Fox News contributor Dan Bongino and Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera respond to the latest news that Robert Mueller has agreed to testify to the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on Wednesday, July 17th.

[Toward the end of the panel segment Mr. Bongino has some additional insight into the Michael Flynn situation]

Well, it looks like the gang has a plan… the details are sketchy, but the picture of the construction is visible.  According to Adam Schiff, Robert Mueller has agreed to deliver congressional testimony to a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th.

♦ First, to frame the narrative for the appearance, HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff releases a letter signed by *only* Nadler and Schiff, that “threatened” a subpoena.  This subpoena letter is a prop for a pre-planned theatrical event.  How do we know? Because only Schiff and Nadler signed it (no coordination with ranking members).  It’s an optic to set the cornerstone for a narrative that Schiff and Nadler want Mueller’s appearance.

♦ Second, the joint committee approach is also part of the strategy.  With 40 members from both committees there will intentionally only be ONE ROUND of questions.  The size of the committee is part of the design to protect Robert Mueller.  Those who follow politics closely will immediately note this motive.

Knowing Mueller was in deep discussions with Schiff and Nadler to coordinate the appearance, the optic of the letter and the size of the committee are the first two immediate flares that indicate a staged performance is being set-up.

Here’s the letter:

Three days ago CTH shared: “Shifty, Pelosi and Nadler have to be very careful with Mueller to avoid exposing the coordinated enterprise behind the two-year Rosenstein, Weissmann and Mueller scheme. It will be interesting to see how they plan it out.”

Now we have a little more information.  Watch what details surface over the next few weeks; just like the letter and the joint committee issues, I guarantee you we’ll see the construct of a completely manufactured event.

Keep watching.

In March 2017 CTH first highlighted statements by Evelyn Farkas that described a coordinated effort from within the Obama administration to push political opposition research, gathered by the intelligence community, into the media.

Jay Sekulow now discovers documents that highlight the Obama administration’s efforts in their last days in office.  This effort backstops Farkas’s earlier statements.  First, from Sekulow:

(Via Fox Op-ed) – Stunning new information just released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) shows that the Obama administration stepped up efforts – just days before President Trump took office – to undermine Trump and his administration.

The ACLJ, where I serve as chief counsel, has obtained records that show the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, under Director James Clapper, eagerly pushed to get new procedures as part of an anti-Trump effort. The procedures increased access to raw signals intelligence before the conclusion of the Obama administration, just days before President Trump was inaugurated.

By greatly expanding access to classified information by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, the Obama administration paved the way for a shadow government to leak classified information – endangering our national security and severely jeopardizing the integrity and reputation of our critical national security apparatus – in an attempt to undermine President Trump.

The documents confirmed what we suspected: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence rushed to get the new “procedures signed by the Attorney General before the conclusion of this administration,” referring to the Obama administration.

The documents also reveal that Robert Litt, who worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense’s Director of Intelligence Strategy, Policy, & Integration: “Really want to get this done … and so does the Boss.” Presumably “the Boss” is a reference to Director Clapper.

And documents the ACLJ received that were produced by the National Security Agency show that NSA officials discussed that they “could have a signature from the AG as early as this week, certainly prior to the 20th of Jan.” In other words, certainly before President Trump’s inauguration. (more from Sekulow)

Overlay Sekulow’s January 2017 documents with the statements from Evelyn Farkas and a clear picture emerges.  Here’s Farkas from March 28, 2017:

[TRANSCRIPT]  “I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

“So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to [Democrat politicians].”

With the help of MSNBC, simultaneous to her admission of first-hand specific knowledge of the administration spying on candidate and president-elect Trump, Ms. Evelyn Farkas outed herself as the key source for a March 2017 New York Times report which discussed President Obama officials leaking classified information to media.

Considerable irony jumps to the forefront when you recognize, the New York Times tried on March 1st, 2017, to protect Evelyn Farkas as the source of their reporting by stating:

“More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret.” (link)

D’oh.

