Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.

Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.

The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying?  OK gotcha.

[…]  Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly.  No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense.  No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016.  The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016.  The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016?  And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said.  (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying?  OK gotcha….  Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes.   But not political?  Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

Thanks, but I’ll just wait for the actual report… AND the declassified supporting documentation that damn sure better be a part of the release !

A curiously interesting development in the DOJ case against Michael Flynn.  Judge Emmet Sullivan is weighing the merits of the Flynn defense Motion to Compel (MTC), which requests a significant amount of information on DOJ/FBI conduct in the lead-up to Flynn’s prosecution. A decision and court briefing was anticipated soon.

However, today the DOJ files a joint motion with the defense asking Judge Sullivan to suspend scheduled briefing dates and sentencing deadlines until after the DOJ inspector general report is published on December 9th.   The implication is that some of the “Brady” material at issue; or tangential issues that touch upon the material; may be outlined in the upcoming IG report.

The joint motion asks for a delay to the briefing schedules, and a delay in the subsequent sentencing therein.  The full motion is below:

.

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.

Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.

This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:

With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.

My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.

The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?

Here’s the Nadler Letter:

(Source – pdf)

Obviously Lawfare is rushing.  They are rushing to push out this hearing on December 4th before the DOJ Inspector General drops a report on December 9th that would weaken their impeachment narrative.

HJC Press Release Link

Here is the originating House Resolution 660:

.

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks.  The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing.  The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.

Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:

.

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue.   There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court.  Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

There is a very strong likelihood the documentary material that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith falsified was actual communication from Carter Page to the FBI where Page was seeking their help in 2017.   This revelation would explain and reconcile two seemingly contrasting points:

• Point one – The media have asserted, based on leaks from the principal reviews, the woods file manipulation by Clinesmith did not impact the validity of the original FISA application on October 21st, 2017.
• Point two – The material Kevin Clinesmith did manipulate was so egregious and unethical, it stands as one of the most clear examples of corrupt FBI abuse of power in recent history.

This outline will highlight a VERY disturbing picture:

Start by remembering the timeline of the Carter Page targeting through the use of a FISA application to the FISA Court (FISC).  The original application was submitted on October 21st, 2016.  The first FISA renewal was January 12, 2017 (84 days from origination).  The second renewal was April 7, 2017 (85 days from prior renewal).  The third renewal was on June 29th, 2017 (83 days from prior renewal).

Avoid the spin, and let’s focus on the facts.  According to all reporting on the falsified evidence created by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the manipulation of the woods file, happened during one of the renewals.

Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an emailthat officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said. (NYT Link)

The renewals were: Jan 12th, April 7th, June 29th, 2017.  However, we know from the redacted release of the FISA application there was no material added in the first renewal in January 2017.   So that leaves either the April ’17 renewal or the June ’17 renewal.

We know from the Washington Post and the New York Times leaks, again based on principal reviews of the IG report content, that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith modified an email:

…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)

That means Kevin Clinesmith modified an email, which then became part of the woods file evidence (citation by FBI FISA warrant lawyer Sally Moyer) to support either the April renewal or the June, 2017, renewal of the FISA application.

Now we look to Carter Page’s reaction to the reporting on the Clinesmith manipulation:

(Source)

The stunning likelihood here is that the email Kevin Clinesmith edited and falsified as part of his FISA renewal manipulation was email communication from Carter Page himself.

It is also important to note the phrase: “and his colleagues“; and then overlay what Carter Page says there with an earlier leaked explanation: “Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own.”

It is jaw-dropping to think about the FBI team manipulating communication from the target of an unlawful investigation to continue targeting that individual.  Yes, this speaks to stunningly criminal intent…. and that criminal exposure would extend to any individual or entity participating in such an egregious, unlawful and unconstitutional violations of Page’s fourth amendment rights with a falsified application to the FISA court.

  UPDATE 5:45pm: Techno is in contact with the background participants; he is able to relay information.  Carter Page is confirming he emailed with the FBI including Kevin Clinesmith at 07:43:51 EDT on April 6th, 2017, the morning of the day before the second FISA renewal:

(source)

This April 6th date confirmation and contact timeline now makes additional sense.

