During his short-lived media appearances former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne claims he had spoken to the DOJ April 5th, 2019, and again April 30th, 2019. Mr. Byrne stated he told the DOJ all of the information he was aware of during those two interviews covering approximately seven hours of questioning from officials in the Department of Justice.

During interviews Mr. Byrne highlighted the May 13th DOJ appointment of John Durhamto look into the origination of the Russia investigation events. Byrne surmised this was likely, at least in part, a direct result of his two DOJ sessions April 5th and 30th, 2019.

Ms. Maria Butina, a young Russian idealist, was caught up in the 2016 vast Russian conspiracy agenda and had strong connections to high powered Russian oligarchs.

Originally the purpose of Butina coming to the U.S. in 2015, as explained by Patrick Byrne, was for her to engage with influential Americans for political contacts that could provide geopolitical value to the oligarchs.

Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was seen as important to Ms. Butina due to his connections to the emerging financial structures of crypto-currency and block-chain. Mr. Byrne is a libertarian who believes in small government, and is somewhat of a disruptor in the business world. Ms. Butina wanted to introduce Byrne to her friends in Russia.

Alternative currency options to the U.S. dollar has been an ongoing effort of Russian interests for a while. Russia considers global trade attached to the dollar as geopolitical problem; and they have been working for years on alternative currencies for trade (and their own wealth) that can avoid U.S. sanctions and the reach of the U.S. treasury.

As a Russian national with specific Russian interests that are not in alignment with U.S. national interests, Maria Butina was defined by the U.S. intelligence community as an ‘agent of a foreign power’.

Butina’s status meant unrestricted monitoring by the U.S. intelligence community was entirely legal.  However, because of this ‘foreign agent’ status Ms. Butina could also be a valuable 2015/2016 FISA virus to infect anyone the U.S. intelligence apparatus would wish to target domestically for surveillance.  Keep this in mind….

“Political Espionage” – During the 2016 election season, Butina’s useful purpose appeared to be the reason the FBI in Washington DC enlisted Patrick Byrne as a handler, giving Butina specific instructions and introductions to Republican presidential candidates.

Once those candidates were contacted the FBI’s background surveillance transferred to the republican politicians, including persons in/around the Trump orbit.  Mr. Byrne stated several times that FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and persons working on his behalf, were the FBI officials directing the engagements.

Byrne claims he was asked to participate in an FBI intelligence operation and to introduce, and/or facilitate the introduction of, Ms. Butina to the campaigns of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

In December of 2015 Mr. Byrne said he became suspicious of the FBI motives because he warned FBI officials of the potential that his efforts, his reputation and those who trust him, may result in Butina gaining entry into campaign confidences. The FBI agents told Mr. Byrne that was exactly the intent.

People high up in the FBI wanted Ms. Butina to gain deep access into the Trump campaign. Mr. Byrne became suspicious of a corrupt political motive, but didn’t say anything at the time.

In/around Feb or March 2016 Byrne was told to focus Ms. Butina’s attention to the campaign of Donald Trump and to diminish any attention toward Rubio or Cruz.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”.  Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].

This FBI contact structure highlights an arms-length operation; perhaps intentionally constructed to create plausible deniability for those above the directly instructing agents.

In essence, these rank-and-file FBI agents were asking Patrick Byrne to be a civilian handler of a Russian national, and instructing him to carry out a covert counterintelligence operation. The FBI agents were apologetic about asking a civilian to take on such a role.

Conducting FISA-702(16)(17) database searches and electronic surveillance on U.S. persons who would meet with Butina would be justifiable and legal.

Extended contact with any U.S. person could lead to a Title-1 surveillance warrant through the FISA court, similar to what happened with Carter Page.  However, even without the FISA warrant, 702 searches would be valid just from brief contact.

As we have shown FISA-702 (“16” to-from) and (“17” about) queries were off the charts during the time-frame of November 2015 through May 2016.  Per the FISA auditconducted by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, after the flags noted by the database compliance officer, 85% of the search returns were unauthorized and unmasked.

The time-frames here seem too coincidental to be accidental. [Judge Collyer Report]  This was the same period when DC-based FBI officials were telling Patrick Byrne who they wanted him to introduce Ms. Butina to.

From the operational description of Mr. Patrick Byrne it would appear Ms. Butina was used by the FBI to “dirty-up” political targets, opening them up for surveillance.

