Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News for a pre-scheduled interruption to Sean Hannity’s hour long monologue. During the eight minute appearance, Graham was able to speak for 2:16 seconds and discussed: the Florida election; the intent of Jeff Flake to derail any Judicial nominations: and the likelihood of Robert Mueller continuing an investigation of President Trump. Graham is optimistic for the next congressional year.
Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law
Re-Posted Nov 15, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
CNN has filed suit over Trump banning Acosta from the White House claiming they have a First Amendment right. Trump says CNN’s Jim Acosta is ‘bad for the country’ and was ‘very rude’ to a female intern during microphone clash as White House argues in court that ‘no journalist has a First Amendment right to enter’. Actually, it will be very interesting to see how the court rules on this. Under Braswell v US, the Supreme Court held that the 5th Amendment privilege does NOT apply to corporations. There is definitely a mix-match of how the Constitution applies to corporations. On the one hand, they must be afforded Due Process of Law. However, a corporation cannot be represented pro se, it must hire a lawyer. There really is no consistent application of the Constitution when it comes to corporations
Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Nov 15, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
Attorney Michael Avenatti, who became famous for representing Stormy Daniels in her defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump, and has brought other women to testify in the Supreme Court hearings, was arrested for suspected domestic violence on Wednesday, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. The police have confirmed the arrest but state it is an ongoing investigation.
What he did in contributing to the Senate hearings along with Ford has made the United States look like absolute idiots from outside the USA. The man who says he wants to run for President in 2020 just might have blown it.
If you pause for a few minutes and look at every recent headline, and the story therein that delivers frustration;… I mean really elevate and look at the bigger issue inside each of the examples… there’s a connective thread surrounding a shift in law-and-order to focus on “criminal intent.”
“Intent”, not consequence, is now the larger shield being applied toward excusing the action of people within institutions of government and society.
Hillary Clinton was not guilty, because James Comey said they couldn’t prove intent. Recent DOJ releases highlighting: “declined to prosecute” all surround intent. Illegal alien entry, and accountability for fraud, all downplayed because there’s no proof of intent.
In the larger picture, the focus on intent -a specific decision made within the administration of justice- has become a shield against consequence.
It was a “mistake”…. he/she/it made “a poor decision” etc. A pattern of obfuscation downplaying consequence and allowing those decision-makers charged with delivering accountability to withdraw or apply the rules of law based on their individual overlay of ‘intent’.
That shift is factually visible everywhere now.
The IG report by Michael Horowitz, on FBI bias and investigative outcome, was fraught with the application of ‘intent’ inside the inspectors explanation of absent evidence toward bias. Each of these examples does not seem to be arbitrary, but rather connected to a more consequential decision by those in power to water-down accountability and open the doors for further abuse.
If the official didn’t ‘intend’ to do wrong, or more specifically if the people in position of delivering accountability for the wrong-doing, cannot find specific intent, then the action is less-than regardless of outcome. Consider what officials were doing inside the FBI regarding media-leaks, then insert the James Wolfe example here.
Considering the use of ‘intent’ as a shield we review this recent example:
FLORIDA – […] Last week, a top attorney in the Department of State wrote a letter to three Florida federal prosecutors that asked them to review “irregularities” related to mail-in ballots. The department included information that showed that voters were given the wrong deadline to fix any problems with those ballots.
The letter alleges that voters in at least four counties — Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa — appeared to have received the altered forms.
For example, if a voter’s signature on the ballot envelope was missing or did not match the signature on file, they were notified by supervisors that they had until Monday, Nov. 5, to fix their signature.
The altered forms some voters allegedly received listed Nov. 8, two days after election, as the deadline to fix the signature.
Email chains provided by the Department of State include addresses that match the Florida Democratic Party and a phone number that is an active number for the Florida Democratic Party on the altered forms.
The Division of Elections has provided the information to federal prosecutors in the Northern, Middle and Southern districts of Florida, and now, the Justice Department will determine if any laws were broken. (read more)
Following along the ideological lines of: “all actions are justified”, do you see how the shift to ‘intent’ is a serious issue within a corrupt system?