Considering NOTHING was ever changed in the January renewal; and considering the DOJ/FBI legally had to have *something* change in order to get the April renewal; there would have been a great deal of pressure on FBI lawyer Clinesmith to create something if nothing existed.

Important context:  The FISA application (and first renewal documentation) was delivered to the SSCI (via James Wolfe) on March 17th, 2017, as requested by democrat Senator Mark Warner.   We know this from the release last year. This SSCI delivery is three weeks before the second renewal on April 7th.  This SSCI FISA delivery was also leaked by SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed. Keep this in mind.

Carter Page emailing with Kevin Clinesmith on the morning of April 6th prior to Clinesmith manipulating the content of an email to support his falsified documentation for the next renewal, April 7th, highlights the lack of evidence the FBI was able to discover in the seven previous months.  However, the FBI team wasn’t going to be deterred by the lack of evidence; instead they just made it up.

The timeline here is critical.

Clinesmith likely manipulated the FISA renewal in April because by law extending the FISA surveillance must be based on new evidence gathered.  In the following month Clinesmith transfers to the newly created Mueller probe. According to the New York Times and Michael Horowitz: “[Clinesmith] was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.”

The manipulated evidence FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated was then used by the team of Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller and Clinesmith for the objectives of the special counsel.

Again, another overlay, keep in mind that Robert Mueller asked Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to extend the scope of his investigation twice more after the original appointment of the special counsel.

That means Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a falsified FISA warrant as part of his investigation; and that material exploitation continued after team members within the special counsel became aware the FBI members were compromised and likely the FISA warrant application itself was falsified.

Yeah, depending on what people within the Mueller knew and when they knew it, this IG report on FISA abuses could be much more consequential than the media would currently like to admit.

Within the FBI Kevin Clinesmith was responsible for material evidence that underpinned the FISA warrant.  Clinesmith then hands that material to Sally Moyer.  Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).  Her assembly of the FBI material is to ensure the citations are in place to support the Woods File requirement.  Then she hands it off to Main Justice, the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Receiving the FISA warrant application in the DOJ-NSD is Tashina Guahar, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice.  In essence, Tashina Guahar is the working Main Justice FISA lawyer.

Shortly after IG Horowitz delivered the draft of his investigative report to AG Bill Barr last September, not only did Kevin Clinesmith leave the FBI but also Tashina Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.

In hindsight the reason for Tashina Guahar’s mysterious exit also makes sense.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) discusses the upcoming drafting of a partisan report derived from witness testimony and the likelihood of an independent minority report.   Unfortunately Rep. Zeldin, just like Adam Schiff and House leadership, is not sure what comes next (other than Thanksgiving).

Representative Elise Stefanik appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss her perspective on the impeachment inquiry.  As with all other republican members, including ranking member Devin Nunes and interim member Jim Jordan, Mrs. Stefanik has no idea where the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare goes from here.   Everything seems up-in-the-air.

.

Having listened to three interviews with Adam Schiff today as well as Shiff’s little toady, Eric Swalwell; and watching them also say they don’t actually have an outlined plan of what will come next from their “impeachment inquiry”, it all seems rather odd.

It appears Democrat leadership are taking a climate assessment of the electorate before returning to the next, and final, House session on December 2nd.  Pelosi, Schiff et al  previously committed themselves to a semi-formal process in the House resolution that began the impeachment inquiry.  However, they no longer discuss that process.

If you’ve followed our CTH review, research and analysis of the issues at hand, you will understand our position was that this situation, if true, had a very clear command expectation from U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

It has just been announced that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has requested the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer (pictured below) for violating the unified chain of command, blackmailing the President of the United States with an ultimatum, and hiding the threat from the Secretary of Defense.

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper asked for the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer on Sunday after losing confidence in him over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

Spencer’s resignation came in the wake of the controversial case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was accused of war crimes on a 2017 deployment. He was acquitted of murder but convicted in July of posing with the corpse of a captive.

Steve Bannon appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the pros and cons of a partisan impeachment.  Bannon was one of the early political observers who identified the likely entry of Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the 2020 race.

Bannon notes that Bloomberg has enough money to outlast the field; however, I doubt Bloomberg can fill a venue. If there’s no connection to the base party voter, candidate Bloomberg just can’t win the primary.