Today both Minority House Leader Kevin McCarthy and Representative Michael McCaul draw attention to Speaker Pelosi’s manipulation of House rules specifically intended to achieve articles of impeachment without Republican representation.

In a blatant display of committee manipulation, today the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Adam Schiff, worked around committee jurisdiction rules and took a deposition from Kurt Volker, the former State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.

Not only was the jurisdiction of the House Foreign Affairs Committee usurped, but Chairman Schiff also limited republican members to having only one staffer present during the testimony.  [Read McCaul Letter Here]  This blatant manipulation of House rules was made without Speaker Pelosi holding a House vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The House Rules that Pelosi changed in 2018 were designed to exploit the Trump-Russia impeachment via obstruction goal. Those same changed rules are now being used in the Trump-Ukraine effort. The committees’ need to gather impeachment evidence without the pesky interference by House republicans. This was always the purpose for changing the rules.

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.  The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it.

Without a vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up in committee without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive branch. This was always the plan visible in Pelosi’s House rules.

Thankfully key Republican leadership have now realized Pelosi’s decree of an “Official Impeachment Inquiry” is a feature, not a political flaw. They are beginning to push-back, at least call-out publicly, their lack of input around the rushed committee investigations.

House minority Leader Kevin McCarthy writes: “I have written to Speaker Pelosi to halt the impeachment inquiry until we can receive public answers to the following questions. Given the enormity of the question at hand—impeaching a duly elected president—the American public deserves fairness and transparency.”

Once the committees’ have assembled their evidence, assuming the public becomes aware of the partisan construct, Pelosi will likely initiate the full House vote to proceed with the assembly of articles of impeachment.  However, the committees’ will have already done the investigative work without republican involvement, so the full House vote will essentially be a moot point.

You are detained and questioned extensively. You answer all the questions. At the conclusion of your inquisition you are read your rights. Your attorney shows up; questioning stops.  A week later you are indicted and the material evidence against you is your statements.  This is what Pelosi/Lawfare are constructing. It doesn’t matter that the trial judge will throw it out, what matters is the indictment.

This is why there is such a massive narrative push by Pelosi, committee leaders and their media allies right now… they need to assemble evidence while republicans remain locked out of the process and committee staff (hired Lawfare) construct the articles.  The goal is impeachment.  They achieve that goal via a majority House vote on any individual article.

The ‘Resistance‘ and ‘Deep State‘ facilitators (writ large) are all-in on this impeachment effort.  Impeachment as an offense is their best defense to anything being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham, Attorney General Bill Barr and DOJ-IG Michael Horowitz. This entire group is also racing the clock.

The ‘whistle-blower’ complaint is only a vehicle; a president can be technically impeached by hearsay, innuendo and anonymous complaints – it is simply a House vote.  However, a president cannot be removed (Senate) under that impeachment case construct.

The primary goal is only impeachment from the House.

Their secondary hope is that outcome assists the 2020 removal from office.

For two days the mainstream media were breathlessly reporting on an “urgent request” from the State Department Inspector General for a closed-door meeting.

Media sources whipped their left-wing audiences into an anticipatory frenzy with predictions of devastating information soon to come from an “explosive” and “highly unusual” request.  It must must be connected to President Trump and Secretary Mike Pompeo hiding devastating information, they said…

Well, the super-anticipated ‘closed door’ briefing was held today, and the IG handed out packets of information related to revelations of Democrats colluding with the Ukraine government.  The exact opposite of what the media and the professional left anticipated.

WASHINGTON –  The State Department’s Inspector General shared a packet of months-old news stories and other Ukraine-related documents during an “urgent” briefing with Congressional staffers on Wednesday, sources told the Daily Caller.

Sources familiar with the meeting said the IG handed over a packet containing, among other old materials, news articles written this past spring by The Hill’s John Solomon about Democratic ties to Ukraine.

[…]  The briefing was a huge blow to Democrats, who were expecting bombshell information regarding the Trump administration’s contact with Ukraine and investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.

In fact, several news outlets reported earlier in the day that the briefing would be about State Department leadership retaliating against career employees who wanted to cooperate with the Democrats’ investigation into Trump. (read more)

Whether the briefing was a set-up to embarrass the media is now being debated.

While diplomatic and fierce, President Trump delivers extensive remarks to the press pool today in advance of a bilateral meeting with President Niinistö of Finland.

[Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s a great honor to have a man that’s become a friend of mine — we’ve gotten to know each other well — the President of Finland. And we have many things to discuss, including trade and military and purchases, and lots of different very exciting events.