The FBI/NSA database can be used in real time, or in historic mapping, to monitor people simply by entering their cell phone number and filtering the geolocation.   Additionally, texts, call logs, emails, personal data and sensitive electronic communication can all be reviewed by FBI officials using this FBI/NSA database.

Was what Patrick Byrne describes as “political espionage” the illicit and intentional use of an FBI counterintelligence operation to monitor the political campaign of the opposing party?

Maria Butina likely did have sketchy intentions from a U.S. strategic interest perspective; and monitoring her was perhaps justifiable.  However, specifically directing Butina on where to go and who to meet is another kettle-o-fish entirely.

That aspect could be why Mueller, Weissmann and the “dirty cops” within the DOJ and FBI, originally locked away Maria Butina in strict isolation and solitary confinement.

♦ In a Fox Business interview, Patrick Byrne described being offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet in 2018.  This piqued many curious questions; however, it is worth noting a bribe as described could come in a multitude of forms for a businessman who operates a massive corporation.

In 2018 Mr. Byrne’s company, Overstock, was also under an SEC investigation.

(LINK)

I’m sure it is just a coincidence, but FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happens to be the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. [LINK]

So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018.

I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion.

Huh, imagine that?

Coincidences.

Small world.

[LINK to SEC]

Ms. Butina pleaded guilty in December 2018 to one count of conspiring to act as a foreign agent and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Maria Butina was also removed from harsh isolation in prison on May 9th, ten days after Mr. Byrne delivered his testimony to the DOJ. According to Byrne Ms. Butina was moved to a very different White Collar facility based on his information.

On October 25th, 2019, Ms. Butina was released from federal prison and immediately deported back to Russia.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Convicted Russian agent Maria Butina was released from a Florida prison on Friday after serving most of her 18-month sentence for conspiring to influence U.S. conservative activists and infiltrate a powerful gun rights group, and taken into custody by immigration officials to be deported to her native country. (read more)

~ Full Interview Here ~

Bill O’reilly had an extensive and semi-casual interview with President Trump a few days ago. Mr. O’Reilly released the full interview for Thanksgiving.  They cover a lot of ground.

O’Reilly is a decent interviewer, but doesn’t understand the complexity of the President Trump’s strategy in the geopolitical realm.  The underestimation is not an O’Reilly weakness; the apparatus of ‘media’ do not grasp the full context of the background work POTUS has put into a global trade reset.  The global reset is a massive and ongoing plan.

Specifically as it pertains to China, O’Reilly is stuck in the traditional financial perspective that no U.S. President could ever walk away from China; which is exactly what President Trump is doing. So at 19:00 of the video below, O’Reilly asks: “what’s holding up the China deal?”  To wit, President Trump pauses and matter-of-factually says:

….”ahhhhhh, ME!”

It’s a hilariously Trumpy moment. LISTEN:

On May 23rd, 2019, President Donald Trump gave U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr full authority to review and release all of the classified material hidden by the DOJ, FBI, State Department, CIA, FISA Court, and aggregate intelligence apparatus; 200 days ago.

It has been 200 days since President Trump empowered AG Bill Barr to release the original authorizing framework of the Mueller investigation which began on May 17, 2017. A Mueller investigation that concluded nine months ago, and yet we are not allowed to know what the authorizing 2017 framework was?…. Nor the 2nd DOJ scope memo of August 2nd, 2017?… Nor the 3rd DOJ scope memo of October 20th, 2017?….

The released Weissmann/Mueller report showed after the origination authorization in May 2017 there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe. The second scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel. [Now Confirmed Here]  Generally, the second scope memo (Aug ’17) authorized Robert Mueller to investigate the claims within the Steele Dossier.

The second scope memo came a month after the third renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant.  We now know that FISA warrant was renewed using falsified documents by FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.  That means special counsel team requested the second expanded scope memo from Rosenstein in August after the DOJ was aware Kevin Clinesmith held political bias, and he along with four members of the original Crossfire Hurricane team were removed. (K Clinesmith, P Strzok, L Page, S Moyer and unknown).

The third scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the third expanded scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.

One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

This third scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally and strategically (you’ll see why), this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

With Paul Manafort outlined as an investigative target in the original authorization and the first expanded scope memo (dossier expansion), the second scope memo authorizes further expansion to Manafort’s business partner Richard Gates and their joint businesses. This memo also permits the investigation of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and all of his interests; and in ultimate weasel sunlight, DAG Rod Rosenstein authorizes Mueller to begin an investigation of their boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Before getting to more targets, notice the underlined passage about starting with a lot of investigative material because the special counsel was picking up a Russian interference investigation that had been ongoing for “nearly 10 months.”