Within that system, and against that purposeful filter and determination, plausible deniability becomes the construct for intentional criminal engagement.
The voter didn’t intend to violate the law… therefore no law was violated. The Democrats who send the fraudulent instructions didn’t intend to violate the statute… therefore no statute was violated.
Everyone just, well, made a mistake.
You don’t even need to put a finger on the scales of justice, once the scales are intentionally mis-calibrated like this.
If you wonder why there is such a surrounding sense of anxiety, poor conduct, lack of virtue and general unease within the recent landscape…. I would deposit the likelihood that all of the unnerving instability around us is being caused by this shift away from consequence based entirely on ‘intent‘.
Brazen unlawfulness and abuses are now subject to arbitrary determinations of intent.
Voices selling a pending conclusion to the Mueller investigation of President Trump were dealt a set-back today as Robert Mueller files a motion with the court extending the 2016 Russian interference investigation deep into 2019.
The Associated Press is citing court documents filed within the Rick Gates case where the special counsel is requesting additional time for sentencing as an outcome of ongoing cooperation that has expanded the investigation.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Mueller isn’t done with former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates.
That’s according to a new court filing from the special counsel’s team. Prosecutors say they’re not ready for Gates to be sentenced because he is continuing to cooperate with “several ongoing investigations.” And they’re asking a federal judge to give them until mid-January before they have to give another update about his case.
The filing confirms that the investigation will extend into next year as Mueller continues to probe Russian election interference and any possible coordination with President Donald Trump’s associates. (read more)
Fortunately there is no direct notification of President Trump as the subject of the expanded inquiry, which will allow the “trust the plan” folks the opportunity to claim a magnanimous Mueller is only being diligent; and there’s no need for concern with the investigation going deep into next year.
My initial read on this is that it appears to be a counter-move by the administrative state, in response to the appointment of Matt Whitaker as Associate Attorney General.
My hunch is the Special Counsel ‘small group‘ is using court filings to extend the calendar, and thereby the usefulness of their investigation as a shield. This “ongoing investigation” blocks any unfavorable investigative inquiry which might expose the DOJ/FBI corruption.
However, I’m far more cynical than most when it comes to the intents and interests of DC, Robert Mueller, DAG Rod Rosenstein and the Machiavellian administrative state.
I personally believe Mueller’s investigation always held an ulterior purpose:
♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation. Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation. In this way Mueller provides cover for ideologically aligned deep state officials.
♦(2) Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2015, 2016, 2017. Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.
♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry. Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe; and/or block IG Horowitz from seeing material related to the FISA abuse scandal and “spygate”. In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.
In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.
However, the ‘trust the plan’ crew believes Rosenstein and Mueller are working on behalf of President Trump to confront the deep state; and everything that appears to be bad news is really just good news we haven’t discovered yet.
You decide which is more likely…
Published on Nov 9, 2018
Republican Senate Candidate Martha McSally has conceded the Arizona Senate Race to Democrat Krysten Sinema. The Associated Press called the race, and McSally was quick with a twitter video conceding the race.
As much as this is a set-back in gaining a better majority in the Senate; and as much as we need every seat to protect the MAGA agenda; the side of me that is completely adverse to the relationships with decepticon republicans means I’m not terribly disappointed.
McSally would have been another McCain, Flake, Romney, Murkowski decepticon voice amid a Senate majority that loves the Corinthian pontificators.
Back on July 22nd, the day after the July 21st surprise release of the Carter Page FISA Title-1 surveillance application, I wrote: “Oh My, This is Either A Sting -OR- The Most Corrupt U.S. Dept of Justice in History” (link). The issue surrounded the seemingly transparent connection between the James Wolfe indictment and the FISA application.
Three months later, when James Wolfe accepted a single-count guilty plea offer around lying to federal investigators, the answer seemed obvious, at least to me. Despite the evidence of leaking “top secret” classified documents within the Wolfe indictment DAG Rosenstein initially charged 3 counts of lying; and offered a lower guilty plea on one count.