So we’ll have a long time together today. We’ll then be having lunch. And I think we’re going to be seeing the media right afterwards and say a few words.

But it’s an honor, Mr. President, to have you with us. Thank you.

PRESIDENT NIINISTÖ: Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m waiting for our discussions.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes. Yes. See? He’s made a few words, and he gets it done. (Laughter.) That’s what I like about him.

PRESIDENT NIINISTÖ: (Laughs.) Hope so.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s what I like about him.

Anyway, okay, thank you all very much.

Q How do you respond to concerns that you are putting the whistleblower’s life in danger?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, the whistleblower was very inaccurate. The whistleblower started this whole thing by writing a report on the conversation I had with the President of Ukraine. And the conversation was perfect; it couldn’t have been nicer.

I saw Rick Scott, I saw many of the senators talking about it, many of the congressmen talking about. Not a thing wrong. Unless you heard the Adam Schiff version, where he made up my conversation. He actually made it up. It should be criminal. It should be treasonous. He made it up — every word of it, made up — and read to Congress as though I said it.

And I’ll tell you what: He should be forced to resign from Congress — Adam Schiff. He’s a lowlife. He should be forced to resign. He took a perfect conversation, realized he couldn’t read it to Congress because it was perfect; it was a very nice conversation. I knew many people were on the phone. Not only were many people on the phone, we had stenographers on the phone taking it down, word for word.

He took that conversation, which was perfect; he said, “I can’t read this.” So he made up a conversation and he reported it and said it to Congress and to the American people. And it was horrible was he said. And that was supposed to be coming from me, but it was all fabricated.

He should resign from office in disgrace. And, frankly, they should look at him for treason because he is making up the words of the President of the United States. Not only words, but the meaning. And it’s a disgrace. It should not be allowed to happen.

Q But your own DNI said the call transcript was consistent with the complaint. So, should only whistleblowers —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no, no, he didn’t say that. You have to take a look.

Q He did say that.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no, no. He did not say that. And, in fact, if you look at what he said, he found everything to be very normal. He’s a good man, and — Joe. And he found it to be very normal. I saw Schiff trying to go 15 — you know, we call him “Shifty Schiff.” We don’t call him “Shifty Schiff” for nothing. He’s a shifty, dishonest guy — who, by the way, was critical of one of the great Secretary of States. Graduated number one in his class at West Point. Graduated top of — one of the top in his class at Harvard Law School. The most honorable person, Mike Pompeo. And this guy was negative on Mike Pompeo.

He can’t — you know, there’s an expression: He couldn’t carry his “blank” strap. I won’t say it because they’ll say it was so terrible to say. But that guy couldn’t carry his “blank” strap. You understand that?

So, you’re dealing with bad people. And, you know, I watched China over the last few days, and I watched some of these other countries build up, build up, build up. And we’ve built up more than any of them because of me, but no help due to the Democrats. They’re a disaster. They’re the “do-nothing” Democrats. They don’t do any work. All they want to do is try and win the election in 2020, so they come up with this impeachment nonsense.

And everyone knows the conversation — all based on a phone call that I had, where I’m talking to the President of Ukraine. You’ll hear from our ambassadors, you’ll hear from some of the folks that know all about the call — why the call was set up and everything else. It’s perfect. The call was perfect.

In fact, Lindsey Graham said, “I didn’t know you could be so nice.” There was no quid pro quo. Remember, before they saw — the only reason I put that out — and I did it with the approval of Ukraine, by the way; otherwise, I couldn’t have done it — was because the whistleblower was so dishonest. The whistleblower said terrible things about the call, but he then — I then found out he was second-hand and third-hand. In other words, he didn’t know what was on the call.

No, these are bad people. These are dishonest people. And when the American people find out what happened, it’s going to be a great day. And you know what? We have to go back to building our country, because 99 percent of Nancy Pelosi’s time is spent on this. She should worry about lowering the price of drugs, which I’ve done. But it’s hard to do it without the help of Congress — about creating border security, which I’ve done.

We’ve built — we now have hundreds of miles of wall under construction on the southern border. She should worry about infrastructure. She should worry about the USMCA. She’s not doing it. I just saw a part of her press conference before the President came. And I’m sorry to bother you with this, Mr. President, because we have other things to talk about.

PRESIDENT NIINISTÖ: (Inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: But I will tell you, I just watched part — she says, “Oh, drug prices…” Well, she’s been trying to get drug prices down for — how long has she been in Congress? For years. She should focus on her own district. Do you see what’s happening to her district? We call it “tent city.” It’s terrible. In fact, we just sent a violation to the city of San Francisco: unsafe water, unsafe conditions, environmental — EPA.

