Every narrative needs a foundation; every investigation, false or genuine, needs a predicate upon which to launch.  Remove the predicate and everything is exposed.

The predicate is the reason why so much effort was put forth by the conspiring Obama administration; and corrupt intelligence officials; and all political operatives; and the entirety of the mainstream media; to drumbeat that “Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election.”

Without that predicate forming the motive for all subsequent action, the house-of-cards collapses; everything is exposed.

There is no amount of hindsight manipulation that can cover for a fraudulent basis of origination.  This is one of the reasons why voices like Diana West are so important.  Question the underlying assumption and the entire dynamic changes.

By now the intellectually honest reviewers of information all accept there was no effort from the Trump campaign to collude or conspire with ‘Russians’.  That narrative was always false; even Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers and FBI investigators have conceded their inability to substantiate those Trump-Russia assertions.  There never was any ‘there’there.  All effort was instead trying to set up the obstruction case.

But further back in the narrative construct, those Trump-Russia assertions are predicated on there actually being some grand conspiratorial attempt by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.  Without a factual basis for that claim, none of the CIA, FBI and DOJ-NSD operations hold any validity.

CTH has often stated one of the key ‘tells’ surrounding Rod Rosenstein was his willingness to go forth with grand public proclamations of Russian indictments. However, despite the very thin evidence behind the boisterous and promoted indictment claims, there’s no actual substance to show any interference campaign of any scale that matches the scale of the DOJ’s public protestations.  The reason for the disparity between claims and scale, is the absence of any substantive evidence.

And there’s the “tell”.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Rosenstein had no choice than to go along with Mueller’s team and their thin evidentiary proclamations behind the Russian indictments.  Without those Russian indictments, the background predicate is exposed…. and, as a direct consequence, all of the intelligence operations that are predicated on the ‘Russia Interference‘ premise begin to be exposed.

Without the Russian Interference predicate, why was the CIA running early 2016 operations against the Trump campaign?  Without the Russian Interference predicate why was the July 31st, Crossfire Hurricane operation even begun?  Etcetera… Etcetera… Etcetera…. All of it.

There’s where we find the need for the big lie.

Whenever there’s a need for a big cover-up, there’s always a need for a big lie.

The Russians HAD TO have made efforts to interfere in the election, or else the factual basis for the surveillance operation against candidate Donald Trump is naked to the world.

That’s why so much energy was exhausted framing the predicate.

“Seventeen intelligence agencies”….. The December 29th Joint Analysis Report…. The expulsion of the Russian diplomats which was an outcropping of the JAR…. The rushed January Intelligence Community Assessment…  Shoving microphones in everyone’s faces and demanding they answer if they believed Russia interfered…  All of it, and I do mean every bit of it, is predicated on an absolute need to establish that Russia Attempted to Interfere.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf below) is pure nonsense.  It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This might as well be a report blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  DUH!  Just because your grandma didn’t actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian Mafioso are targeting your employer to hold you accountable for her portion of the bill.

This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure horse-pucky.

However, what the report does well is using ridiculous technical terminology to describe innocuous common activity.   Example: “ATPT29” is Olaf, the round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and “ATPT28” is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom’s basement down the street.  This entire FBI report is nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/335307016/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-qvjYK3gLD9WdgOskmgoe

.

As time went on, and as the Clinton-Steele dossier was revealed, the 17 agency Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) grew even weaker.  In late October 2017 former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted the Clinton-Steele dossier was part of the ICA.  Eventually, our research indicated the dossier and the intelligence report were likely the underlying evidence behind the FISA Title-1 application for surveillance on Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign.

Later we discovered our independent suspicions appeared to be exactly what House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes was also investigating.

(Via New York Post) […]  After learning Obama Justice and FBI officials relied heavily on unsubstantiated rumors in the dossier to wiretap a Trump adviser during the election, congressional leaders now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.

The report was released Jan. 6, 2017 — the same day intelligence officials attached a written summary of the dossier to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave Obama about the dossier, and the day after Obama held a secret White House meeting to discuss the dossier with his national-security adviser and FBI director.

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes’ intelligence committee, for one, are now going over “every word” of the ICA — including classified footnotes — to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the dossier.

[…]  The Defense Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, State Department’s intelligence bureau and other agencies with relevant expertise on Russia were excluded, in violation of normal rules for drafting such assessments. And in another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from outside reviewers.

