I’m not going to spend a great deal of time on this because the story is just affirmation and takes away from research and value-added discussion.

Tonight Fox News is reporting on the efforts of Senator Mark Warner to make secret and off-the-record contact with Christopher Steele in March of 2017.   Warner, a rabidly partisan Democrat, is the minority Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  The Majority Chairman is Richard Burr (R-NC) and also corrupt as hell.  Not surprisingly, Burr is covering for Warner.  –You can read the STORY HERE–

Throughout the entire story-line behind the ongoing conspiracy to destabilize the presidency of Donald Trump we have pointed out that Mark Warner and Richard Burr were compromised.  The corruption within the Senate Intelligence Committee is specifically why House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, do not share information with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The corrupt Senate Intel Committee, and all their corrupt staff members, are cut-off from contact with those who are fighting the corruption.  Everyone on the committee has been compromised by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman participating with, and being in ideological agreement with, the Uniparty conspiracy effort to take-down President Trump. Yes, that includes Marco Rubio, James Lankford and Tom Cotton. None of them can be trusted.  [If Lankford and/or Cotton quit the committee in the next 72 hours we can re-evaluate them, but only them.]

Never-Trust-Any-Of-These..

..EVER!

Six months after Warner was conspiring with Christopher Steele… (in September of 2017), the Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, questioned Senator Warner’s staff and requested the messaging information.

Warner discovered he was busted.

Mark Warner then told the committee about his contacts.  Richard Burr and Marco Rubio are providing cover by claiming Warner was honest with them in September.

CTH caught on to the corruption immediately after the inauguration in January 2017 when Diane Feinstein quit the committee and was replaced by Mark Warner.  This is why we have been saying for over a year to ignore the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The scary thing is that Warner and Burr are members of the Gang-of-Eight intelligence oversight.  That is Alarming !!  That should scare the crap out of anyone who understands what national intelligence information these senate conspirators are briefed about.

I shall not spend any more time on them.  Seriously, I don’t even look in the direction of anything that they touch… it is all manipulation, misinformation and disinformation.  There is absolutely no value in anything from the Senate Intelligence Committee because it has been entirely corrupted.

100% corrupted.  Entirely useless.

That’s why Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte and Michael Horowitz don’t share any information with Richard Burr… The good guys act like Burr doesn’t exist, and I follow that recommendation happily.

This is the team to follow:

When it comes to the issues that really matter; the issues of serious importance; ignore all voices that are not part of the above.  The good guys have a plan; the bad guys (including Warner and Burr) don’t know the plans of the good guys.

Researchers will share the value of pausing, going back, and looking upon previous information with new insight gained from current discoveries.  In hindsight there are many contexts that shape a new understanding.  Fired FBI Director James Comey ran a corrupt and heavily political organization. He himself helped to shape the politics of it.

On Comey’s watch he allowed the FBI to become a weaponized tool against political enemies.   The upper-level officials within the FBI are now under scrutiny as their actions are increasingly transparent in their political motives.  With James Comey sitting in the sunlight, I doubt there is a more apropos example for the value of hindsight-review than to visit the 2016 writing of Benjamin Wittes.

Mr. Wittes is a close personal friend of Mr. Comey, and was the go-between used by Director Comey to leak information to the media, and specifically to the New York Times.

Three days after the FBI secured the FISA “Title-1” surveillance authority over former Trump campaign official Carter Page (using the Clinton-Steele Dossier), Benjamin Wittes wrote a column in his blog titled: “What if Trump Wins” – “We need an insurance Policy“.

Excerpt:

October 24th, 2016 […]  The point is that there is no reason at this stage to imagine that the legislature will be a viable venue for push-back, which is a shame considering the powerful set of tools at its disposal.

The Coalition of All Democratic Forces should certainly see what kind of use it might make of the legislature, but realistically, we should probably expect that the coalition’s job in Congress will be to prevent Trump from passing anti-democratic legislation. That is, the task in Congress will be a negative one of denying Trump the use of the Article I powers, not the positive one of the coalition’s using them itself.

