Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News to discuss the current issues and political arguments around “spying” -vs- “wiretaps and surveillance”.  This interview is not quite as noteworthy as one Gowdy gave yesterday… however, the notation about someone wearing a wire into the Trump campaign is interesting. Both interviews are worth watching/mining:

.

Last night Trey Gowdy gave an interview that was much more interesting.  In last nights interview Gowdy discusses the two-page EC and FBI origination documents he reviewed where the “Trump Campaign” was outlined as the target:

Fox never uploaded this video. However you can find the interview at 07:15

[prompted, just hit play]

.

There is considerable interest surrounding a federal indictment (full pdf below) of President Obama legal counsel Greg Craig today for lying to federal investigators about his lobbying efforts for Ukraine.  However, some of the details within the indictment are being conveniently glossed over.  First the DOJ announcement:

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury today returned an indictment charging Gregory B. Craig, a Washington-based lawyer, with making false statements and concealing material information about his activities on behalf of Ukraine from the Department of Justice, National Security Division’s Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (FARA Unit).

The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu for the District of Columbia, and Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney, Jr. of the FBI’s New York Field Office.

Craig, 74, of Washington, D.C., was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for willfully falsifying and concealing material facts from the FARA Unit, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(1), and for making false and misleading statements to the FARA Unit, in violation Title 22, United States Code, Section 618(a)(2). (more)

OK, so he lied to federal investigators, right?

But what’s missing from the DOJ release, that can only been caught if you actually read the indictment, is that his lies were to Robert Mueller and the special counsel.

Now, take a look at the dates:

Mr. Craig was caught lying on October 19th, 2017.   Why wasn’t Greg Craig charged by the special counsel at the same time Mueller, Rosenstein and Weissmann were prosecuting Manafort or Flynn?  Why the delay?

Even more interesting…. why hand it off?  The Section 1001(a)(1) charge is the same exact charge applied to Michael Flynn a month later.  Why did Mueller, Rosenstein and Weissmann chose to avoid Greg Craig, pass off his case, then turn around and charge Michael Flynn with the exact same violation?

What we see here is a transparent political effort to enhance the Section 1001(a)(1) charge against Flynn (Team Trump), by hiding the Section 1001(a)(1) against Craig (Team Obama).

How long did Mueller, Rosenstein and Weissmann sit on the Craig evidence before turning it over to the DC prosecutors?  Unknown…. The grand jury was seated seven months later in May 2018, and it appears the DC DOJ also sat on the indictment, waiting to release until Mueller, Rosenstein and Weissmann were complete.  Unsealed today, April 11, 2019.

Why?

Politics.  That’s why.

As if the U.S. Department of Justice needed to showcase more evidence of their politicization, this factual timeline does not bode well for their appearances.

Additionally, Ms. Jessie Liu, the DC State Attorney who would be responsible for participating in this political effort, is also a likely candidate to be promoted inside Main Justice….. which should trigger multiple warning flares right now.  Why?…

Jessie K. Liu, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was assigned the criminal referral of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (April 19, 2018); and was in charge of the impaneled grand jury (Approx. July 2018); [9 months ago]

Given the distance from the original McCabe grand jury investigation (9 months); and accepting the current high-profile book tour by Andrew McCabe; and considering Ms. Liu is soon to exit as U.S. Attorney for DC; it would appear legal issues around McCabe are no longer looming.

Ms. Liu would also have been a decision-maker in the arrest of Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director, James Wolfe: grand jury (May 3rd 2018); indictment (June 7th 2018), non-prosecution, plea deal, and eventual sentence (December 20th 2018).

Ms. Liu is said to be getting promoted, if confirmed, to be the Associate Attorney General; the Justice Department’s No. 3 top official [replacing Rachael Brand].  None of this inspires a lick of confidence that anyone inside the DOJ is an earnest administrator of unbiased justice.   To the contrary, the DOJ and FBI corruption appears metastatic.

UPDATE: Correction to above: Mrs. Liu withdrew her name 3/28/19:  US Attorney Jessie Liu has withdrawn herself from consideration for the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department, spokesperson Kerri Kupec said Thursday. (link)

FUBAR…. all of it.