US intel veterans suspect the administration “manipulated” the process to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” in order to delegitimize Trump.  (read more)

Take the ‘Russia Attempted to Interfere’ predicate away and what becomes visible behind the lifting-fog is an extensive multi-agency operation, encompassing multiple intelligence institutions and all three branches of government, to conduct political operations under the guise of counterintelligence.  Yes, that’s what was factually taking place.

The Russian Interference narrative is the larger cover story.

It’s time to stop accepting it.

♦ 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.

♦ 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 vise.

♦ 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]

Diana West discusses her new book “The Red Thread” with Stefan Molyneux in a recent interview.  Mrs West asks why the conspiracy against President Trump took place; and she is one of the few people openly challenging the false narrative about Russia intefering in the 2016 election.  This is a great interview to watch:

.

“There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government — designed to stop terrorist attacks — against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic.”

“The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?”

– Book Available Here

Acting chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney appears on Fox News Sunday to discuss current political events in Washington DC.  Topics include resistance effort by House democrats; the ongoing border crisis with Mexico; the House effort to get President Trump’s income taxes from the IRS; and the upcoming release of the Mueller report by Attorney General William Barr, and Healthcare initiatives.

President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani appears on FtN to rebut the framework put forth by Jerry Nadler.  Toward the end of the combative and argumentative interview a frustrated Margaret Brennan accidentally let’s her bias surface visibly; she didn’t realize she was on camera (screen shot below).

[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re going to turn now to President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who is here with me. Would you like to respond to the congressman who says he has the right and the committee has the right for all of this information. Do you agree that the public has the right?

RUDY GIULIANI: I- I would like him to get all the information.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Including the things that are protected–

GIULIANI: Everything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –grand jury material.

GIULIANI: But I can’t control that, and I can’t change the law. And the attorney general has a difficult job, and I didn’t appreciate his suggestion the attorney general would be biased. I know Bill Barr for many many years. I think people in this town know him. He’s a man of the highest integrity. Also everything he’s doing is also being run by Rod Rosenstein. That- that report was put out by Barr and Rosenstein.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The- the four page summary?

GIULIANI: Rosenstein started the investigation, supervised the investigation allowed the special counsel to do things that I thought were kind of off base. He certainly gave them full scope to do their entire investigation. There’d be no reason why Rod Rosenstein would sign his name to something that says they found no evidence of collusion. No evidence of obstruction. They couldn’t reach a conclusion on obstruction.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

GIULIANI: So then Rosenstein and Barr did no obstruction. I- I guarantee you except for little quibbles, I’m not worried about the report at all. There’s no way those two good lawyers would have written that kind of letter if there’s any issue.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president waiving all executive privilege? I mean he said publicly he thinks this report should be made public?

GIULIANI: The- the president’s cooperation with this investigation it was unprecedented. Bill Clinton fought every single subpoena. And- and it was a knock down drag out battle.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But then he did ultimately sit down and do it.

GIULIANI: That’s why he had to–

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president never did, though.

GIULIANI: That’s why the president didn’t have to because they couldn’t win in court. They had every piece of information. They couldn’t suggest a question they didn’t have the answer to because we supplied him with the answers to everything and the president did answer questions in writing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I want to ask you about that, but to be clear here, is the president waiving all executive privilege?

GIULIANI: As far as I know, he has. But he can’t waive all executive privilege. There are also other people that have executive privilege that are involved–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there will be information withheld from this report?

GIULIANI: I don’t know, Margaret. I don’t know. The attorney general has said he’s going to put out the maximum amount of information possible. The only thing that will stop him will be legal barriers. I hope there are a few because I don’t like what Jerry Nadler just did. Innuendo and there must be more- look. Jerry Nadler prejudged this case a year ago. He was- he was talking about impeachment. He was overheard on Amtrak talking about impeachment well before the report came out. So when he talks about the attorney general being biased, my goodness, and on his committee he’s got some of the most rabid people that hate Trump. This is- we’re not going before a court here. We’re going before a political body–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well do you- do you fear that–

GIULIANI: –that is highly partisan and has made up its mind.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve- you and the president have welcomed the four page summary. Do you think that the 400 page report is going to be more damaging?

GIULIANI: No. I don’t think so.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you- when you say you–

GIULIANI: I’ll give you another reason I don’t think that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –you support the disclosure though.

GIULIANI: –when- when the leakers–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Will the president tell the attorney general to make all this public?

GIULIANI: President has left it to the attorney general. President can’t make the decisions about–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you just said he’s not decided on executive privilege yet.