Along with tenuous congressional testimony; a refusal to comply with document production; and a never-ending defense of the Mueller investigation; Rosenstein gives all appearances of an administrative state weasel. However, there are solid and reasonable people who genuinely believe both Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are doing a good, and fair, job for President Trump.
Jeff Carlson over at Marketswork does solid research and analysis. His position on Rosenstein is far more favorable than mine; and in the interests of intellectual honesty, he could be correct [Here] and [here] and especially [Here], and I could be entirely wrong.
To shorten the Carlson view, he essentially points out that neither Mueller or Rosenstein have ever taken direct positions against the President, and both have made statements claiming there is no evidence of Trump colluding or coordinating with Russia, writ large.
Carlson also points out that President Trump has spoken warmly about Rosenstein (frequently and recently), and continues to provide the Deputy AG with visible and vocal support.
Additionally, President Trump took Rosenstein’s advice and cancelled the declassification request after their meeting; seemingly another data-point toward a view that Rosenstein, at least from Trump’s perspective, is working toward his goals.
My own opinion on Rosenstein is far more cynical. However, with no-one really knowing which direction this is going, it is only fair to share an entirely different possibility. I hope I’m wrong. Therefore here’s a counter-perspective to my own cynicism.
It would be dishonest not to admit that my own history of researching politics could be clouding my perspective and judgement. Any time I have dropped the cynical view, and looked at DC swamp activity with optimism, that favorable outlook has burned me and I’ve victimized myself through my own desire to find virtue where none exists.
So it is important to share with readers, my gut instinct -driven by experience- is always to look cynically toward anything that seems altruistically optimistic.
A recent example will help explain.
I was guilty of being hopeful the June 2018 Inspector General report on FBI misconduct surrounding the Clinton investigation would have revealed the scale and scope of wrongdoing. I was hopeful that President Trump’s appointed DOJ and FBI leadership would be able to cut through the malfeasance, resulting in the delivery and support of an honest review of political bias we all know exists.
Alas, when the final version of the IG report was made public, and more stunningly when Christopher Wray held a press conference a few hours later, I realized it was a gross mistake to have projected and outlined optimism.
You might remember FBI Director Christopher Wray immediately said there was “no evidence of bias”; then, moments later, informing everyone that all 25,000 senior FBI officials would go through bias training.
Immediately after watching this I thought to myself:
How can the current IG investigation into FISA fraud and FISA Court abuse, outline corruption, malfeasance, manipulation and fraud upon the court, if the DOJ/FBI and currently expressed IG position is that there’s no signs of political bias within the institution?
The results of the second IG investigation (FBI bias), seemed to principally forewarn of the likely result of the next IG investigation into FISA abuse.
Indeed, the FISC abuse is directly related to “spygate” and the 2016 election; and that is directly related to the FBI bias and the weaponization of the FISA process. On June 14th, I immediately withdrew all assumptions, and began looking at each granule thereafter through a much more cynical lens.
However, as stated, there are intelligent people –like Jeff Carlson– who believe Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is indeed working for the cause of justice, on behalf of President Donald Trump. Therefore, here are some data points that would likely be critical to that position – if it is correct.
On August 4th, 2017, AG Jeff Sessions announces he is putting DAG Rod Rosenstein in charge of a leak investigation. [SEE HERE] Sometime in October, 2017, AG Jeff Sessions hires Matt Whitaker to be his chief-of-staff.
♦On October 30th, 2017, the FBI informed Senate Intelligence Committee Security officer James Wolfe, they were conducting a leak investigation [Link]. On December 15th, 2017, the FBI confronted Wolfe with evidence of his leaking.
After initially signing a sworn statement denying the activity; when confronted with the evidence, Wolfe admitted he lied & that he leaked information to his girlfriend, journalist Ali Watkins. James Wolfe quietly resigned from the SSCI before the end of December, 2017.
♦On February 9th of 2018, while the Wolfe indictment was still under seal – and no-one in the public knew what took place within the SSCI in December, a set of text messages between SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and a lawyer/lobbyist named Adam Waldman mysteriously surfaced. [SEE HERE] The texts showed Warner was trying to set up a covert meeting with Trump Dossier author, Christopher Steele.