Here’s the Craig Gregory indictment.  Decide for yourself:

Boy howdy this video snippet of Maxine Waters is apropos of the bizarre results we get when voters put democrats in office. Ms. Maxine is Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee.  In 2010, as part of the Obamcare law, the U.S. federal government took over all federal student loans.  Apparently Chairwoman Waters was unaware of this….

WATCH:

.

Quite incredible those banking executives didn’t start laughing. Strong self control.

..”reclaiming my dime… impeach forty pies…. reclaiming my dime”…

With the Mueller probe complete; with AG Barr announcing a focus to review the intelligence operation in 2016; with Devin Nunes submitting criminal referrals; with Lindsey Graham probing CIA, DOJ and FBI conduct; with Doug Collins releasing ‘Spygate’ transcripts; with Inspector General Michael Horowitz closing in on the final stages of his FISA abuse investigation; and with President Trump contemplating declassification of documents applying sunlight on the Russia collusion/conspiracy hoax; there is an outrage trap which must be avoided….

The issue(s) surround President Obama and high-ranking Obama intelligence officials, notably: John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper and Sally Yates intentionally lying and/or misrepresenting issues to president-elect Donald Trump and the transition team in/around the transition period and shortly after the January 20, 2017, inauguration.

Some of the misinformation stems from intelligence officials telling direct lies (ex. telling President-elect, and President Trump he was not under investigation). Other aspects were lies of omission surrounding the Steele Dossier during the January 6th, 2017, intelligence briefing session with the President-elect in Trump Tower.

In essence, there were many misleading and false statements, with varying scales of severity, during the period from November 9th, 2016, through mid-May 2017 when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

(FBI Declarations about Comey Memos)

The FBI, DOJ, ODNI, CIA and intelligence officials were intentionally not being direct and honest with President Trump and key members of his new administration. Obviously their lack of honesty was a serious issue, and in some cases had serious ramifications.

The expressed finding by Robert Mueller’s two-year probe of ‘no Trump-Russia collusion, no Trump-Russia conspiracy, and no Trump-Russia obstruction’ has led to some hindsight reviews where anger surfaces about the now visible deception.  However, there is a trap laid here and Democrats are hoping outraged voices will walk straight into it. Some are already getting very close.

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 Corney 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 Corney to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Corney said he would.

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

As stated, many have looked at this as a “CYA” memo, but that’s not what this is.

This is a justification memo, written by an outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice to document why there have been multiple false and misleading statements given to the incoming President Trump and all of his officials.

This is not a “CYA” memo, this is a justification memo for use AFTER the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative collapsed; if the impeachment effort failed.

The “By The Book” aspect refers to President Obama and Susan Rice being told by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, that President Trump was the subject of an active counterintelligence investigation to determine if he was under the influence of the Russian government.

Even the timing of the memo, written 15 minutes prior to the end of the Obama administration, is ex-post-facto useful as evidence of the author’s intent.

Put aside the nonsense aspect to the origination of the investigation for a moment; that part doesn’t apply here…. Accept their position ‘as if’ it is substantive.

We are talking about Brennan, Comey, Clapper and Yates telling President Obama and NSA Susan Rice that President-elect Trump is under a counterintelligence investigation where the suspicion is that Donald J Trump is an agent of a foreign power.

Under that auspices (fraudulent though it may be) the incoming President is a counterintelligence investigation target. A potentially compromised Russian asset. Under this auspices all of the officials would be permitted to lie and mislead their target, so long as they did so “By The Book.”

That’s their justification for a lengthy series of lies and false statements.

That’s why FBI Director James Comey can lie to the President and tell him he’s not the target of the ongoing Russia investigation. That’s the justification for keeping the accusations inside the Steele Dossier (remember, the Dossier is evidence) from the President-elect. That’s the justification for all of the officials to lie to President Trump, and even mislead the media if needed.

The Susan Rice email is one big Justification Letter; setting the stage for all of the participants to have a plausible reason for lies to anyone and everyone.

Call out John Brennan for telling Harry Reid about the Steele Dossier during his gang-of-eight briefing, but not telling Go8 member Devin Nunes about it. Brennan escapes by saying Nunes was on the Trump transition team; and briefing a conflicted politician on the dossier would have compromised the FBI investigation. See how that works?

