When reports first surfaced that AG Bill Barr had traveled to Italy recently, we surmised the trip was likely related to Joseph Mifsud; specifically related to an audio-taped deposition that Mifsud gave to Italian police about being a western intelligence asset who was enlisted by the CIA (Brennan) to run a covert intelligence operation against the Donald Trump campaign in 2016.

If accurate, well, there’s the motive for the latest “CIA whistle-blower” approach.

The Daily Beast is now reporting that Bill Barr’s visit to Italy was exactly for that reason:

ROME–When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita on Rome’s tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who would be sitting at his right hand side.

[…] The Daily Beast has learned that Barr and Durham were especially interested in what the Italian secret service knew about Joseph Mifsud, the erstwhile professor from Malta who had allegedly promised then candidate Donald Trump’s campaign aide George Papadopoulos he could deliver Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

The Italian Justice Ministry public records show that Mifsud had applied for police protection in Italy after disappearing from Link University where he worked and, in doing so, had given a taped deposition to explain just why people might want to harm him.

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape.

A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud.  (read more)

It is unknown whether Barr and Durham actually interviewed Mr. Mifsud in person.  Some say yes, some say no.

…The Maltese Fulcrum?

Additionally, in September 2016 the FBI used a longtime informant, Stefan Halper, to make contact with George Papadopoulos, pay him $3k and fly him to London for consulting work and a policy paper on Mediterranean energy issues.

As part of the spy operation the FBI sent a female intelligence operative (a spy) under the alias “Azra Turk” to pose as Halper’s assistant and engage Papdopoulos.  A month later the FBI used Papadopoulos as a supplemental basis for a FISA warrant against Carter Page.

Former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy, told Maria Bartiromohe had seen transcripts of the Halper/Turk operation, and those transcripts exonerate Papadopoulos:

[Transcript Video 01:10] Bartiromo: I’m really glad you brought that up; the FBI agents’ discussion with George Papadopoulos. Because when the FBI sends in informants to someone they’re looking at, typically those conversations are recorded right? Those people are wired?

Gowdy: Yeah, I mean if the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired; and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls there’s going to be a transcript of that.

And some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist; but they haven’t been made public and I think one in-particular is going – it has the potential to actually persuade people.  Very little in this Russia probe I’m afraid is going to persuade people who hate Trump, or who love Trump, but there is some information in these transcripts that I think has the potential to be a game-changer if it’s ever made public.

Bartiromo: You say that’s exculpatory evidence and when people see that they’re going to say: wait, why wasn’t this presented to the court earlier?

Gowdy: Yeah, you know, Johnny Ratcliffe is rightfully exercised over the obligations that the government has to tell the whole truth to the court when you are seeking permission to spy, or do surveillance, on an American.  And part of that includes the responsibility of providing exculpatory information, or information that tends to show the person did not do something wrong.  If you have exculpatory information, and you don’t share it with the court, that ain’t good.  I’ve seen it, Johnny’s seen it, I’d love for your viewers to see it.

[End Transcript]

In the same way the 2016-2019 Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was a vehicle; a tool toward the end goal of an “obstruction” impeachment; so too is the 2019 Trump-Ukraine narrative a vehicle; a means to an end: “corruption of office”, impeachment

Both Trump-Russia (obstruction) and Trump-Ukraine (corruption) have similar footprints because they both held the same end-goal purpose, impeachment. [BACKGROUND]

Trump was framed for stealing a horse; Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on his efforts to avoid hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.

We would be well served to avoid focusing on the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, and subsequent anonymous whistle-blower complaint narrative, to understand their objective.

The background facts are not the priority for those who are constructing the impeachment articles.  Like the Russian horse, the Ukraine horse never existed. Pelosi’s political committee needs center around exploiting a manufactured corruption narrative.

We see this today in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Engel, and the demands upon Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.  Last Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.