I would also note that our CTH research indicates all of the illegally extracted FISA-702(16)(17) database search results would be part of this pre-existing investigative file available immediately to Weissmann and Mueller. However, in order to use the search-query evidence, Weissmann and Mueller would need to backfill some alternate justification; or find another way to “rediscover” the preexisting results.  The Carter Page FISA renewal becomes inherently valuable… I digress

The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):

General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey.

The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016:

Back to the Page #12 October 20th Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unconfirmed; however, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea.

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening. A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

The IG Report on James Comey Memos Outlined the Fraud of Mueller Probe Origination.

All of this information backstops the 19-page filing (full pdf below), where Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell walked through the history of the DOJ, FBI and intelligence apparatus weaponization against Mr. Flynn and lays out the background behind everything known to have happened in 2016, 2017 through today.

From the corrupt DOJ lawyers who were working with Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele, including Mr. Weissmann, Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Zainab Ahmad; to the 2015/2016 FISA database search abuses; to the CIA and FBI operation against Flynn including Nellie Ohr; to the schemes behind the use of DOJ official Bruce Ohr; to the corrupt construct of the special counsels office selections; to the specifics within the malicious conspiracy outlined by hiding FBI interview notes of Mike Flynn,… all of it…. is bolstered by the IG Horowitz report on how the FBI “small group” was manipulating the media, and hiding Comey memos.

Read:

.

The IG Report on James Comey’s memos clearly shows former DAG Rod Rosenstein working with the corrupt FBI and DOJ small group toward an objective of appointing their special counsel selection, Robert Mueller.

Today former DAG Rod Rosenstein sends an openly coded-message to AG Bill Barr, requesting that Barr stick with him and not highlight the extent of the DOJ and FBI corruption for the sake of their institutions.

Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.

Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.

The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying?  OK gotcha.

[…]  Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly.  No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense.  No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016.  The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016.  The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016?  And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said.  (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying?  OK gotcha….  Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes.   But not political?  Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

Thanks, but I’ll just wait for the actual report… AND the declassified supporting documentation that damn sure better be a part of the release !

A curiously interesting development in the DOJ case against Michael Flynn.  Judge Emmet Sullivan is weighing the merits of the Flynn defense Motion to Compel (MTC), which requests a significant amount of information on DOJ/FBI conduct in the lead-up to Flynn’s prosecution. A decision and court briefing was anticipated soon.

However, today the DOJ files a joint motion with the defense asking Judge Sullivan to suspend scheduled briefing dates and sentencing deadlines until after the DOJ inspector general report is published on December 9th.   The implication is that some of the “Brady” material at issue; or tangential issues that touch upon the material; may be outlined in the upcoming IG report.

The joint motion asks for a delay to the briefing schedules, and a delay in the subsequent sentencing therein.  The full motion is below:

.

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.

Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.

This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:

With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.

My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.

The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?

Here’s the Nadler Letter:

(Source – pdf)

Obviously Lawfare is rushing.  They are rushing to push out this hearing on December 4th before the DOJ Inspector General drops a report on December 9th that would weaken their impeachment narrative.

HJC Press Release Link

Here is the originating House Resolution 660:

.

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks.  The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing.  The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.

Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:

.

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue.   There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court.  Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

There is a very strong likelihood the documentary material that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith falsified was actual communication from Carter Page to the FBI where Page was seeking their help in 2017.   This revelation would explain and reconcile two seemingly contrasting points:

• Point one – The media have asserted, based on leaks from the principal reviews, the woods file manipulation by Clinesmith did not impact the validity of the original FISA application on October 21st, 2017.
• Point two – The material Kevin Clinesmith did manipulate was so egregious and unethical, it stands as one of the most clear examples of corrupt FBI abuse of power in recent history.

This outline will highlight a VERY disturbing picture:

Start by remembering the timeline of the Carter Page targeting through the use of a FISA application to the FISA Court (FISC).  The original application was submitted on October 21st, 2016.  The first FISA renewal was January 12, 2017 (84 days from origination).  The second renewal was April 7, 2017 (85 days from prior renewal).  The third renewal was on June 29th, 2017 (83 days from prior renewal).