Our EPA, which is doing a great job, is sending Nancy Pelosi, with all the talk about EPA — there’s needles and drugs all over the street. There’s tents. There’s people that are dying in squalor in the best location, in San Francisco. It used to be a great city. Now, you have to see what’s happened to San Francisco. You happen to see what — what’s — what the Democrats have allowed to happen. As an example, what they’ve allowed to happen, just take a look, to Los Angeles. Great cities.

One other thing: Yesterday, as you know, I was sued by the Governor, Gavin Newsom — he’s another beauty. I was sued by him. He’s a do-nothing. Sued by him so that I can’t get on the ballot in the state of California. It was a massive story. It was the biggest story, Mr. President. It was headlines all over the place: “Trump gets sued by this do-nothing governor in California.” It was big.

Here’s what happened: Yesterday, I won the case, very convincingly. A very tough, smart, highly respected judge — not a Trump person at all — not appointed by Trump; appointed by somebody that you would call the opposition — came out with a scathing and tough opinion. I won the case. I didn’t see one story that I won that case — not one story — from the fake news. I didn’t see Steve write it. I didn’t see you write it. I didn’t see anybody write it.

So, let me just tell you, just to finish: Nancy Pelosi and Shifty Shifft [sic] — who should resign in disgrace, by the way — and Jerry Nadler and all of them, it’s a disgrace what’s going on. And we should be focused on making America great again and keeping America great, because that’s what we have to do.

And when I look at that parade with military and millions of people and everything else, we better get smart. We better start focusing on the right things. Because what they did with this nonsense — think of it: You have a perfect — I mean, perfect, conversation with a President of another country — Ukraine, in this case — and they try and say, “Oh, let’s impeach him.”

They’ve been trying to impeach me from the day I got elected. I’ve been going through this for three years. They’ve been trying to impeach me from the day I got elected. And you know what? They failed. And this is the easiest one of all, because this one is based on one conversation.

What about Obama’s conversation with the President of Russia, where he says, “Hey, hey, tell Vlad I’ll talk to him after the election is over. I’ll talk to him…” Nobody reports that, right? That’s stuff you should report.

But you people should be ashamed of yourself. We have the most dishonest media that you can imagine. And you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Okay, I think I’ve answered most of your questions. What do you think?

Yes?

Q Finnish media here. Finland is the happiest country in the world.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Finland is a happy country.

PRESIDENT NIINISTÖ: Yeah, for sure.

Q What can you learn? What can you learn from Finland, which has a social-democratic (inaudible)?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you got rid of Pelosi and you got rid of Shifty Schiff.

PRESIDENT NIINISTÖ: We have time to discuss about that.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Finland is a happy country. He’s a happy leader, too. (Laughs.)

Q Some Republicans have raised concerns —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No Republicans have raised concerns.

Q — about the whistleblower, that their name — that the identity of the whistleblower should be protected.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t care. Look, I think a whistleblower should be protected if the whistleblower is legitimate. But when the whistleblower makes a big report on the conversation I had with a President, of Ukraine, and it was a great conversation. It was per- — we talked mostly about “congratulations on your win.” We talked about corruption. And we’re really referring mostly to 2016, because what the Democrats did in 2016 was corrupt.

And let’s see what happens. They’re more concerned with that than they are with me and impeachment. They’re trying to hide what maybe is coming. I let our great — if you look — I’ll let our great law enforcement take care of it. Okay?

Attorney General Barr, I guess, is working on it. And I hope he’s working on it. Because what happened in 2016 is a disgrace to this country. And they’re more worried about that because they know they’re guilty as hell. All right? They’re much more worried about that.

Q Is the whistleblower immediately illegitimate if they are reporting misconduct about you?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: When a whistleblower —

Q About you, sir?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay. Are you ready?

I heard the whistleblower’s report from you people, and how bad it was about just a simple conversation.

By the way, this whole thing revolves around a simple conversation. And if you remember at the beginning, it was “quid pro quo.” That’s all you heard about. And I think he said seven or eight times: “quid pro…” — in other words, “You’re going to that or we’re not going to give you money. You’re going to do this or we’re not going to…” I never said it.

But when I heard these horrible stories come out, I had no choice but to release a conversation — which I hate to do, and I hope I don’t have to do it again — with the leader of a country. I asked a certain person to call up a certain person in that country to get permission to do it; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to do it. And if I didn’t do it — and I appreciate Ukraine for allowing us to release the conversation. But it was so innocent, it didn’t hurt them. If anything, it helped them because it was a very innocent conversation.