That leaves the tool that will certainly be available: the courts. The courts have a few obvious advantages, starting with hundreds of independent judges of both parties whom Trump cannot remove from office and who don’t have to face his supporters in forthcoming elections.  (read more)

I strongly suggest everyone go back and read the entire October 24th, 2016 article written by James Comey’s close friend. –SEE HERE– While you are reading it remind yourself of what has taken place in the fourteen months since President Trump did actually win the election.

Compare the writing of Benjamin Wittes to the actions taken by the DOJ, the FBI, James Comey and every participant inside the enterprise.

With hindsight applied, that October 24th 2016 outline could be considered a road-map for how the DOJ and FBI intelligence apparatus, specifically the “small group” within it, conspired to carry out exactly what Wittes was suggesting.

Even the “insurance policy” language used by Comey’s friend strikes a familiar cord.

No doubt about it… the removal of a democratically elected President Donald J Trump was “their plan” all along.  Transparently planned and openly discussed prior to the election.

.

.

Another longtime FBI official quits today. According to Fox News Catherine Herridge reporting, FBI Asst. Director Michael Kortan (aka text message “Mike”), the head of the FBI Public Affairs Office, has announced he is retiring.

Mike Kortan was previously exposed by FBI Agent Peter Strozok as having specific information that the investigation into Hillary Clinton was manipulated by the “small group”. “Mike’s”  job was to sell the ruse as a valid investigation.

WASHINGTON – The longtime head of public affairs at the FBI — who was a confidant of former director James Comey — is planning to retire, Fox News has learned.

A notice went out this week for a retirement get-together for Michael Kortan scheduled for Feb. 15. Since 2009, Kortan has served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access. He also served under former director Robert Mueller, now leading the Russia probe.

The FBI confirmed to Fox News that Kortan is retiring.

It’s unclear whether the retirement was long-planned or in any way precipitated by recent events. The FBI emphasized he was finishing 33 years of service. (read more)

Boy-o-boy this prior Peter Strzok tweet, as read by Bob Goodlatte on January 25th, is striking a nerve:

“Jim”, aka James Baker (FBI Chief Legal Counsel) was removed in January.
“Mike” aka Michael Kortan (FBI Asst. Director Public Affairs) quits today.
“Dave” aka David Bowdich (Assoc. Dep. Director of FBI)
“Trisha” aka Trish Beth Anderson (Office of Legal Counsel, FBI)

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

“Jim” is likely James Baker, the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.

“Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

“Dave” is likely David Bowdich, Associate Deputy Director of FBI

and “Mike” is Michael P Kortan FBI Asst. Director, Office of Public Affairs.

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

REFERENCE and RESOURCES:

• FBI September 2nd, 2016, Press Release HERE
• FBI Investigative Outline released September 2nd, 2016, HERE
• FBI Investigators Notes (302’s) as Released Sept., 2nd, 2016, HERE
• Chairman Bob Goodlatte Interview Video – HERE
• September 2nd, 2016, CTH Article Discussing FBI Release HERE

File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860635/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-HWBLlhbfv51rhuuPdJ8r

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860731/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-u0DDwNVYNippWK8p67Xs

.

For over ten months we have been asking about one FBI official who has been mysteriously missing from the story within the DOJ/FBI ‘Small Group’ activity in the Counterintelligence operation, his name is E.W. “Bill” Priestap.

Bill Priestap is the FBI Asst. Director in charge of all counterintelligence operations.  Priestap was FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s boss; he is also at the epicenter of the story surrounding every action taken by the FBI in the Clinton investigation and the Trump campaign investigation.

Bill Priestap was copied on every email of consequence including the writing of the Clinton exoneration talking points delivered by FBI Director James Comey.  Priestap is the central figure on the FBI side of both Clinton and Trump operations.  “Bill” is mentioned in hundreds of text messages sent by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

In short, Bill is everywhere – except where you would most likely expect to find him, in media discussion.