♦On February 13, 2018 James Wolfe’s girlfriend Ali Watkins received a statutory notification that her email and telephone data was retrieved by the DOJ as part of their ongoing investigation into classified leaks. The date of the capture was February 1 through July 31, 2017; and would therefore include the time-frame when the Carter Page FISA application was delivered to the SSCI and leaked by Wolfe on March 17th, 2017.
It’s important to remember that we don’t find out about any of this activity at the time it was happening. None of this was public information in March, October or December 2017; or in February 2018. It is only in hindsight, after the Wolfe indictment was unsealed, June 2018, that we can put the dates and documents together.
(1) The Wolfe Indictment. (2) The Warner Texts. (3) The Watkins notification. (4) The FISA application. Alone they don’t mean much, and they all came out separately. But put them together and a clear picture emerges.
The FISA Application was delivered to James Wolfe at the SSCI on March 17th, 2017. SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner reviewed the FISA application at 4:02pm the same day. James Wolfe then leaked the content of that FISA to his journalist girlfriend Ali Watkins on the same day.
Later, in October 2017, Wolfe was notified of a leak investigation. On December 15th, 2017 Wolfe was questioned about the leaks. Unbeknownst to him the DOJ had already secured one-end of the communication network [DOJ FISA Subpoena of his girlfriends documents] which busted him in the lies.
After Wolfe was busted in December, someone gained authorization to retrieve Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages, and those became public in February 2018. (Remember, at the time they become public, we don’t know about the Wolfe indictment)
Question: Knowing there was a sealed indictment waiting in the wings, why weren’t Senator Mark Warner’s texts held as substantiating evidence?
It is my suspicion, the interview with James Wolfe (December ’17), is what tipped off the FBI to go look at the text messages of Senator Warner; which we see in Feb. ’18. It is my suspicion Warner instructed Wolfe to leak the content of the classified FISA application to Wolfe’s media sources; and when confronted Wolfe informed the FBI that’s how it went down.
To bolster my suspicion, prior to his October 2018 plea deal, what did James Wolfe immediately position as his defense?
WASHINGTON (July 27th, 2018) —Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been notified they may be asked for testimony as part of the criminal trial of a veteran Senate staffer accused of lying to the FBI while working for the panel.
Attorneys for James A. Wolfe sent letters to all 15 senators on the committee, notifying them that their testimony may be sought as part of Mr. Wolfe’s defense, according to two people familiar with the matter. [Wall Street Journal]
Additionally, Wolfe’s lawyers tried –and failed– to get a gag order put on his case.
This is a factual data-set, along with my suspicions as to how/why the FBI went looking into Warner’s text messages. James Wolfe plead guilty to one-count of lying to the FBI; and no-one has yet made any public comments about it.
Is there a solid framework for an honorable Rod Rosenstein view within this data-set?
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Nov 13, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The rumor mill has been hot concerning Malaysia and Goldman Sachs for the past two years. As it was turning into a criminal investigation Lyod Blankfein coincidently decided to step down at age 63. That was announced last March when he said he would step down by the end of the year. Then in July, Blankfein said his goodbyes. The London Financial News claimed it was an emotional departure.
Was it really a coincidence that Blankfein stepped down which appeared to be running for the exit door and then within three months the news breaks that he was deeply involved in the corruption scandal in Malaysia. As Bloomberg wrote: “Years before Goldman Sachs Group Inc. arranged bond deals now at the heart of globe-spanning corruption probes, the firm’s then-CEO Lloyd Blankfein personally helped forge ties with Malaysia and its new sovereign wealth fund, according to people with knowledge of the matter.”
It is interesting how those of us in the industry outside of Goldman Sachs have been waiting to see if the shoe will ever drop and the US Department of Justice will EVER do its job along with the SEC and CFTC. They have all been in the pocket of Goldman Sachs for quite some time. The share actually peaks intraday during March 2018 curiously when Blankfein announced he would leave at the end of the year. The highest monthly closing remains that of January 2018. Since then, the shares of Goldman Sachs have entered a decline and in the process, UNLIKE the Dow Jones Industrial Index, Goldman Sachs elected a Monthly Bearish Reversal. Now a monthly closing BELOW 215 will signal a Waterfall is unfolding with a drop back to 185 for starters. However, we have a Monthly Bearish Reversal at 220.25 and the lowest monthly closing has been 220.57. Clearly, this is hanging in there by the skin of its teeth.