E Jean Carrol made headlines recently with her rather bizarre and sketchy claims of a forced sexual encounter with Donald Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room two decades ago. President Trump denies even knowing who she is…. but the media, well, you know…. OrangeManBad; so anything goes.

In addition to personifying an abject lack of credibility Ms. Carrol just imploded on CNN with Anderson Cooper, explaining her definition of rape is not sexual, nor doe it include sex.  However, before getting to that recent development, a historic reference to Ms. Carrol is, well, weird.

(h/t BAXT3R) In 1995 E. Jean Carroll shares her unique perspectives on an Esquire article, “Do Women Love Men?” and discusses changing gender roles with Charlie Rose:

(Link to Charlie Rose Interview Website)

Moving forward to 2019, here’s the latest round of bizarre I can’t even describe.

At this point it’s difficult to imagine anyone lending credibility to this claim. Then again, this is 2019, and the media is fraught with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.

If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).

In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.  In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]

.

However, in the two years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was under FISC authorized active surveillance.  Here’s how we know.

♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper.  As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant.  “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:

The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental.  Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant.

♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:

Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, after John Carlin left in October of 2016.  McCord would have signed-off on the Flynn FISA warrant, or any extension therein, throughout the Trump transition period.

[McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]

♦ Third, from the 2017 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), when Devin Nunes was Chairman, the four targets of the Trump campaign -under investigation throughout 2016- were outlined:

SUMMARY: ♦In real time Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying the “incidental contact” (unmasking) narrative was incorrect.  ♦Then Devin Nunes outlines the targets of the 2016 FBI investigation which included Flynn.  ♦Then Robert Mueller says Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 phone call with Kislyak.

Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the FISA court granting a surveillance warrant.

The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail to an unmasking request.  The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and FISC authorized surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

There are only three options:

1. Incidental collection = unmasking request.
2. Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
3. Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.

All of the evidence from documents over the past two years indicates #2 was the status of Michael Flynn at the time of the Sergey Kislak call.

The incoming National Security Advisor of President-Elect Donald Trump was under active FBI surveillance as granted by the FISA court.  That’s how the FBI intercepted the phone call with Sergey Kislyak and why there’s no unmasking request.

This doesn’t deal with the propriety of the FISA warrant, or the legal basis, the legal predicate that must exist prior to granting the FISA warrant.  However, accepting that Michael Flynn was under court approved surveillance reconciles all the issues.

Additionally, this would explain two more issues.  #1) President Obama warning incoming President Trump not to hire Michael Flynn as his Nat. Sec. Advisor; and #2) a very strong possibility that Flynn’s status is the redacted paragraph in the January 20th, 2016, Susan Rice memo.

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self.  Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered.  Here’s the email:

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“.

The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]

“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.”

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

I would suggest the redacted section relates to President Trump being under FBI investigation; and NSA Advisor Michael Flynn being under investigation and FISA surveillance.  Hence the issues with “sharing information”.

While Michael Flynn being under active FISC authorized surveillance would indicate there’s no need for unmasking of Flynn, there would be a need for unmasking of everyone else captured within the Flynn surveillance.   Hence the dozens of White House unmaskings identified by Devin Nunes in March 2017.

Additionally, Flynn being under FISA authorized surveillance still doesn’t excuse the leak -likely by Andrew McCabe- to the Washington Post about the phone contact between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.

There are likely multiple FBI 302 reports on all sorts of contacts by Michael Flynn; as the FBI was investigating and updating their files.

This FBI surveillance background of Flynn would also reconcile another unusual date within the Mueller report.  An FBI 302 written on January 19th, 2017, before the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, about Kislyak:

Flynn was under surveillance and the FBI reports on Flynn’s surveillance did not start with the January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn – As you can see above there are FBI 302 reports that preceded it.  [h/t Techno Fog]  This aligns with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Mary McCord, Devin Nunes and Robert Mueller all saying Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 Kislyak call.

Lastly, release and unredact the Comey memos, and Flynn’s status under a FISA warrant is likely outlined by copious Comey CYA diary entries.