But when a whistleblower takes that very nice, innocent — Lindsey Graham said, “I never knew you were that nice a person.” He said, “You never asked him for anything. You were really, really nice.” Lindsey was saying, “I never knew you were so nice. That was a perfect conversation.”

I heard Rick Scott today say, “That was a perfect conversation. How can they impeach him on that conversation?” He read it. He’s a very smart guy from Florida — Rick Scott — and he said, “That was a perfect conversation. How can you impeach somebody on that conversation?”

But the whistleblower wrote not that conversation. He wrote a vicious conversation. In other words, he either got it totally wrong, made it up, or the person giving the information to the whistleblower was dishonest. And this country has to find out who that person was, because that person is a spy, in my opinion.

Are you ready? So, when a whistleblower, purposely or not, gives something that’s totally erroneous — now, here’s where I fooled them. They never thought I’d release the conversation. They never thought in a million years that I’d release the conversation.

When “Liddle’” Adam Schiff saw the text, when he read it, he couldn’t believe it. When Nancy Pelosi, who worked a day early — Nancy Pelosi called for essentially impeachment — “Let’s impeach the President” — before she saw the transcript. And this is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation, right? Taken by very talented stenographers.

Q Well —

PRESDENT TRUMP: Listen to me.

So when she saw that, she was — she — I heard she went crazy. She said, “We can’t impeach him on this conversation. That’s a great conversation.” She went by the whistleblower. And the whistleblower was so bad, I would even think about it.

But here’s what happened: The whistleblower was wrong. The only thing that matters is the transcript of the actual conversation that I had with the President of Ukraine. It was perfect. We’re looking at congratulations. We’re looking at doing things together. And what are we looking at? We’re looking at corruption.

And, in, I believe, 1999, there was a corruption act or a corruption bill passed between both — and signed — between both countries, where I have a duty to report corruption. And let me tell you something: Biden’s son is corrupt, and Biden is corrupt. And I’d rather run against Biden than almost any of those candidates. And I think they’re all weak. But I think Biden has never been a smart guy, and he’s less smart now than he ever was.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Q Sir, have you actually wanted a moat on the border, sir? Sir, did you suggest a moat?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh. Let me do that again; it’s a fair question. So this morning and last night, my comms people came to me. Listen to this one, President. I’m glad they’re interested in Finland, but what can you do? I’m interested in Finland much more.

But my comms people came to me, and they said, “Sir, there’s a book or something being written.” It’s written by Washington Post people, so you know it’s inaccurate. You know it’s probably a fraud.

So two reporters from the Washington — and they said, “President Trump started screaming, ranting, and raving, that on the southern border…” — where we are right now building a tremendous wall; it’s unbelievable what’s going up. Army Corps of Engineers. It’s — we’re doing a lot. We have — we’ll soon have over 100 miles under construction and completed. We’re going to end up with over 400 to 500 miles.

Okay, ready? That I wanted a wall, but I wanted a moat. A moat — whatever that is. It’s not a word I used, but they used it. A moat. And in the moat, I wanted alligators and snakes. And I wanted the wall to be a fence, and I wanted it to be electrified. And I wanted sharp spikes at the top, so if anyone gets it, it goes piercing through their skin — is somewhat the way they said it. Skin-piercing spikes. But I want the whole wall to be electrocuted.

And, “Sir, you never said that.” They came to me — the comms people. They came to me yesterday. And they said, “Did you say this?” I said, “Why are you asking that stupid question?” “Because the fake news media is saying that you said this in a book.” I said, “What book?” And they said, “Washington Post.” I said, “Well, obviously it’s fake because almost everything the Washington Post does is fake.”

It’s a fake newspaper. It’s owned by a rich guy for the purposes of giving him power in Washington. It’s really — I mean, it’s a lobbyist — I call it the “Lobbyist Washington Post” — for Amazon. And he ought to be ashamed of himself, because what they do to his reputation — I think maybe it’s probably no good anyway. But what they do to his reputation with the Washington Post is a disgrace.

So these two reporters wrote this book, and they said I want a moat with alligators, snakes, electrified fences so people get electrocuted if they so much as touch the fence, and spikes on top. Never said it. Never thought of it. And I actually put out something on social media today. I said, I’m tough on the border, but I’m not that tough.

Okay. It was a lie. Just so you have it — you asked the question. It was a total lie. It was corrupt reporting. Okay?