Priestap is so important that during FBI Director James Comey’s March 20th, 2017, congressional testimony Director Comey told congress it was Bill Priestap who recommended that congressional oversight should not be notified of the ongoing counterintelligence operations.  Priestap’s instruction was so important that despite the statutory rules violation FBI Director Comey followed his recommendation and kept congress in the dark.

As FBI Director of counterintelligence Bill Priestap holds a very important position and is one of the few people authorized to sign-off on FISA applications to the FISA court.

Stunningly, everyone around Priestap has been removed or resigned from their position; yet Bill Priestap remains.

FBI Director James Comey was fired; Asst. FBI Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe was removed; FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker was removed; FBI Attorney Lisa Page was removed; FBI Agent Peter Strzok was demoted; FBI Special Agent, Chief of Staff, James Rybicki resigned.  Yet somehow, even through today, FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap remains.

E.W. “Bill” Priestap is an enigma.

Your thoughts?

.

.

David Laufman was the Department of Justice, National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence, cyber security, counterespionage and export controls.

As most people are now aware the epicenter of the DOJ/FBI Clinton-Steele operation against candidate Trump stemmed from a collaborate “small group” effort of Main Justice officials within the National Security Division (John P Carlin – head), and officials within the FBI centered around the Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap – head).

According to the Washington Post, David Laufman resigned effective yesterday, Wednesday February 7th:

David Laufman, an experienced federal prosecutor who in 2014 became chief of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, said farewell to colleagues Wednesday. He cited personal reasons.

His departure from the high-pressure job comes as President Trump and his Republican allies have stepped up attacks on the Justice Department, the FBI and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for their handling of the Russia probe. (more)

In his former position, Laufman would have been involved and hold knowledge of the FISA “Title-1” surveillance program initiated on target Carter Page and the “incidental” Trump campaign officials.  Laufman would also have close contact with former Asst. Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr; husband of Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr.

Additionally, as a result of his specific responsibilities David Laufman would also have been involved in any FARA investigations of General Mike Flynn (Turkish lobbying), and/or Paul Manafort (Ukraine lobbying); and had access to FISA-702(16)(17) database use for incidental surveillance and subsequent unmasking etc.

National Security Division head John P Carlin resigned around the same time as the Carter Page FISA warrant application was submitted, October 21st, 2016.  National Security Division head Mary McCord replaced Carlin, and she resigned shortly before  Special Counsel Robert Mueller was assigned May 17th, 2017.

After President Trump won the election, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the prior position of Sally Yates who was keeping the DOJ National Security Division free from Inspector General Horowitz oversight.  Now the DOJ-NSD has direct oversight, the officials within the DOJ-NSD have come down with a severe case of sunlight aversion.

Responding to a 2015 request by the DOJ Office of Inspector General, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the internal watchdog they cannot investigate the National Security Division.

That’s right, there was essentially no oversight on any activity happening inside the NSD.

In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (currently Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) was previously not allowed to investigate anything that happened within the NSD branch of the Department of Justice.

See the ‘useful arrangement‘?

Yeah, Funny that.

So it might not be so coincidental the players used on the DOJ side of “Operation Trump” (Bruce Ohr, John Carlin, etc.) all seem to come from within the National Security Division.

According to congressional sources, [Glenn] Simpson and [Bruce] Ohr met sometime around Thanksgiving last year, when President-elect Trump was in the process of selecting his cabinet, and discussed over coffee the anti-Trump dossier, the Russia investigation and what Simpson considered the distressing development of Trump’s victory.

How exactly Simpson and Ohr came to know each other is still being investigated, but initial evidence collected by the House intelligence committee suggests that the two were placed in touch by Steele, a former FBI informant whose contacts with Ohr are said by senior DOJ officials to date back to 2006. (more)

All of the evidence points in one transparently obvious direction; toward a 2016 collaborative effort structured to use a counterintelligence operation to conduct wiretaps and surveillance on the presidential campaign of candidate Donald Trump.  The FISA Title-1 surveillance approval of Carter Page was retroactive legal authority to do so.