When General Michael Flynn entered into the seemingly coerced plea agreement with the special counsel team and prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (November 30, 2017), he gave up the right to defense discovery in his case.  In hindsight this will likely be viewed a mistake.

(h/t Techno Fog) During a court appearance today by new attorney Mrs. Sidney Powell, the topic of needing a classified security clearance -to review documents- was raised.  The DOJ responded to the assertion by saying no classified information was provided to the prior Flynn defense team, therefore Ms. Powell doesn’t need not carry that concern.

However, by admitting the DOJ provided no classified information to the defense, the prosecution is simultaneously admitting they never provided Flynn with a copy of the phone call transcript (December 29, 2016) between President-elect Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  The content of that phone call lies at the heart of the FBI interview that took place on January 24th, 2017.

Judge Emmet Sullivan originally asked for the Flynn/Kislyak transcript; however, the prosecution said it was irrelevant to their case.  The judge accepted the non-production.

This is why the issue of how the FBI agents write the 302 summary of the Flynn January 24, 2017, interview becomes such an important facet.

On June 6, 2019, the DOJ released the FBI agent report (FD-302) written after their interview of Michael Flynn on Jan 24th, 2017. (Full pdf below) From prior testimony we know that FBI Agent Peter Strzok did the questioning and FBI Agent Joe Pientka took notes.

For some reason, within the DOJ release of the report they are continuing to redact the name Joe Pientka. [Could be due to ongoing employment]

It’s worth noting according to Mark Meadows the Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed Joe Pientka extensively; prior attempts by congress to gain testimony from Pientka were blocked by the FBI and Rod Rosenstein.

FBI Agent Joseph Pientka was never interviewed by the joint House judiciary and oversight committees (Goodlatte and Gowdy). The reason, as explained by Meadows, was simple; Pientka was on Weissmann and Mueller’s special counsel team. Congress was not allowed to interfere in the Mueller probe. In hindsight this looks like Weissmann, Mueller & Rosenstein strategically using the investigation as a shield from sunlight.

The interview took place on January 24, 2017. The report was written Jan 24th, 2017. The wording was then deliberated by the small group, approved by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and entered into the record on February 15th, 2017.

Here’s the FD-302 report:

Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and a delay in the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then another edit on May 31st, 2017.

To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)

What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating was a process of deliberationwithin the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview. Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.

In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. In hindsight it seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.

However, we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

The interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the 2018 cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading. The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it (three weeks after the FBI interview).

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017.  The recently released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe.  The first 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.

The second scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017.  The transparent intent of the second 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 second 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 this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

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 on/around July 31st, 2016.

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

Page #12 October 20th, 2017, Scope Memo:

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

In combination with the October 2017 timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father 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 when special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and cornering him into a guilty plea. 

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo #2) 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“.

Forcing a plea for ‘lying to investigators‘ by threatening prosecution for FARA violations was the identical strategy used against both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.

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:

During a segment today with Maria Bartiromo, Representative Devin Nunes notes the “two parallel tracks” CTH has previously outlined.  The “parallel track” explanation begins at 11:15 of the interview. [Prompted – Just Hit Play]

“Two Parallel Tracks”

CTH Archive – Everything after March 9th, 2016, is a function of two official intelligence units, the CIA and FBI, operating together with two private political operations, Fusion GPS and the DNC, to coordinate -then coverup- political surveillance and spy operations.

Prior to March 9th, 2016, the CIA/FBI political surveillance and spy operation was using the NSA database to track and monitor their opposition. However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to: (1) continue the operation; and (2) create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. [Full Backstory]

The evidence for this is found in the documents attached to both operations; and bolsters the original 2018 statements by Congressman Devin Nunes as highlighted below.

♦The Official CIA/FBI track took place between late 2015 and July 2016, and consisted of using foreign intelligence allies in Italy, the U.K and Australia to create a background illusion of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. This operation was based on earlier -more innocuous- contacts from various countries, weaponized and redeployed in what everyone calls “spygate”. This track successfully culminated in Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.

