Three days before the New York Times received a selectively leaked copy of a book manuscript written by John Bolton, Mr. Bolton’s lawyers were informed by the White House the manuscript could not be published.  [Source: John Roberts]

On January 23rd John Bolton was denied authorization to publish. On the evening of January 26th the New York Times wrote about a copy of the transcript.  It now appears Bolton’s team held a retaliatory motive and may have leaked the manuscript themselves.

There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

The Senate Trial continues today on day eight at 1:00pm ET. Today is the beginning of two days of alternating questions from Senators 8 hours each party, totaling 16 hours.

Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

.

.

Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are on a fishing expedition to unearth the origination of conflicts within the IG report on FISA abuse. However, a word of caution, they could be on a snipe hunt and here’s why.

First, their letter. Grassley has a history within this story. Grassley has been lied to by the FBI about their use of dossier author Christopher Steele. Two years ago Grassley/Graham called out the FBI lies by sending the DOJ a criminal referral for Chris Steele.  Not surprisingly the referral went no-where and was summarily ignored by the DOJ.

Now, Grassley/Johnson want four IG footnotes declassified by Bill Barr.

(pdf link)

Grassley and Johnson are noting contradictions within the IG report.  If they are looking to reconcile contradictions, save yourself some research and read an article by Margot Cleveland SEE HERE which seems to be the north-star Chuck and Ron are following.

People are starting to question the assembly of the IG report because the underlying explanations by the FBI officials within it are fraught with a lack of candor.

Many of the officials who gave explanations to the inspector generals’ office are the same FBI officials who participated in the scheme to target Donald Trump, president-elect Trump, and President Trump.   As a consequence the FBI contradictions stem from sketchy FBI surveillance explanations that do not match the documented FBI activity.

There is also some speculation the footnotes are related to the part of the IG report surrounding Chris Steele’s primary sub-source (PSS).  I doubt that intent because everyone in/around the PSS issue is lying in an effort to justify its use. [Including current FBI officials who are cited (sans specific names) within the IG report.]

To make issues easier for those who want to look for themselves here’s the page numbers of redacted footnotes. 17, 21, 61*, 63*, 164, 166, 205, 208*, 210*, 211*, 214, 242, 244*, 265*, 276, 293*, 296, 301, 302, 328, 334* and 339* (Primary Sub Source info), 342*, 347*, 350*, 354, 362*, 368, 372*, 377, 379, 389, 464*, 475, 484, 526*.

If the contradiction expedition includes Chuck and Ron attempting to reconcile why the FBI would use Chris Steele and a manufactured dossier, without verification, to gain a FISA warrant in April and June 2017, which the DOJ now asserts ‘invalid’, they are likely to come up empty.

The Steele Dossier and the fraudulent claims therein; including why the DOJ used the Dossier in April and June 2017 – after they found out it was full of lies; lead you to this question (suggest don’t skip the go deep link):

If the FBI investigated the Dossier in January and March, 2017, concluding (per the OIG report) the information therein was unreliable, then why was DAG Rosenstein authorizing Mueller to investigate it?

{GO DEEP}

The answer is simple yet frustrating.  The FBI renewed the application because the FISA was the key for the insurance policy phase.  Mueller never investigated the dossier claims; everyone knew the dossier was a means to an end.

After being appointed on May 17, 2017, Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller wanted the FISA renewed (June 29th, 2017).   So it was.

The key to understanding the FISA assembly in 2016 is this:

•Without the Dossier, no FISA.

•Without FISA, no insurance policy.

•Without Dossier & FISA, no Mueller.  {GO DEEP}

The Steele Dossier was absolutely vital because the paramount need was the FISA.

Here’s the critical timeline, components and sequence:

• August 2016 – The FBI was denied a FISA warrant internally.  The DOJ-NSD told the FBI they did not have enough evidence.
• August 2016 – On August 25th, 2016, in Andrew McCabe’s office, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok have the “insurance policy” discussion.
• Sept. 2016 – The FBI then asks Oleg Deripaska for help.
• Sept. 2016 – Christopher Steele, sends more chapters of the Dossier.
• Oct. 2016 –  The Steele Dossier is added to FISA application
• Oct. 2016 –  The FISA application is approved.

The need was the FISA surveillance warrant.  The key ingredient for that warrant was the Steele Dossier.  {GO DEEP}  Without the dossier they don’t get the FISA warrant.

Christopher Steele completely made up the key points within the dossier, yet he sprinkled in information he was given by Fusion-GPS contracted agent Nellie Ohr.

(Source is the House Impeachment Witness List, Nellie Ohr)

The Nellie Ohr research material was the stuff that primarily checked out.  Her material was more innocuous and incidental. Nellie gave contact information with dates and citations that could be validated by open-source materials.  Nellie Ohr provided material that would be woven into the completely false story that Chris Steele created.