Avoid the spin, and let’s focus on the facts.  According to all reporting on the falsified evidence created by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the manipulation of the woods file, happened during one of the renewals.

Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an emailthat officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said. (NYT Link)

The renewals were: Jan 12th, April 7th, June 29th, 2017.  However, we know from the redacted release of the FISA application there was no material added in the first renewal in January 2017.   So that leaves either the April ’17 renewal or the June ’17 renewal.

We know from the Washington Post and the New York Times leaks, again based on principal reviews of the IG report content, that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith modified an email:

…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)

That means Kevin Clinesmith modified an email, which then became part of the woods file evidence (citation by FBI FISA warrant lawyer Sally Moyer) to support either the April renewal or the June, 2017, renewal of the FISA application.

Now we look to Carter Page’s reaction to the reporting on the Clinesmith manipulation:

(Source)

The stunning likelihood here is that the email Kevin Clinesmith edited and falsified as part of his FISA renewal manipulation was email communication from Carter Page himself.

It is also important to note the phrase: “and his colleagues“; and then overlay what Carter Page says there with an earlier leaked explanation: “Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own.”

It is jaw-dropping to think about the FBI team manipulating communication from the target of an unlawful investigation to continue targeting that individual.  Yes, this speaks to stunningly criminal intent…. and that criminal exposure would extend to any individual or entity participating in such an egregious, unlawful and unconstitutional violations of Page’s fourth amendment rights with a falsified application to the FISA court.

  UPDATE 5:45pm: Techno is in contact with the background participants; he is able to relay information.  Carter Page is confirming he emailed with the FBI including Kevin Clinesmith at 07:43:51 EDT on April 6th, 2017, the morning of the day before the second FISA renewal:

(source)

This April 6th date confirmation and contact timeline now makes additional sense.

Considering NOTHING was ever changed in the January renewal; and considering the DOJ/FBI legally had to have *something* change in order to get the April renewal; there would have been a great deal of pressure on FBI lawyer Clinesmith to create something if nothing existed.

Important context:  The FISA application (and first renewal documentation) was delivered to the SSCI (via James Wolfe) on March 17th, 2017, as requested by democrat Senator Mark Warner.   We know this from the release last year. This SSCI delivery is three weeks before the second renewal on April 7th.  This SSCI FISA delivery was also leaked by SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed. Keep this in mind.

Carter Page emailing with Kevin Clinesmith on the morning of April 6th prior to Clinesmith manipulating the content of an email to support his falsified documentation for the next renewal, April 7th, highlights the lack of evidence the FBI was able to discover in the seven previous months.  However, the FBI team wasn’t going to be deterred by the lack of evidence; instead they just made it up.

The timeline here is critical.

Clinesmith likely manipulated the FISA renewal in April because by law extending the FISA surveillance must be based on new evidence gathered.  In the following month Clinesmith transfers to the newly created Mueller probe. According to the New York Times and Michael Horowitz: “[Clinesmith] was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.”

The manipulated evidence FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated was then used by the team of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller and Clinesmith for the objectives of the special counsel.

Again, another overlay, keep in mind that Robert Mueller asked Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to extend the scope of his investigation twice more after the original appointment of the special counsel.

That means Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a falsified FISA warrant as part of his investigation; and that material exploitation continued after team members within the special counsel became aware the FBI members were compromised and likely the FISA warrant application itself was falsified.

Yeah, depending on what people within the Mueller knew and when they knew it, this IG report on FISA abuses could be much more consequential than the media would currently like to admit.

Within the FBI Kevin Clinesmith was responsible for material evidence that underpinned the FISA warrant.  Clinesmith then hands that material to Sally Moyer.  Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).  Her assembly of the FBI material is to ensure the citations are in place to support the Woods File requirement.  Then she hands it off to Main Justice, the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Receiving the FISA warrant application in the DOJ-NSD is Tashina Guahar, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice.  In essence, Tashina Guahar is the working Main Justice FISA lawyer.

Shortly after IG Horowitz delivered the draft of his investigative report to AG Bill Barr last September, not only did Kevin Clinesmith leave the FBI but also Tashina Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.

In hindsight the reason for Tashina Guahar’s mysterious exit also makes sense.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) discusses the upcoming drafting of a partisan report derived from witness testimony and the likelihood of an independent minority report.   Unfortunately Rep. Zeldin, just like Adam Schiff and House leadership, is not sure what comes next (other than Thanksgiving).