“The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself.” (more)

Secretary Pompeo responds saying requested deposition dates “are not feasible;” and asserts Democrats’ request “can be understood only as an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly” State Dept. officials:

Back in 2018 when everything was being planned by the primary legal minds driving the impeachment effort, the Lawfare group; they did not anticipate the need for a second narrative.  [Roadmap #1 and Roadmap #2] Trump-Ukraine became necessary because the Trump-Russia ‘obstruction’ construct did not generate the needed public support.

The far-left Lawfare Alliance assembles the legal approach. Pelosi’s congressional team assembles the political weaponization of the legal approach.  Together both groups then map out the timing and sequencing.  Then corrupt government officials aligned in common purpose (remove Trump) start constructing the illusion needed for both legal and political use.  Often we call this Deep State without looking at the component parts.

In 2016 through the Mueller Report those corrupt officials included DOJ, FBI and the special counsel during Trump-Russia. For the 2019 Trump-Ukraine version, the embeds in the Intelligence Community (CIA) have literally constructed the ‘anonymous complaint’ approach.

Because the evidence needed for the Trump-Ukraine effort was hastily assembled by IC “managers”, there is a sense of urgency upon Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings and Engel to exploit its usefulness quickly; they simply cannot let another manufactured horse theft evaporate.  Time is of the essence.

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.

In 2018 we noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep} With the framework of the current effort, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.

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.

If republicans keep hammering their exclusion points during this two-week recess, Pelosi will not alter what is happening behind the scenes, but she will likely modify the sequencing.

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.

Impeachment from the House gives them a ‘promises kept’ message (base happy); weakens President Trump going in to 2020 (candidates happy); and essentially stalls any Trump policy advancement (Wall Street/Globalists/China happy).  The Senate outcome is less relevant, but the optics of a senate trial also benefit all resistance groups.

Additionally, they need the indictment, aka ‘impeachment‘, to construct a retaliation narrative that protects them -all of them- from any downstream consequences of Barr, Durham or, to a lesser extent, Horowitz.

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.

Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies.  The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame.  This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein.

There will likely be more articles other than just “obstruction of justice” (Muh Rusia) and “corruption of office” (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible.  Emoluments may also play a role.

The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on them.

The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption agenda.   Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to celebrate the impeachment of President Trump.

Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment.  We can be certain the date will be filled with maximum drama and made-for-tv effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.

What Mitch McConnell does in the senate is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

.

The DOJ responds today to the Flynn motion for additional evidence; ie. Brady material requested by Flynn’s defense.   In the governments’ response filing (full pdf below), the DOJ rejects any additional efforts to provide evidence, and requests Judge Emmet Sullivan proceed directly to sentencing:

.

Additionally, the government filed a weird appendix, intended to highlight the amount of Brady material the prosecution has turned over to the defense team.  However, it is notable the appendix is full of “summaries of” instead of the raw underlying evidence.

.

I will have more on these filings later.  Please add your input. I’m currently doing a rather detailed review of background schedules for Pelosi staff in order to outline an impeachment plan update.  /SD

Many people have wondered why Lt. Gen Michael Flynn took the guilty plea; indeed, even his trial judge, Emmet Sullivan, posed curious questions about the agreement.  Yesterday, in a very smart move on behalf of her client, defense Attorney Sidney Powell informed the court why Mike Flynn took the guilty plea on November 30th, 2017.

Background – As part of ongoing proceedings and consideration Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan had requested a status update about the ongoing cooperation of Michael Flynn in the trial of his former business partner Bijan Rafiekian.   On September 24th Federal Judge Anthony J Trenga nullified the jury verdict against Rafiekian and tossed the case.

Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, now files a motion to update trial judge Emmet Sullivan. However, in a smart legal move, and using the jury nullification within the status report, Powell also outlined the reason why her client took a guilty plea (pdf link):

As highlighted, Michael Flynn -under pressure from Mueller’s prosecutors- signed a plea to avoid his son, Mike Flynn Jr., being indicted/accused.  As we suspected General Flynn signed a plea deal to avoid seeing his son charged with a fabricated FARA violation.