♦The Unofficial FBI/Fusion/DNC track was domestic-centric, albeit sub-contracted to Fusion GPS and later a former British intelligence officer, and took place between late 2015 and October 2016; also to create the illusion of Russian involvement. This operation is best known around the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page. The FBI track continued with the Mueller investigation into 2017, 2018 and 2019.

In April of 2018 Devin Nunes noted:

[Transcript] “So it took us a long time to actually get this, what’s called the electronic communication, as we know it now for your viewers, what it is it’s the original intelligence, original reasons that the counterintelligence was started.

Now this is really important to us because the counterintelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens. And we’ve long wanted to know: what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation? So what we’ve found now, after the investigators have reviewed it, is that in fact there was no intelligence.

So we have a traditional partnership with what’s called the Five Eyes Agreement. Five Eyes Agreement involves our friends in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and of course, us. So long time processes and procedures in place where we move intelligence across.

We are not supposed to spy on each others’ citizens. And it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government.

And that’s why we had to see that original communication. So now we’re trying to figure out, as you know, we are investigating the State Department, we think there’s some major irregularities in the State Department, and we’re trying to figure out how this information about Mr. Papadopoulos of all people who was supposedly meeting with some folks in London, how that made it over across into the FBI’s hands.” (video link)

The direct evidence for what Devin Nunes is describing is found in two specific documents. Each of the documents is unique to their track. One track is the CIA the other track is the FBI. The merging point that binds them is the U.S. State Department.

♦ First, we review the Official CIA/FBI track.

The evidence for the CIA track is found in the Weissmann-Mueller report. More specifically, it is found in the intentional way the report tries to conflate two contact points.

This track is CIA Director John Brennan’s work, with enlisted help from the FBI counterintelligence unit (Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap) as they travel to the U.K.

After western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud (posed as a Russian) plants a story on George Papadopoulos about Russia having “emails of Clinton”, the operation then needs Papadopoulos to share the information. That’s where a joint network comes in. The network is the U.S. embassy in London; the Australian embassy in London; the Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer; and his top aide Erika Thompson.

Notice page #89 of the report; but read carefully and specifically notice the date Weissmann and Mueller use to frame the Russia story extraction from Papadopoulos:

The meeting on May 6th, was NOT a meeting with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer. That meeting did not happen until May 10th. The recent release of documentsfrom Australia confirm this timeline.

The meeting on May 6th was between George Papadopoulos and Downer’s aide, Erika Thompson: …”that the Trump campaign had received information from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

So, if the U.S. used the information from the May 6, 2016, meeting as conveyed on July 26th, 2016, it was the conversation with Erika Thompson that opened Crossfire Hurricane; not the meeting with Alexander Downer on May 10th. {Go Deep}

This subtle but important distinction in contact and communication reconciles the statement by Devin Nunes; because Thompson is also a reported intelligence operative (spy) and information from her would not be passing through “Five Eyes” official channels. However, for their intents and purposes, the U.S. operation needed to give the appearance of official channels, so the *inference* between the claim and the footnote *implies* Ambassador Downer. But you can see that’s not actually what happened.

This is an example of Weissmann/Mueller disguising the actual origin in their report. They are giving cover to the reality that unofficial intelligence was the actual basis for the originating “EC” or two-page electronic communication from CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey. It was that 2-page EC, likely written by FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, that initiated “Crossfire Hurricane”.

The page in the Weissmann/Mueller report is factually true but the inference is false. It is written in the way they intended, to give a false impression. It is quite subtle and sneaky.

What is outlined on Page #89 is also the CIA track that ran from March to July 31st, 2016.

The operation positioned Joseph Mifsud as a Russian spy; has him plant information on George Papadopoulos; then uses U.S. and AU operatives to withdraw the information; thereby giving the appearance that a Trump campaign official, Papadopoulos, was receiving and passing-on Russian intelligence. This is the CIA justification for creating the EC. This is the CIA cover story.

Now let’s review the evidence of the unofficial FBI track and how it also connects to the U.S. State Department. This path is more brutally obvious because the document had to be less ambiguous in construct to track through the FISA Court.  This operation involves the FISA application on U.S. Person Carter Page.