Last year’s closing was 253.15. A simple lower closing at year-end will warn that Goldman Sachs is in trouble. However, even a breach of last year’s low was 206.94 intraday will signal this stock is in SERIOUS trouble. A closing for 2018 below that number will technical warn that this is an outside reversal to the downside. This will signal a drop to the 165-185 zone becomes likely.
The problem remains that Goldman Sachs has way too many people in strategic places to manipulate governments such as Alan Cohen who now serves as advisor to the Chairman of the SEC on emerging risks and regulatory developments, including the impact of Brexit, new European Union regulations (e.g. MiFID II), and issues related to domestic and international clearing and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions. Cohen was a board member at Goldman Sachs after joining the firm in 2004 as the Global Head of Compliance and a member of the management committee, where he supervised a global team that was responsible for compliance across all business and financial products, and in every major international market. That means that Cohen should have been in charge of the Malaysia agreements and as head of Global Compliance, he should have sounded the alarm over any bribes to foreign governments. Goldman Sachs has been long called on dealing desks – Government Sachs.
With Cohen as part of the executive decision process in the SEC, this calls into question whether the SEC can even be trusted to conduct an honest investigation into the Malaysia affair no less Goldman Sachs. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions: one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials.
The penalty is:
(2)(A) Any natural person that is an officer, director, employee, or agent of a domestic concern, or stockholder acting on behalf of such domestic concern, who willfully violates subsection (a) or (i) of this section shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Prosecutions have taken place if you simply pay for a vacation for some official’s children to visit Disneyland. This act makes it criminal for any such offer, gift, payment, or promise. If Cohen remotely knew of the deal and took no action, that is 5 years in prison. The same is for Blankfein. Now considering that Goldman Sachs earned over $500 million as a fee, you can probably assume that ANYONE on the board knew the deal and what the fee was exceptionally many more times what was industry standard.
Actually, I previously wrote back in 2015 about this Malaysian scandal which we all knew about behind the curtain and how it involved Goldman Sachs. In 2016 I wrote that the Federal Reserve was preparing an enforcement action against Goldman Sachs related to confidential government information that was leaked from the Fed to one of its bankers. I also wrote that Swiss prosecutors said they were helping the U.S. on the investigation. The Swiss also opened their own criminal proceedings in August 2015, against two former officials of the fund on a string of corruption charges. Their investigation has since been extended to other officials as well. It is really not a wonder why it has taken three years in the USA to even look at Goldman who has been viewed as walking on water. Don’t forget, it was Blankfein who once said that Goldman Sachs was doing “Gods work” here on Earth.
If the prosecutors in Brooklyn really want to make a name for themselves, they have the key to allegedly unlock Goldman which may lead to the biggest political corruption case ever to have existed which just make the Rothschilds look like kindergarten. So stay alert. This could be far worse than anyone knows for the tentacles go everywhere and extremely deep even into the pockets of the Clinton Foundation.
Trump himself better stay alert for this could be the key that might even ensure the decline and fall of the Democrats and the rise of third-party activity into 2024. The number of politicians who have been for sale around the world allegedly to Goldman Sachs may even be beyond count. Don’t forget, Goldman went as far as to instruct staff they were NOT ALLOWED to donate to Trump. Mueller was also on the paid-speaking circuit in recent years and paid by none other than Goldman Sachs. Hillary got $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs. It has been known that Hillary got $22 million in speaking fees that were all to buy “influence” in government. She has NEVER been prosecuted for obvious bribes
There are ongoing consequential election battles taking place in multiple states that are far more urgent than my meager outlines; and it is not my intent to distract from the more pressing matters of our political surrounding. However, there is a strong possibility the current election events are symptoms of a larger battle within government.