Call out James Comey for lying to President-elect Trump during the January 6th Trump Tower meeting…. Comey escapes by saying Trump was a target of the FBI investigation for potential compromise as a Russian asset; informing the target of the evidence against him would have compromised the investigation. See how that works?

Every lie, every omission, every false and/or misleading statement, must first be filtered through the “By The Book” prism of Trump being considered a Russian asset. This is the justification trap democrats are waiting to exploit for maximum damage and diminishment of counter attack.

The “By the Book” justification, where every action could have been taken because Trump might have been an actual Russian operative, is the weapon under the camouflage tarp as the radical left lures-in their political opposition. They shrug their shoulders and say in condescending voice: ‘well, we didn’t know; we had to be prudent‘, etc.

Getting outraged about the Obama administration’s lies, misstatements and fabrications can backfire if you don’t first think about it from their constructed frame-of-reference.

The ‘By-the-Book’ framework is based on a false-premise; but the action, just about any action, taken to mislead (even undermine) the incoming administration is excusable under this carefully crafted justification memo. That’s exactly why Susan Rice wrote it; and each of the participating members knows they can use it, when needed.

The way to get around the legal and political defense inside this justification memo is to ignore the activity of those protected by it and go directly to the origin of how they created that false premise in the first place:

♦ Prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane operation originated from fraud by exposing the CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken  by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr?]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter. Squeeze this bastard’s nuts in the proverbial legal vice.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified.

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella]

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation.

In short, avoid the “justification trap” by ignoring the downstream activity (stemming as a result of the fraudulent origin), and focus on revealing the origin of the fraud.

Attorney General William Barr delivered stunning, albeit obviously honest, remarks during congressional testimony today in response to Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen about his intent to review prior intelligence activities in targeting the Trump campaign.

Before getting to the video and transcript, it is important to note how this line of questioning surfaces.  The professional political apparatus, primarily Democrats – but also Republicans, who participated in the ‘soft coup’ effort are attempting to gauge the landscape of their risk by identifying AG Barr’s intention.  This line of questioning is NOT organic or random; it is deeply purposeful and scripted. You can smell the fear.

Shaheen is being asked by allies within the Administrative state, including interests no longer holding political office, to do advanced query…. this is political reconnaissance intended to give corrupt officials and media allies the background to: (a) scale their risk; and (b) plan their defense narrative.  They are nervous now. Very nervous.

Here’s the important transcript, (all emphasis mine):

Senator Shaheen: News just broke, today, that you have a special team looking into why the FBI opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee: who is on that team; why you felt the need to form that kind of a team; and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation?

AG William Barr: Yeah, I, uh, as I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And, uh, alot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of this has been investigated, and is being investigated, by the office of the inspector general at the department.  But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.

Shaheen:  Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?

Barr: Well, for the same reason we are worried about foreign influence in elections we want to make sure that, uh, during an election, I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.

The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government; and there were a lot of rules put in place to ensure there was an adequate basis for, before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance.  I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that; and I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but the intelligence agencies more broadly.

Shaheen: So your not, your not suggesting though that spying occurred?

Barr: I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think there’s that spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.

LONG PAUSE OF SILENCE

Shaheen: Wow, let me, uh…

Barr: But the question is: whether it was predicated. Adequately predicated. And I’m not suggested that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.

I think it’s my obligation, congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened; we have a lot of rules about that.

And, I want to say that I’ve said I’m reviewing this, I am going to, I haven’t set up a team yet but I do have, I have in mind having some colleagues help me pulling this information all together, and let me know if there’s some areas that should be looked at.

And I also want to make clear this is not launching an investigation of the FBI.  Frankly, to the extent that there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon; and so I don’t like to hear attacks about the FBI, because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization, and I think that Chris Wray is a great partner for me and I’m very pleased that he’s there as the director.

And if it becomes necessary to look over some former official activities, I expect that I’ll be relying heavily on Chris, and work closely with him in looking at that information. But, that’s what I’m doing, I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused; I think that’s one of the principle roles of the attorney general.