♦ The FBI Track – The Steele Dossier, FISA Warrant and Carter Page.

The second page of the FISA application used to gain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. Carter Page identifies where the material came from. Notice the direct attribution is to the State Department; not the DOJ or FBI, and certainly not Christopher Steele.

Applying hindsight to the backstory of Fusion GPS hiring Nellie Ohr (Oct. 2015); the Clinton Campaign hiring Fusion GPS (April 2016); and Fusion hiring Christopher Steele for the Dossier; and the Steele Dossier being passed on to the FBI and DOJ via various official and unofficial channels… Question: why would the DOJ be citing the State Department for their FISA application?

The answer is simple. Carter Page was a known person to the FBI and DOJ. Carter Page was a subject witness from 2012 to 2016 in the Evgeny Buryakov case [DOJ March 2016]. How could the FBI claim Carter Page was “an agent of a foreign power” to the FISA court in October 2016, when they only finished using him as a cooperating subject witness in May of 2016? [DOJ May 2016]

The short answers are: (1) they couldn’t; (2) they were in a big hurry; there was a sense of urgency; they needed the FISA and Steele Dossier as insurance policy; and (3) it wasn’t safe for the DOJ/FBI to make the ‘foreign agent‘ claim against their own prior witness if things went sideways.

Remember, there are dual purposes, one critical purpose is a coverup. Their efforts are about gaining position and appearances to justify the preceding action. Their efforts are not focused on an actual investigation.  They told the FISC the information came from the State Department and [Redacted]…. Whichever source could give them the best legal justification to gain the FISA warrant was the leading point in the thought process.

Despite everything around the Steele Dossier primarily inbound from Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele to the DOJ and FBI, the people creating the FISA illusion needed to use the State Department as a valid reference for fraudulent claims they were making.

From the beginning Fusion-GPS was not hired to research Donald Trump; the intelligence community (FBI, CIA and DOJ-NSD) were already doing surveillance and spy operations. The intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion created the dossier for them.

In essence it was the Steele Dossier that merged unofficial political opposition research being conducted by Fusion GPS, into official investigative use in the FBI to join with Crossfire Hurricane.

The FISA application is the point of merging, joining one unofficial track with the official FBI track as noted by Devin Nunes in today’s interview with Maria Bartiromo.

The FBI knew Carter Page. Essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep} as their insurance policy.

So there we see two parallel tracks; one from the CIA/FBI, and one from Fusion, DNC and the FBI.  Both tracks intended to:  (1) set up Trump for the Russian collusion narrative; and (2) provide a cover story for political surveillance and spy operations that preceded March 9, 2016.

The CIA track created ‘crossfire hurricane’. The Fusion/FBI track created the Steele Dossier. Both had the same purpose and merged with the FISA application.

Both tracks originated from ‘unofficial channels’ and then transferred into official status through the use of two documents. The CIA generated the two-page “EC”; and the FBI generated the FISA application from the Steele Dossier.

Both tracks held the same essential purposes; both tracks were insurance policies; and both tracks merged for intelligence exploitation continuing after President Trump won the election. After the election the goal was shifted to remove the risk Trump represented.

Once they had the legal justifications for targeting Trump, albeit fraudulently obtained, the effort could move into phase three: by-the-book processes. The FBI track evolved into the Mueller probe; that’s why the Dossier is so important to the validity of the special counsel.

A big part of everything after March 9th, 2016, through today – was/is covering for everything that happened before March 9th when political “contractors” were allowed by the FBI and DOJ to have weaponized access to the NSA database for political surveillance and spy operations.

This two-track process and ultimate merging is what all of the documentary evidence supports. I suspect when the arc of the story concludes, this is where we will be.

The most important sentence in Judge Collyer’s brief:

…”many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.”..

This Page #82 sentence specifically highlights that during the 2016 presidential campaign, those who had access to the NSA database were searching the same phone numbers, email addresses, electronic “identifiers”, or people, repeatedly over different dates.

Specific people were being tracked/monitored.