The FBI and DOJ certainly went to extra-ordinary lengths to get that FISA Title-1 warrant approved; even to the extent of misleading the FISA court on the validity of the underlying documents.  The DOJ/FBI ‘small group’ really seemed quite desperate to gain that FISA Title-1 surveillance authority…

…. they really, really needed it:

…”I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40″…

Accepting all of that mounting evidence, does this March 2017 interview with former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas (Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense), appearing on MSNBC, make more sense now?

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 the Hill.  That’s why you had the leaking”…   (link)

The tangled web of corruption, deception and manipulation within the DOJ National Security Division (Lynch, Yates, Carlin, Ohr) and FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, Page and Baker), continues to pose issues of complexity when trying to outline the story.  Best advice is to ignore voices who position themselves too far ahead of known evidence. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation.

Unlike some, we will not get ahead of the primary focus. For over a year CTH has focused on the demonstrable and provable foundation of the fraud; because the foundation brings down the entire apparatus.

Following that investigative path we have found ourselves paralleling a strategic plan as outlined by actions of congressional officials (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz), and the Trump intelligence community [Mike Rogers (NSA), Dan Coats (ODNI), Chris Wray (FBI) and Rod Rosenstein (DOJ)].

Four Corners of the demonstrable justice dept. conspiracy:

1. Exonerate Clinton
2. Investigate/execute, IC surveillance of Trump.
3. Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump.
4. The Insurance Policy.

Following the exoneration of Hillary Clinton, the next phase, the “Trump Operation”, was the need for the DOJ/FBI “small group” to have access to surveillance of Hillary Clinton’s political opposition, Donald Trump.  This was the U.S. government conducting political opposition research through a weaponized intelligence apparatus (DOJ and FBI).

Within the context of #2 and #3 you’ll note the entry and exit timeline of people connected to the same task is identical.  Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion-GPS, enters the timeline at the same time Nellie Ohr is hired by Fusion-GPS (May 2016).  Both Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr exit the activity timeline at the same time as the FBI gets FISA Court “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page, October 21st, 2016.

Everything after October 21st, 2016, when the FBI has “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page and the Trump Campaign, is part of the “insurance policy”.   The Title 1 surveillance authority gave the “small group” the tools needed to execute #4, which included the 2017 “Russian Narrative” and the appointment of SC Robert Mueller.

That’s the rough outline.  Within the rough outline there are sub-chapters of how it all took place. How it all came together:  The ‘dossier’ is a sub-chapter.  The FISA warrant is a sub-chapter. Establishing Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a sub-chapter. Etc.

♦Nellie Ohr was needed because she was a go-between from Team Clinton (Fusion GPS) to her husband Bruce Ohr inside the DOJ.  Nellie Ohr relayed information into the DOJ and she extracted information from the DOJ that was passed back to Fusion-GPS and by extension Christopher Steele.

Nellie Ohr was a communication transfer hub.

♦Christopher Steele was needed because:

A) the Clinton Team (Fusion GPS) needed to wash their opposition research and have it come out as “Intelligence Product”; and B) the DOJ and FBI needed to present intelligence product to further their insurance policy goal.

The Clinton ‘opposition research’, turned ‘intelligence product’, was carried by Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, the FBI and DOJ and was leaked to the media, as needed, to script the Russian narrative.  Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (ODNI) could enhance the IC product as needed [See: ‘Russian Election’ – Joint Analysis Report].

One of their collaborative IC constructs was the Clinton-Steele Dossier.  The FBI and DOJ used the Clinton-Steele Dossier, and leaks from those assembling the Clinton-Steele Dossier, as validation for an October 21st Title I FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page.

Three corners of the conspiracy construct relied upon the FISA “Title I” surveillance:

#2) Investigate, execute, IC surveillance of Trump; #3) Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump; and #4) The Insurance Policy;

All three of those corners relied on the FISA surveillance warrant being granted.