Nellie used innocuous contacts like Sergei Millian, nationality Belarus, with real estate dealings in Trump orbit; or Emin Agalarov, whose father was a business contact who coordinated bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Russia in 2013; to provide fuel for the narrative.  All of which was easily verifiable.

However, the essential Christopher Steele material was entirely fabricated.

Steele’s material was the specific and accusatory information.  The really explosive stuff claiming Donald Trump and those in his orbit were connected to a Russian collusion conspiracy.  Alfa Bank, payments and contacts, hidden trips, secret agreements, etc.

In making up the story Christopher Steele needed to assign a plausible citation for those outlandish lies.  He used a very specific citation for a primary sub-source. A person who would seem to be deeply connected and credible; and factually did have a relationship with Chris Steele.  However, as the IG report identifies, the primary sub-source had no idea that Steele was attributing any of his make-believe stories to him.

As the big picture timeline shows, Andrew McCabe knew the Steele Dossier was nonsense; but the insurance policy aspect; the secret surveillance of Trump if he won the election – & the ability of a special counsel to use it; were contingent upon getting that FISA warrant.

When Lisa Page explains (testimony transcript) the insurance policy was connected to the “use of a source”, and/or possibly “exposing them”, she’s not really lying.  The Dossier was dependent on Steele’s exploitation of a former FBI source as a primary sub-source to manufacture the dossier that would get them the FISA.

A former FBI Source who the Robert Mueller FBI turned to in 2009.  An FBI source that Andrew McCabe and Bruce Ohr had both worked with before.  That former FBI source was the same person McCabe asked for help in September 2016, Oleg Deripaska.

Oleg Deripaska had no idea Chris Steele was going to attribute anything from any conversation they had to create his dossier; but Andrew McCabe did.

Deripaska is just generally talking to Chris Steele, whom Deripaska hired in 2016 as an attorney in the U.K. to represent his interests, not knowing that Steele would use anything Oleg said about Donald Trump in Steele’s fantastical story.

Remember the “pee tapes and Moscow hookers”?

Who else mentioned “pee tapes and Moscow hookers”?   Anastasia Vashukevich.  The 27-year-old  Belarusian woman who was being held in a prison in Thailand under charges of recruiting women to act as prostitutes and escorts.  She was a “friend” of Oleg:

It’s likely Anastasia Vashukevich (pictured above with Deripaska) heard Oleg tell the same crazy story, based on Russia rumors about Donald Trump, that Oleg told Chris Steele.  Heck, CNN even went to Thailand in March 2018 to interview Ms. Anastasia in the hopes she had hard evidence.

As Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified, Chris Steele’s dossier was a fabrication with the only exceptions being innocuous dates, times and events that were just regular Trump organization business contacts that happened to be Russian.  The conspiracy elements were entirely manufactured by Steele.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe knew this, all of this, as it was being put together.  Hence the August 2016 “insurance policy” as a discussion in his office.

The top FBI agents and lawyers who were assigned to Crossfire Hurricane (2016), then the Mueller probe (2017), knew the issues with the dossier provenance all along. Apparently the ends -attainment of the surveillance FISA- justified the means.  The FBI direct knowledge is why this is so easy to answer:

If the FBI investigated the Dossier in January and March, 2017, concluding (per the OIG report) the information therein was unreliable, then why was DAG Rosenstein authorizing Mueller to investigate it?

Answer: Because the special counsel asked.

The FBI knew the dossier was sketchy.  The FBI explanations to the inspector general in 2018 and 2019 are merely ass-covering justifications.  They are being made after-the-fact, by the same crew who originated the dossier use.

The insurance policy FBI is answering the 2019 IG question(s) ex-post-facto.  Sure the Washington Field Office is going to say: despite Steele keeping his source a secret they “figured out” he was using “primary sub source Oleg” and then attempted to “verify” the content of the dossier…. blah, blah, blah… Sure. And McCabe simply lacked candor.

The same FBI agents giving the investigative answers to the IG in 2019 are the same FBI agents who used the surveillance warrant in 2016 and 2017 knowing it was nonsense.

There’s buckets of current FBI field agents, supervisory special agents, FBI lawyers, officials and various FBI field offices maintaining this years-long fraud.  Heck, the Mueller report said there were 40 rank-and-file FBI agents working with them; and a host of administrative and FBI legal support officials during the two-year investigation.

How many of the FBI people working with Mueller can plausibly claim they didn’t knowthe two-year investigation was based on Russia-conspiracy fabrications, Russia-interference manipulations, and Russia, Russia, Russia lies?