GIULIANI: The president has told the attorney general, has told everybody, the world, “I am comfortable with everything being released.” Now the president can’t change the law. Now the attorney general has to apply that. He is- he wants to do maximum transparency. I’m sure we’ll get just about all of it. I hope we get all of it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think then that the interview that the president didn’t sit for but provided written answers to will you make those answers public if you support full transparency?

GIULIANI: I’m not going to make anything public. The attorney general will make it public if he believes it should be made public.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well can’t the president decide to make his own answers public?

GIULIANI: Once it’s all over, maybe. Let’s see what the attorney general does first. Why don’t we wait until the attorney general files the report and then if we want to complain about it we can complain about it. I have another- I have another–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you confident there will be no evidence of obstruction of justice–

GIULIANI: I’m going to show you why–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –in these 400 pages?

GIULIANI: I’m going to show you why I’m confident there’ll be no evidence of anything really bad because the leakers- and Nadler was wrong about that too- the Mueller- Mueller group has been leaking all along. How did CNN end up at Roger Stone’s raid?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well they have their own explanation as to good reporting there.

GIULIANI: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But for 22 months, you have to acknowledge the special counsel’s office–

GIULIANI: Hell no.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –did not leak.

GIULIANI: Hell no. I got plenty of, “they’re saying this, they’re saying that.” They knew all about our battle over questions–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you like–

GIULIANI: –they knew about the positions we took.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But- but you’re- you’re impugning their credibility and their contact. But you are actually accepting and supporting their conclusions–

GIULIANI: Far more credible. Yes, because–

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a bit contradictory.

GIULIANI: No, it’s not at all Margaret. He was cleared–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re accusing them of bias but you agree with their conclusions.

GIULIANI: That’s because there is no evidence. If- if they could have found anything, if Andrew Weissman who was crying at Hillary Clinton’s losing party, couldn’t find anything. If Ms Rhee who was counsel to the Clinton Foundation couldn’t find anything, believe me, there was nothing there. And they tried to make things up. They put so much pressure on people, keeping them in solid confinement.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Republicans shouldn’t be pushing back on full disclosure of the report.

GIULIANI: No Republican’s pushing back on full disclosure of the report. I haven’t heard any Republican that isn’t in favor of full disclosure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well in terms of- Jerry Nadler’s making an argument–

GIULIANI: Jerry Nadler is making a–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –on different grounds–

GIULIANI: –is making a phony–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –of constitutional oversight.

GIULIANI: He’s making a phony argument. Jerry Nadler can’t change the law. The law is the law. The attorney has to apply the law. Jerry Nadler is a biased, completely predetermined– does- does he want us to believe that he’s going to give us a fair hearing?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Should- do you think–

GIULIANI: He announce- He announced–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –do you think- he just said that he wants–

GIULIANI: –some of his members have announced a year ago that he should be impeached.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He just said he wants to have perhaps some of the investigators come before his committee and answer questions. Do you support that?

GIULIANI: Why for a political show?

MARGARET BRENNAN: No but it–

GIULIANI: Why?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not? They have oversight.

GIULIANI: We-we- Mueller–

MARGARET BRENNAN: If some people in the Justice Department did think the president committed obstruction of justice, shouldn’t they be heard out? And if there’s nothing to it–

GIULIANI: Well–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –why not allow it?

GIULIANI: Can we listen to the report first? The four leakers or the leakers who leaked to The New York Times that there are problems in the report. Did you notice a leak no specific? I can’t imagine that the reporter didn’t ask. Give- give me an example–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well–

GIULIANI: Give me an example of something in the report that suggests that the President obstructed justice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Some have argued that–

GIULIANI: No examples–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –it’s almost forcing Barr’s hand though to follow through and not keep that public–

GIULIANI: Oh- oh–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –but private.

GIULIANI: These people who hate him- that we’re willing to commit close to a criminal act to say there are bad things in the report, if they have some dynamite they’re not going to give it to the guy?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president–

GIULIANI: I can’t–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is the president considering a pardon for Michael Flynn?

GIULIANI: President is not considering pardons at this time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And he wouldn’t for Michael Flynn?

GIULIANI: You mean ever ever ever in the whole history of his presidency?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you not discussed it?

GIULIANI: How do I know?

MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven’t discussed it?

GIULIANI: Yes we discussed it at the very beginning and decided the whole question of pardons would be put off.

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Michael Cohen, you just heard Chairman Nadler there talk about the offer that was made by Cohen’s attorneys to come in and provide some of this information.