You see, there’s a bunch of ‘unofficial’ evidence, or data-points, that no-one can explain how or why they came to be visible. The data did not surface sequentially; but it surely surfaced purposefully from within the apparatus of government. Putting the evidence into a sequence that clarifies the picture is not easy. As a respected person recently shared:
“It’s almost like a separate discipline, sort of like textual forensics or document historiography; I don’t know how to describe it yet.”
In an earlier outline I shared the following questions:
- How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
- Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
- Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
- Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? Why?
- Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
- Why be so specific details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?
- Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
- Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence coming from?
Well, here’s my answers.
In the James Wolfe indictment, released June 8th, 2018, we find out the Senate Select Committee on intelligence was sent the FISA application on Carter Page. We don’t find out from the indictment, we only see a description: [Source Link]
Now, keep in mind this indictment as written ends without any charges of leaking classified documents. The indictment [Read Here] ends with three counts of giving “false statements to a government agency”, ie. lying to the FBI [18 USC 1001 violation]
If you read the indictment, and the subsequent charges within the indictment, there is absolutely NO REASON, for the extent of the specificity within page #6, lines 17 through 20. As pictured above. Wolfe was not charged with leaking “classified information”, yet the specific details describe the “top secret” document that was leaked.
A month later, on a Saturday, July 21st, 2018, the redacted FISA Title-1 application used against U.S. person Carter Page is released. At the time of its release, no-one was looking for it and no-one was requesting the release.
On page #54, 63, 65, 66, and 83 of the heavily redacted FISA application – the FISC Clerk copy stamp appears, drawing attention to the date of distribution, March 17th, 2017. [Source Link]
All dates within the FISA application are redacted, except for the FISC Clerk stamp dates. Curiously, this March 17, 2017, clerk stamp date is what connects that document to the description of the “top secret” document outlined in the Wolfe indictment.
Against the refusal of the DOJ and FBI to declassify supporting documents to the Nunes memo, this unanticipated weekend release of the FISA application was that much more interesting. FISA documents are not foia-able; consider the painstaking effort to get the Nunes memo released; in essence this FISA application would have been the easiest document to keep hidden. Yet, it appeared.
Additionally, another curious unanticipated and never explained document release from February 9th, 2018, overlays with both the Wolfe indictment and the Carter Page FISA application.
In February, 2018, someone, for some reason, released the text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, and a lobbyist/lawyer named Adam Waldman. [Source Link] The resulting sunlight showed Senator Warner seeking Waldman’s assistance in setting up a private meeting/interview with Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.
On page #5 of the Warner text messages, we see the date March 17th, 2017, again. The same date the Senate received the FISA application. This time we see that Warner was going into the Senate “skif” (SCIF) shortly after 4:00pm; (presumably to review the document):
Using 2018 hindsight and putting together the three documents, released six months apart [Feb (Warner), June (Wolfe), July (FISA)] the picture emerges that the Senate Intelligence Committee received the Carter Page FISA application on March 17th, 2017, delivered to James Wolfe and reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner. From the indictment, we discover the content of this document production was leaked by James Wolfe, to his reporter/girlfriend, Ali Watkins the same day.
The important notations here are: (1) two of the three sets of data were released without any specific purpose (FISA App and Warner texts); (2) no-one knows why two data points were released; (3) no-one knows who released them; (4) the FISC Clerk Stamp appears to have been intentionally left unredacted; (5) the specificity within the page #6 data within the Wolfe indictment was unnecessary for the direct purpose, yet important for the indirect purpose of connecting the data; (6) the Wolfe indictment was unsealed six months after the fact; and (7) NONE of these three sets of data were essential information at the time they were released.
This tells me, someone wanted this information into the bloodstream of public knowledge; yet non of this information was part of an official release; except the Wolfe indictment – yet it too contained unnecessary specificity within the page-6 details when unsealed.
This brings us to the critical question: Who? Who wanted this out there?
The answer to that question, is uniquely narrow when you think about the documents and the position the person would have to hold in order to influence the release.