Another example post-election use of the FISA surveillance was how the Intelligence Community positioned the story of Carter Page in April of 2017 to gain the Special Counsel appointment, ie. the Mueller investigation (another false construct.)

Expose the fraudulent construct of the “FISA Title I” surveillance and the tenuously sketchy narrative built upon it collapses.  So, what is the weakest part of the FISA Title I construct?  Answer: The Clinton-Steele dossier.

Expose the fraud behind the FISA “Title I” application and the entire scheme is revealed. Investigators expose the FISA application to disinfecting sunlight by going through the ‘Dossier’ it is built upon.

That’s why Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Chairman Bob Goodlatte are focused on exposing the Dossier (Grassley), and FISA application (Nunes and Goodlatte); each complements the other.

Here’s a related interview with Devin Nunes and Hugh Hewitt [ AUDIO HERE ]

(Transcript) […]   Hugh Hewitt: All right, now the Carter Page surveillance that was authorized by the FISA warrant that has got a glaring omission in it, a material omission that I’ve written about for the Washington Post, have you seen any of the work product or summaries that resulted as a result of that FISA warrant?

Devin Nunes: Yes, we have seen, so our investigators and Trey Gowdy, and now two other members, John Ratcliffe from Texas and Bob Goodlatte. They have, they have went through and seen all of that.

Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?

Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.

Hewitt: Were there any other warrants issued at that time that are in the category of the Carter Page warrant that raise your eyebrows about appropriateness?

Nunes: Not that I’m aware of.

Hewitt: Now the Chief Justice appoints the FISA judges. Have you had a chance to chat with him or any of the FISA judges about what went on at the FISA Court with regard to the Page application?

Nunes: This is something that we grappled with, that we’ve been grappling with all through this investigation. We decided that we wanted to complete the FISA abuse portion before we approached the courts. Our next step with the courts is to make them aware, if they’re not aware already, that this happened by watching the news, so we will be sending a letter to the court. There is a, there’s a debate now into whether just send it to the Supreme Court or to send it to the FISA Court, and here’s why. And Hugh, you’d be a good guy to actually get your opinion on this. If, somehow, this case ends up at the Supreme Court, somehow, some way, by sending a letter to Roberts, do you conflict the Court?

Hewitt: The answer to that is no.

Nunes: Okay.

Hewitt: They will not issue an advisory opinion. And since he appoints the judges and is the leader of Article III, I would think you would invite him to come and talk with the committee. ¹You can’t compel him to come, obviously, but since he appoints the FISA judges, perhaps he would accept your invitation to a closed session. Would you welcome such an appearance by the Chief Justice before a closed session to discuss the FISA process?

[¹That’s nonsense. If the House can impeach a SCOTUS Justice; the House of Representatives can most certainly compel one to testify.]

Nunes: So this is something that we have, like I said, we have thought a lot about this. And the answer is we don’t know the correct way to proceed because of the separation of powers issue. So as you know, you know, we have, I’m not aware of, I’m aware of members of Congress going to the Supreme Court and having coffee with the judges, just to shoot the bull. I’m aware of, you know, dinners where congressmen have been with Supreme Court justices. But I’m not aware of any time where a judge has, for lack of a better term, testified before the Congress.

Hewitt:  It is perfectly appropriate to invite, though you ¹cannot compel the Chief Justice. And since he appoints the FISA judges, I doubt any of them would appear without his previous appearance and his warrant to do so. But I would encourage you to do that, because I would like to see if the Chief Justice would inform you of their reactions. I believe they are not going to be amused by this footnote. I believe it’s a material omission.

Nunes: Yeah.

Hewitt: I had one former federal judge tell me that it is, it is proof, it is probative evidence of a government intent to deceive the court that they did not disclose the origin of the Steele dossier, but instead disguised it as political manufactured.