GIULIANI: Yeah that’s pretty hilarious.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They have text messages. Apparently recordings according to the attorney. What is on this?

GIULIANI: If- if Jerry Nadler wants to convince me he’s interested in the truth then he should be recommending a prosecution of Cohen for his last appearance before the Congress when he lied about–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well he is going to jail.

GIULIANI: No no no–

MARGARET BRENNAN: He’s going to prison for that–

GIULIANI: Wait- wait–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you confident though that–

GIULIANI: Just be–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Cohen doesn’t have damaging information–

GIULIANI: Margaret. Margaret–

MARGARET BRENNAN: on these millions of- of bytes he claims he has?

GIULIANI: –he’s going to jail but after he got convicted of that and after he promised to cooperate and tell the truth he went before Congress and he made a fool out of the committee. He was asked, “did you have ever- did you ever ask for a job? He said, “No I never asked for a job.” Yes he asked for a job. He asked me to get him a job. He asked 100 other people to get him a job and there is a tape, contemporaneous tape, with Chris Cuomo in which he says I want to be chief of staff and Cumo says, “good luck Mike. I hope you get it.” Direct absolute perjury trying to make himself look like he’s not a disgruntled office seeker–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t think he has–

GIULIANI: –material information.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –anything damaging to the president in all these recordings he claims to have.

GIULIANI: No I have, I have no I have no confidence that these people care about the truth, Chairman Cummings told him–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But as to what Cohen has–

GIULIANI: Please. Chairman Cummings told Cohen when he started this testimony very dramatically, “If you lie-” I don’t know if you said I’ll hang you to a cross or I’ll throw the book at you or- I haven’t seen him throw anything at him. He lied about a job he lied about a pardon he lied about foreign representation he lied about three others things–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m still not getting an answer on that question of whether you think there’s damaging information that Cohen has. We have to leave the interview here.

GIULIANI: Cohen has already spilled his guts so you don’t think he has anything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t think he has anything?

GIULIANI: He has–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Alright.

GIULIANI: –nothing at all incriminating on– Here’s the disappointing thing for Jerry Nadler–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Mayor, we have to leave it at that–

GIULIANI: And all the- all the Democrats, the president did nothing wrong.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Mayor–

GIULIANI: They’re chasing him, harassing him. This is a total political endeavor now. If we put out that whole report or almost all of it and it clears the president, they should not be continuing this investigation. It’s a political witch hunt.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Alright. Mr. Mayor thank you very much.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

Margaret Brennan giving Giuliani the ‘just shut the hell up’ posture and eyeroll…

As often stated, Democrats are not trying to use the ‘impeachment’ process in the technical sense of the word; in the words of House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler they want to use hearings to show President Trump guilty of “betrayals to the public interest“, a purely political construct.

While this interview is somewhat insufferable to watch, it is valuable from the sense of revealing the political scheme as the House plans to continue advancing the Russian collusion-conspiracy for maximum political value.  Chairman Nadler is very forthcoming in the plan, watch:

.

Nadler plans to use his committee throughout the summer for show-trials with witness testimony from the Mueller investigative group, starting with Robert Mueller.  The Democrats will then extract testimony from some of the rehearsed 19 lawyers and 40 FBI investigators to advance their narrative.

DAG Rod Rosenstein is entirely responsible for this mess.  Rosenstein set this entire ‘obstruction’/’conspiracy’ case in motion with a designed and intentional appointment of Robert Mueller.  Together with the assembled small group, they are still working through a carefully orchestrated plan.

This is a long way from being over…

It is likely President Trump sees where this is going, and realizes exposing the origin of the fraud is his best political defense.  Unfortunately, if President Trump goes first the media will water down the backstory about how the DOJ and FBI was/is weaponized to take down his presidency.   So team Trump have to wait until after the Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and Cummings team go first.

The important part of this dynamic to recognize is how the overall larger deployment of the scheme is still ongoing.  The FBI through Chris Wray, David Bowditch, Dana Boente and the career office investigators/officials, many of which have worked on the plan for over three years, are still working against the administration.

Whether the top suites of Main Justice (DOJ) are still participating is unknown.  Attorney General William Barr’s motives and intents are still unclear, and caution should be applied.

With Rosenstein and Mueller still participating in the greatest soft-coup in our nation’s history, there is obviously a great deal of pressure on AG William Barr to join his life-long friends, get rid of Trump and gain the accolades of the administrative state.

Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen, Rod Rosenstein’s replacement, is having his confirmation hearing Wednesday April 10th.

FBI Director James Comey was fired on Tuesday May 9th, 2017.

