrats began introducing Sandra Fluke, and the rest is history.  ABC was working hand-in-hand with the DNC to CREATE a narrative out of thin air.

Well, as you watch this interview today, notice the EXACT SAME framework being applied to the Stormy Daniels story.  Seriously, watch the Stephanopoulos presentation, it’s spooky…. this is narrative engineering:

.

Before anyone starts saying Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, etc. etc., has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels, pay very close attention to what George Stephanopoulos is doing in that interview. Then listen to Johnathan Turley who appeared serendipitously on CBS:

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University and joins moderator Margaret Brennan to discuss how the Stormy Daniels case and the Russia Investigation could play out legally for President Trump.

.

This is where the Lawfare crew, the nest of rabid legal hate-operatives, not coincidentally where former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker just announced he is going to work, is scripting the latest refined instructions for their “Insurance Policy”.

House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes Announces Plans To Hold Attorney General Sessions in Contempt of Congress…


In rather stunning news this morning, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes informs the listening audience he plans to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. According to comments within a Fox News interview (see below) there is something important to Chairman Nunes the FBI and DOJ are intentionally withholding.

The issue is a little clouded because Chairman Nunes sent a classified letter to the DOJ requesting a specific response about the status of a specific person, and their engagement within issues of the DOJ and FBI conducting a counterintelligence operation. No-one knows who this “individual” might be. However the DOJ did write back to Chairman Nunes last Thursday and said they would not comply.

.

We have no way of knowing if the DOJ refusal relates to withholding evidence for a valid reason, or if the FBI/DOJ is refusing to comply because they are part of a cover-up of malicious conduct.  Like many issues in this ongoing dynamic you can read valid and invalid motives into current action.  The response letter from the DOJ is below:

Sunday Talks: Maria Bartiromo Interviews Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey….


Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing issues with the special counsel appointed by Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Mr. Mukasey’s largest point of concern is how the Special Counsel was initiated, and the lack of public knowledge of the investigative intent.

Rudy Giuliani Discusses The Grand Usurpation via Robert Mueller…


You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.  ~SD

Rudy Giuliani, attorney for President Trump, speaks out about the Mueller investigation.

Special Counsel Tells Federal Court Rosenstein Investigative Scope Was Detailed in Super-Secret Verbal Instructions…


The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below).  The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.

As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue.  This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.

It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016.  Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.

Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel the counterintelligence investigation and also gave them FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant authority; which allowed Robert Mueller to retrieve all communications (e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g) belonging to any person, entity or group, within two-hops of former unofficial campaign aide Carter Page.  By extension this covered almost all the campaign officials, and also most of the Trump administration.

This is a critical point often misunderstood.  When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, they began a criminal investigation (Title 3) by taking over the FBI counterintelligence investigation (Title 1).  By design the counter-intel structure meant the special counsel had access to the entire gamut of active surveillance on almost every official in the Trump Administration; and every official in congress – without having to get a search warrant.

Ordinarily, under U.S. Title-3 criminal statute the investigative body, U.S. Attorney or Special Counsel, would need to go before a judge to swear out the reasoning for a search warrant and prove probable cause.  Because the special counsel took Title-1 investigative authority (counterintelligence operation), they subverted domestic search and seizure protections applicable toward U.S. persons having nothing to do with foreign intelligence.

This melding of Title-1 and Title-3 legal authority is essentially what underpins Judge Ellis’s questioning.  Judge Ellis began asking, and proving, that a 2005 and 2007 tax and banking case against Paul Manafort had nothing to do with a 2017 counterintelligence investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Digging into this odd framework results in the judge demanding the U.S. Attorney to reconcile/explain the origination of the special counsel investigation (2017); and the instructions therein; against the background of the case before him (Manafort), which has nothing to do with the originating mandate of the special counsel (2016 election matters).

The entire back-and-forth is well worth a read.  It’s quite interesting, because there’s likely to be precedent established here.

Right from the outset the court begins questioning the entire premise of the special counsel’s expanded authority. Page #4:

The resulting exchange goes on for quite some time, generally circling back to the central issue.  What is the originating authority of this investigation? and how that that specific authority apply to a case that has nothing to do with Russian election interference matters.

To defend their position the special counsel team was trying to reconcile how their May 2017 investigative mandate contains more instructions than outlined to the public.

On Page 32 of the transcript, while trying to specify how the initiating special counsel mandate has bearing upon a decades-old banking/tax case, U.S. Attorney Dreeben tells Judge Ellis the detailed instructions were delivered in person:

(pdf link)

Yeah, no….

The judge wasn’t buying it, and neither are the American public.

Here’s the full transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/378289155/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-d94p3sEGCQtwI0NS5XAa

.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of Russian interference and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion, right where the 2016 and 2017 FBI counterintelligence operation left-off.  This is additionally supported by reviewing the original investigative instructions as outlined by Rod Rosenstein the day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel:

The key phrase here is: “to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election”…  Here, Rosenstein is clearly instructing Robert Mueller to pick-up the former Counterintelligence Investigation previously headed by FBI Asst. Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and his #2 FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The date of this appointment is May 17th, 2017.  Approximately a week after President Trump fired James Comey on May 9th.

(LINK)

So there we have the three areas of direct authority:  ¹Links or coordination between the Russian Government and the campaign of Donald Trump.  ²Matters that may arise from the investigation of the Russian government and the campaign of Donald Trump. And ³other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). [<- ie. ‘Jurisdiction‘]

So there’s the instructions to Robert Mueller and his team on May 17th, 2017.

As an outcome of this May 2017 reassignment of investigative authority, Mueller took over from Bill Priestap.  The Special Counsel took over the investigation from the FBI.

Without the July 18th 2017 FISA extension (provided by AAG Rod Rosenstein), Robert Mueller would not have predicate investigative authority to reach into the accounts of his targets and extract their personal communication.  Mueller would have needed to go to court for a search warrant; he is conducting a criminal investigation; he would have needed probable cause.  However, by applying the 2016 extended FISA Title-1 warrant, the Mueller special counsel used the previously granted legal authority from the FISA Court to extract all the information they wanted to review.

This is the issue explained by Representative Louie Gohmert at the beginning of this interview. WATCH:

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/375478974/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4DaehSp6U38EiB8eNVXS