Because of the documents in question, the person would need to be inside the DOJ. Because of the content of the documents, the person would have to be important enough to have access and knowledge of the bigger dynamic at play. This person would also need to be high enough in the food chain to authorize the FISA release and have some control over the redaction process (leaving the FISC Clerk stamp date visible). This person would have to be high enough to ‘unofficially’ release the Warner text messages, and yet not be in fear after doing it.
In my opinion, that describes Matt Whitaker – AG Jeff Sessions Chief of Staff.
Additionally, when considering another set of unsourced and very consequential data that followed the plea of Michael Flynn as demanded by the prosecution from Robert Mueller November 30th, 2017. The public releases on December 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, immediately following the Flynn plea (Strzok FISC buddy Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras), were massive in consequence, and appeared reactionary.
Those early December 2017 releases revealed: the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok removals and suspensions; the text messaging; the connections to Bruce Ohr activity (demotion 1); and the connections to Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS. No-one ever asked who was the source of that mountain of evidence against the conspiracy group.
Again, in my opinion, that information could only come from someone with deep knowledge of what was going on; and tends to point toward Matt Whitaker.
In short, I think Matt Whitaker was our behind-the-scenes ‘deep throat’; pushing information into the public consciousness that would paint a picture being hidden by opposing voices within the administrative state. All of the countermeasures became visible after Whitaker was hired in October 2017.
Again, apply common sense, what interests were served; and whose interests were undermined by this information being released?
Whitaker came in after the leak task force was in place and investigating. I believe it was Matt Whitaker who left the disparate breadcrumb trail for us to follow.
Given the nature of how hard Rosenstein and Mueller are/were working to block sunlight and the release of information, as evidenced within their recent threats against declassification by President Trump, these data/evidence points certainly did not come from their collective DOJ camp or the ‘small group’ within the Special Counsel. Factually the sunlight from the mysterious media information was adverse to their interests.
So here’s my summary:
- How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages? – Matt Whitaker
- Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application? – Matt Whitaker
- Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from? – Matt Whitaker
- Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? – Matt Whitaker
- Why? – Push back against the sketchy Mueller framework within the Flynn plea.
- Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information? – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in an effort to protect the interests of corrupt elements within the SSCI. [ Despite the leak task force identifying the leaker, the content of the Wolfe leak meant Sessions could not be the decision-maker; the recusal firewall was crossed.]
- Who wrote the initial Wolfe indictment to contain such specific evidence as to outline how he had leaked classified information? – The task force [Whitaker allies].
- Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp? – Matt Whitaker as push-back against, and evidence toward, the corrupt elements within the SSCI.
- Where did all of this “unofficial” evidence come from? – Matt Whitaker, current Acting Attorney General.
Additionally, the Office of the President is not an individual, it is an institution. There are people, mostly lawyers, responsible for the office of the president who are there specifically to protect the executive office and not necessarily the person within it. By protecting the Office of The President, they protect the president.
Part of that protection involves NOT allowing the President to posses information that could put him in a position of compromise or legal jeopardy. Therefore, in my opinion, President Trump does not have direct knowledge, nor has he been informed, of any of this.
In my humble opinion, those near the President are telling him to keep publicly expressing his distance from Matt Whitaker specifically because Whitaker is “the cleaner” for the DOJ and FBI. That’s why we are seeing this:
The President needs factual and honest deniability of knowledge, and or any involvement, in what Matt Whitaker has done (as CoS) and/or will do (as AAG) internally.
That scenario doesn’t make former AG Jeff Sessions out to be good or bad, just recused and unable to deal with the issues over the past 20 months – prior to exit.
The conflict and compromise carried by Rod Rosenstein makes him a risk to the office; that’s why Whitaker was recommended as the ‘cleaner’.
I suspect one of Whitaker’s key tools will be to oversee and then utilize the IG report on FISA abuse to expel those within the DOJ and FBI who participated. [See Here]
The deepest elements of the DC swamp will go bananas to get rid of Whitaker specifically because he is positioned to be the cleaner.
Who has given Whitaker counsel? Likely Senate Judicary Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Will this effort work? I have no idea.
There you have it. That’s my take.