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

These McCabe statements line up with with text message conversations between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok – (same dates 5/9 and 5/10):

(text message link)

It now appears that important redaction is “POTUS” or “TRUMP”.  [Yes, this is evidence that some unknown DOJ officials redacted information from these texts that would have pointed directly to the intents of the DOJ and FBI. WARNING: Don’t get hung on it.]

The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”

McCabe responded: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”

However, again referencing his own admissions, on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

Recap: Tuesday-Comey Fired; Wednesday-McCabe starts criminal ‘obstruction’ case; Thursday-McCabe testifies to congress “no effort to impede”; Friday-McCabe and Rosenstein discuss Special Counsel.

After the weekend, Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

Now, overlaying what we know now that we did not know in 2018, to include the John Dowd interview and McCabe admissions, a very clear picture emerges.

On Tuesday May 16th, Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to talk with the target of the ‘obstruction’ criminal investigation, under the ruse of bringing Mueller in for a meeting about becoming FBI Director.  This meeting was quite literally advanced reconnaissance.

The next day, Wednesday May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group.  Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.

Now, with hindsight and full understanding of exactly what the purposes and intents were for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to bring Robert Mueller to the White House, revisit this video from June 2017:

.

The DOJ (Rosenstein) and FBI (McCabe) activity in coordination with the Robert Mueller team was always about the obstruction case from day one; heck, even before Robert Mueller was appointed.

The totality of all effort has always been to protect the ruse of the Russia investigation by throwing out nonsense Russian indictments and keeping Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos (the original spygate targets) under control…. while the focus was on building the obstruction case against President Trump.

It could not be any more clear than it is today.

[Link]

It’s all about controlling the “narrative”.

In a series of tweets today President Trump smartly directs attention to the origin of the operation to create the Russian Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, calling it a “con job”, and “made up fraud”.

Calling attention to the origin of the fraud avoids the justification trap we have previously discussed.  Additionally, focusing on the beginning of the corrupt operation helps contrast the pending conclusions as released by AG Bill Barr and the Mueller report findings.

The Trump-Russia investigation was based on a fraudulent premise, purposed for use by a  weaponized and politicized intelligence apparatus including the CIA, DoS, DOJ and FBI.  It is also the origin of the feces that holds the greatest risk to those who constructed the surveillance operation.

President Trump avoids the issue(s) surrounding how President Obama and high-ranking intelligence officials (Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Yates), intentionally lied and misrepresented themselves to Trump and the transition team, and instead focuses directly on the origin of their fraud.

Some of the intentional 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.

There were many misleading and false statements, with varying scales of severity, during the period from November 9th, 2016, through 2017.  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 by media voices where anger surfaces about the now visible deception.

However, there is also a trap laid here and Democrats were hoping outraged voices would  walk straight into it.   Obviously President Trump is avoiding that bait by going directly to the origin of their operation.

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.

♦ 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]

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.

Not A Tick Tock

Everything about last year’s headline story just two-weeks before the mid-term election was weird; including the refusal of the FBI to state what ‘specifically’ was the material suspect Cesar Sayoc was accused of using to create his Acme-looking pipe bombs. [Full Indictment Here]

You might remember: FBI Director Christopher Wray outlined during his remarks that the devices consisted of PVC pipe, clocks, batteries, wiring and “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction”.

The FBI director went out of his way to state: “these were not hoax devices.”  The DOJ case, which has taken places in New York’s Southern District (SDNY) then moved to seal all court filings and the case against the nut continued behind the curtain of ‘national security’.  Suspect Cesar Sayoc was scheduled to go on trial this summer on charges relating to the pipe bombs.  However, on March 21st, he entered a guilty plea before a federal judge in New York.

In a new development Cesar Sayoc has written a letter to the judge (full pdf below) trying to walk-back the statements put before him by lawyers in his guilty plea.  Obviously Mr. Sayoc is a person of unstable disposition, but his written statements speak to the nature of issues which have always seemed rather odd.

Here is his letter:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/405195016/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-hFstyHJ5e00OmfdK7wGS

.

Also, according to this article there are two letters.  I can only find one:

[…] In letters filed on the court docket by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, Sayoc indicated that he wanted to change his answers to questions about the bombs he sent, whether they were lethal, and whether he intended harm or knew his devices could kill people.

During his guilty plea, Sayoc said he was “aware of the risk that it would explode” even though he only intended to intimidate people, but in one letter he told Rakoff, “The devices would never explode or worked. The fireworks were sparkler type.” (more)

Many CTH readers are familiar with legal/political cases we have followed and how evidence within those cases are described by officials and law enforcement.