Nunes: Yeah, and I think you have a very good point, and that was our read of it, also, in that you know, so in the application, there’s, you know, you would think you would go to great lengths to say where you got this from. And then it’s almost like you had to go out of your way to put the footnote in at the end in order to disguise it so that you’ve basically said oh, no, I did say this, when the reality is you really didn’t, right?

Hewitt: Yeah.

Nunes: And what would be interesting to see, and I don’t know, I’m sure it doesn’t exist, but if you had the changes as the FISA application made its way through the process of being developed before it was submitted to the court, and when that was put in and how the wording was changed.  (continue reading)

[Remember the batting order!]  BRILLIANT !!

As the 10-page Democrat declassification request (Schiff memo) is being reviewed by the executive branch, NSC, OLC and FBI/DOJ intelligence community, media are beginning to report on a previously unknown January 16th request made by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte to the FISA Court that would render the Schiff memo entirely moot.  Media just now catching on.

Chairman Goodlatte has written a letter to Presiding FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, requesting the FBI application documents that underwrite the October 21st, 2016, “Title 1” surveillance request against Carter Page.  Goodlatte is cutting to the chase and requesting the underlying FISC material directly from the court as provided by the DOJ and FBI.

The Goodlatte request presents a very interesting dynamic because Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer was the FISC Justice who wrote the extensive 99-page opinion (based on the reporting by NSA Director Mike Rogers and the admissions from the Department of Justice) that outlined the intentional abuse and misrepresentations to the FISA Court within the FISA-702 process.  [Her Opinion HERE]

Chairman Goodlatte is writing to FISC Judge, Collyer, who is clearly on record with strong admonitions toward the Obama administration for their duplicitous use of the FISA court. In April 2017 Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats declassified the opinion written by Judge Rosemary Collyer.  [We have discussed it at length.]

The exact details of Goodlatte’s FISC request are unknown.  For reasons you can clearly identify, and unlike all other team communication, Goodlatte didn’t publish this letter publicly.  Following Chairman Grassley’s incredible delivery last night, Chairman Goodlatte just gave a copy of his FISC letter to CNN, and they’re writing about it:

CNN – […] The request, a rare demand to the surveillance court, mirrors issues spotlighted in the memo released last week by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, which alleged that the FBI abused its authority in its request to monitor a member of the Trump campaign.

Goodlatte’s letter, sent last month and provided Tuesday to CNN by his office, asks for any court records related to the application for surveillance of Carter Page, the former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser whose ties to Russian officials have become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the special counsel probe into 2016 election meddling.

“I am shocked by media reports that the FBI may have relied upon an unsubstantiated ‘dossier’ which makes ‘salacious and unverified’ claims against President Trump,” Goodlatte wrote in his January 16 letter to Judge Rosemary Collyer.

“As the Presiding Judge of the FISC, you must be similarly concerned that the Executive Branch allegedly used an unverified dossier as evidence showing probable cause that someone connected with the Trump campaign, Carter Page, was an agent of a foreign power,” Goodlatte wrote.

Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, also wrote that he has “serious questions” about whether any other surveillance requests against Trump campaign officials were made before the court based on allegations in the dossier.

The FISA court’s rules authorize it to share its classified records with members of Congress, but under the government’s separation of powers, the court would not be required to produce any documents.

Goodlatte sent a similar request for documents last Thursday to the heads of the Justice Department and FBI, at the same time as the Nunes memo was being reviewed for a public release by the White House. (read more)

Given that Judge Collyer has been provided clear evidence of multiple misrepresentations to the FISA Court (October 2016); and accepting the U.S. Department of Justice was forced to admit material misrepresentations to the FISA Court; and accepting that Judge Collyer was clearly unappreciative of the abuse of the court…. will she release?

We wait and see.

Oh boy, this is Big Timber….

Goodlatte is at the plate flexing 18″ forearms, measuring up and digging in.

Judge Rosemary Collyer 99-page prior opinion below:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

Newly revealed text messages between FBI investigative officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.” Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

The new text messages begin around Page 119 of the pdf below:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/371002694/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-rnGpaGY4OR6P8VD4nYT5