Q Did you suggest —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t even “fake” anymore; I call the fake news now, “corrupt news.” Because “fake” isn’t tough enough, and I’m the one that came up with the term — I’m very proud of it — but I think I’m going to switch it largely to “corrupt news.” Because the media in this country — not everybody; we have some great reporters, some great journalists. But much of it is corrupt. It’s corrupt. You have corrupt media in this country. And it truly is the enemy of the people.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day, everybody. Go write some phony stories.
Go write some phony stories. Go write a Schiff-like story.

Just another day in paradise.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you, Steve. I hope I answered all your questions.

Q I didn’t get — I didn’t get one in.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Come here. Come here. Come here. What?
Q I was going to ask you (inaudible) limit the number of people who are listening on those phone calls —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I might. I might. Yeah. I — and, by the way, I assume many people. I always do. When I speak to a leader — if I speak to Finland, I always assume that many people are listening.

Q Yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And the other thing is that Nancy Pelosi’s account of my phone call is a total lie. I called her about guns, and then I heard her — she’s talking about impeachment. I said, “What are you talking about — impeachment?” I called her to say I’m making big progress on guns, okay?

Fellas, I don’t know if you’re with us, here.

Q (Inaudible) not here.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: But I’m saying that — and I think you have to put that out. That would be the only thing. All right. Good.

Q Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Thank you, Steve. It was a lie. Her statement was a lie. But, you know, what else is new?

Thank you, everybody.

[Transcript Ends]

President Trump is a fierce warrior for the U.S.A.  However, our POTUS is also a happy warrior, and he knows exactly how to showcase the lies and insanity of the swamp.   This is an epic tweet:

More evidence is surfacing showing how the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ complaint was a purposefully constructed political hit-job. Yes, Muh-Ukraine is much like Muh-Russia.

The New York Times reports today the CIA operative approached the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) prior to filling out a ‘whistle-blower’ complaint form.  The CIA gossiper contacted staff of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.

According to the report (written to defend the interests of Schiff et al), the CIA gossiper contacted the HPSCI after the top lawyer for the CIA would not advance his cause. We still suspect the ‘whistle-blower” is Michael Barry. Obviously the Times puts the customary spin on the information:

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said. (read more)

What is occurring is becoming clear…

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the House “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.

Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.  [You probably saw Berke questioning former Trump campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski.]

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.

This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week. Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it.  WATCH:

.

Additionally, prior to the “whistleblower complaint” the Intelligence Community Inspector General did not accept whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge. However, the ICIG revised the protocol to allow this specific complaint to be registered by the CIA whistle-blower.

Now it surfaces that the ICIG Michael Atkinson didn’t even review the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call transcript before forwarding the complaint to congress [SEE HERE]

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ‘hearsay‘.

The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.

Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.

Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.

Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.

If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.

Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.

Well, this is rather interesting.  The Department of Justice Inspector General has released a notification stating that a former U.S. Attorney within the DC Circuit was caught leaking grand jury information to an “unauthorized individual”:

(Link to pdf)

Unfortunately, “criminal prosecution” for leaking grand jury material “was declined”.

The Asst. U.S. Attorney (AUSA) is not identified by name, but the IG release notes the attorney is no longer working for the DOJ ; likely fired as an outcome of getting caught.

….with the name not being released, that leads to speculation. Also with the recipient not being named, that too leads to speculation.  Was the leak to the media, or was the leak for allied members of the ‘resistance’ in government (ie. congress).  Regardless, it is safe to accept the leaker and recipient are part of the Lawfare Alliance.

One possibility for the identity of the leaker is Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis who recently withdrew from cases involving: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Concord LLC, all cases stemming from Mueller and the scheme team prosecutions.

To be clear, we don’t know who the leaker is.  Heck, it could be Andrew Weissmann for all we know… but the timing with Curtis is, well, very conspicuous.  However, regardless of the identity of the U.S. Attorney, the primary takeaway is several fold.

First, we see U.S. Attorney’s in DC leaking grand jury information.  That is a big deal; it shows the scale of corruption with the DOJ in/around Washington DC.

Second, we see Main Justice declining to prosecute the attorney for leaking the grand jury information.  That too is a big deal.  No outsider would ever be permitted to escape that level of accountability.

Third, once again, we can see the scale and scope of total corruption within the system.

Lawfare is a very serious problem.

[*NOTE* I would insert the picture of Bill Barr playing bagpipes here, but I’m trying desperately to grant him the benefit of the doubt…]