Sometimes we find carefully selected word assemblies that indicate suspicious motives within the authorship.   With that in mind, I would strongly suggest re-reading the original statement by FBI Special Agent David Brown, as he describes the packages and process:

(pdf link to indictment doc – page #2)

Something about this entire event stinks to high heaven.

I’m not prone to wild conspiracy theory; and readers here well know our objective: The Truth Has No Agenda”.   That said, with an understanding that 40 FBI agents knowingly participated in a two-plus year operation into a Russian election conspiracy-collusion theory that never existed…. there’s something seriously sketchy here.

My suspicion is this entire DOJ/FBI operation against President Trump is much larger, and ended up encompassing many more tentacles, than we are currently aware of.

We know current FBI Director Christopher Wray is in his position specifically because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein lobbied for him and recommended him to President Trump in 2017.  We also know that Wray hired Dana Boente in early 2018 as FBI chief-legal-counsel.  It has always looked like Wray hired Boente specifically because he knew Boente was part of the original team. In essence, Dana Boente could protect the small group interests.

Dana Boente was Acting AG after Sally Yates was fired, and both Rosenstein and Boente signed the July 2017 FISA Title-one surveillance renewal on U.S. person Carter Page.  That FISA was for the exploits of Robert Mueller; and the revised ‘scope memo’ followed a few days later (August 2nd).

Now…. stay with me….. Some people have pointed out that Rosenstein and Boente were retained by Trump, during the new administration changeover, as a way to position Rosenstein and Boente in a favorable light.  Those same voices have framed the same favorable position toward Robert Mueller.  Hopefully, by now, with all the information about Mueller and his corrupt team, that outlook has been abandoned.

We know from interviews given by President Trump that he retained Rosenstein and Boente at the behest of nominated but not confirmed Jeff Sessions.  President Trump, following a typical executive business structure, was deferring decisions on deputy positions to his primary cabinet officers.  Trump was/is also an outsider and didn’t know all of these people and/or their skill-sets; he relied on advice from those closest to the systems.

If you look with hindsight we can clearly see an established network objective that never stopped.  The post-inaugural goal of removing President Trump was extensive, massively so, and it continues today.  Now, I’m going to embed links to back up this next series of statements – please follow them to absorb the larger context.

All research indicates Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller were working together immediately after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey {GO DEEP}. The May 16th oval office meeting was most assuredly a part of this {GO DEEP}. A review of the activity also shows part of the Mueller/Rosenstein and ‘small group’ plan was to drag out the collusion-conspiracy narrative into the 2018 mid-term election {GO DEEP}. Taking the House was part of the motive for dragging out the case. That’s also why Rosenstein told President Trump NOT TO declassify the documents and used the ‘obstruction’ threat to accomplish that goal in September 2018 {GO DEEP}  We also know the 19 DOJ lawyers and 40 FBI agents who worked with Mueller were from the original 2016 crew {Go DEEP}.

Now,… is it a ‘conspiracy‘ to see a strong possibility those same DOJ/FBI institutions, who are comprehensively opposed to President Trump; and who also hold a self-interest to avoid their own risk and behavior; would not work in October 2018 to frame a narrative that would help ensure the mid-term election against President Trump?

If you were part of the corrupt FBI apparatus as described (keep in mind the scale of at least 40 corrupt known agents – likely many more); and you were part of an underlying corrupt DOJ apparatus; it would not be challenging to frame a disturbed and unintelligent Cesar Sayoc toward the election goal that was critical to the long-term impeachment plan; and then bury all the details through the use of the anti-Trump DOJ offices in the SDNY.

Who also works in the New York Southern District?

James Comey’s daughter.

Friends, this thing is much bigger than it appears.

RESEARCH CITATION LINKS:

• Overview of “Spygate” soft coup.
• Overview of Barr Letter and how it aligns.
• Overview of What’s Inside Mueller Report.
• Overview of How Mueller and Rosenstein Started “obstruction case”
• Overview of Cesar Sayoc Pleading.
• Overview of 19 desperate DOJ lawyers, and 40 FBI Agents.

If you ever have time, just grab a cup of coffee and read through those links above to recent articles CTH has written on the subject.  As always all internal citations are embedded for you to make up your own mind.  It might take a while, but if you can come up with alternate explanations for the thousands of data-points outlined… let me know.

From our reference point, this conspiracy is very large and very real.