So it’s not a surprise the IG report is subject to stealth edits and major contradictions; the FISA Court is now in a confidence crisis; meanwhile current FBI Director Christopher Wray does nothing, and AG Bill Barr calls him an “exceptional” leader.

Wait, don’t tell me…. Trust the plan?

Think about it…

Is it any wonder Oleg Deripaska, speaking through his U.S. lawyer Adam Waldman, felt used in 2017 after the FBI, DOJ, Treasury Dept. and intelligence apparatus locked him out of the USA and started seizing his assets:

Adam Waldman was the lawyer for both Christopher Steele and Oleg Deripaska.  Additionally, Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set-up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele.

As you can see from the text messages (below) the 2017 House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) wanted to interview Deripaska. However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship, Deripaska’s lawyer Adam Waldman, asks Senator Mark Warner for feedback:

Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress. It was obviously not from the 2017 HPSCI (Chairman Devin Nunes) but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, Mark Warner.

Why?

It’s highly likely the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 FBI would be risk averse to former FBI source Oleg Deripaska’s uncontrolled testimony. WATCH:

.

So the administrative state, covering for their own asses, kicked former FBI source Oleg Deripaska out of the country, blocked any VISA entry effort, and froze all his assets.

Go figure.

Quick congress, write more letters.

Meanwhile the impeachment trial of President Trump continues…

With Wednesday and Thursday scheduled for senators questions, the date for any other deliberative action would most likely be Friday.  During an interview with Martha MacCallum Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham predicts the potential for the conclusion to any further deliberative action and an acquittal vote on Friday.

On an optimistic note, Senator Graham does articulate a personal awareness of  the constitutional precedent that any further witness testimony in the Senate would create; and outlines his republican caucus colleagues also being aware of the issue.

Earlier today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced an agreement with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the Senate questioning phase of the impeachment trial that begins tomorrow.

Senator Schumer and McConnell have agreed to alternating back-and-forth questions from Republicans and Democrats over the course of two days totaling a maximum of sixteen hours.   The alternative would have been 8 hours of questioning by Democrats followed by 8 hours of republican questions.  Obviously, and curiously, McConnell and Schumer see a benefit to alternating back-and-forth over the two days.

Additionally, according to several media reports, McConnell took a ‘whip of the Senate’ regarding witness testimony and does not currently have enough republican votes to block the pre-planned House Managers’ unconstitutional scheme to call witnesses.

The appropriate constitutional position for the Senate to take would be that the House investigates; the House calls witnesses within their investigation; the House assembles articles of impeachment; and the Senate is the trier of fact from those articles.

Ergo if a witness was not included in the article assembly, that would be a defect of the House articles; incurable in the Senate.  However, it appears there are enough republicans willing to establish a new extra-constitutional process whereby the House can assemble speculative supposition; avoid the executive branch using their lawful process to appeal to the judicial branch for opinion; and put the burden of witness testimony on the Senate.

How and why any senator would agree to establish this precedent is beyond my comprehension.   Perhaps it would be a worthwhile endeavor to call, email or write our senators and ask them why they would even contemplate such an undertaking.

In the current quasi-constitutional House process, the Democrats refused to allow Republicans to call witnesses during their investigative phase.  As a result the articles as assembled are completely one-sided and partisan.  There are no republican witnesses in the evidence underpinning the article assembly.  This was obviously done by design.

As a result a one-sided, Democrat only, witness group is structured in the articles.  Now the same Democrats are demanding additional witnesses beyond those they called in the House.   The witnesses they are demanding are from the executive branch; and blocking the executive from access to the judiciary explains why the Democrat plan has presented this end-run around the constitution.   This was not a flaw in the article assembly, it was a feature.

I refuse to accept that Republican senators are stupid.  Obviously they, like us, can see how and why the House used this process; yet they are willing to allow it.  It makes no sense unless we accept there are GOP senators in alignment with the usurpation plans of the Democrats.

If the House Managers are successful in executing this scheme, the impeachment process will forever be severely subject to partisan manipulation.   There will never be a republican president not subject to the impeachment whims of the House…. and this new standard of making the Senate a participatory investigative body instead of a trier of established House evidence.   There’s no good answer why any member of the upper-chamber would permit such an abusive construct other than pure political power.

If I can make this argument understandable to you as readers, surely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could emphasize the gravity of this issue to his fellow colleagues in the Senate.   Yet apparently he has not.

The inability of Senators, regardless of party, to articulate this simple and dangerous constitutional issue is the most alarming development in this entire impeachment process.

In the most general of terms, DC politicians do not understand the level of intelligent understanding held by most voters.  Perhaps, as a final firewall against losing our constitutional republic, it would be helpful if we contacted with our senators and advised them we are aware of the issue.

Find Your Senator Phone Number HERE

(202) 224 – 3121 [Extensions Here]

.