It is a smart strategy for Flynn’s defense to inform Judge Sullivan -now- of the undue pressure and threat from Mueller’s assigned prosecutor Brandon Van Grack.

First, this information will help Judge Sullivan reconcile many of the troubling aspects behind the Flynn plea.  Against ongoing defense and prosecution arguments about Brady evidence, the highlight in this short status update will not be missed; it will reconcile to the court why Flynn’s defense attorney is seeking supplemental information.

Second, the timing is smart.  Strategically the next time each party squares off in court, Judge Sullivan will have a frame of reference.  Additionally, Judge Sullivan now has the legal insight of his peer, Judge Andrew Trenga; along with the thoughts and information behind why Judge Trenga took the extraordinary step of nullifying a jury decision and dismissing the case.  The DOJ prosecutors facing Sullivan will be on egg-shells.

Mueller’s corrupt prosecutors used legally sketchy FARA violations, and threats therein, against many of their targets.  Those tenuous legal theories have now been dispatched in two separate cases: Bijan Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group), and Greg Craig (Obama White House).  [Additionally the DOJ dropped the FARA investigation of Tony Podesta and Vin Weber for the same reasons.]

As a result of prior cases showing malicious prosecutions under false FARA pretenses, Flynn’s defense doesn’t have to try and convince Judge Sullivan that Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr. were being threatened by those same heavy-handed DOJ tactics.  It is now self-evident those tactics were deployed; the prosecution would be silly to try and deny their threats were present.

This explanation to Judge Sullivan, in combination with prior judicial outcomes, creates a fulsome and self-evident picture for Sullivan to see what was taking place in the background… without defense attorney Sidney Powell having to try and explain.

It will be interesting to see how the DOJ responds to the requests from Flynn’s defense counsel for further documents.  It will also be interesting to see how the explanation for Flynn’s plea is viewed by Judge Sullivan.   Here’s the recent status report by Powell:

Hat Tip Techno-Fog for the filing.

.

A second expanded scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017.  The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.  One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

Page #12 October 20th Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, The second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea. 

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted.  After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby. 

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening.  A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

But wait, it gets worse…

~ Mike Flynn Was Under a Fraudulently Obtained FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant ~

{Deep Weeds} The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.

If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).

In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.  In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes prompted]

In the two-and-a-half years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because Flynn was under FISC authorized active surveillance.  Here’s how we know:

♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper.  As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant.  “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:

The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental.  Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was under an active FISA surveillance warrant.

♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:

Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, after John Carlin left in October of 2016.  McCord would have signed-off on the Flynn FISA warrant, or any extension therein, throughout the Trump transition period.

[McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]

♦ Third, from the 2017 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), when Devin Nunes was Chairman, the four targets of the Trump campaign -under investigation throughout 2016- were outlined:

SUMMARY: ♦In real time Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying the “incidental contact” (unmasking) narrative was incorrect.  ♦Then Devin Nunes outlines the targets of the 2016 FBI investigation which included Flynn.  ♦Then Robert Mueller says Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 phone call with Kislyak.

Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the FISA court granting a surveillance warrant.

The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail to an unmasking request.  The intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and FISC authorized surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

There are only three options:

1. Incidental collection = unmasking request.
2. Direct intercept / Legal = Active FISA Title-1 surveillance authority.
3. Direct intercept / Illegal = Active surveillance without Title-1 authority.

All of the evidence from documents over the past two years indicates #2 was the status of Michael Flynn at the time of the Sergey Kislak call.

The incoming National Security Advisor of President-Elect Donald Trump was under active Title-1 FBI surveillance as granted by the FISA court.  That’s how the FBI intercepted the phone call with Sergey Kislyak and why there’s no unmasking request.

This doesn’t deal with the propriety of the FISA warrant, or the legal basis, the legal predicate that must exist prior to granting the FISA warrant.  However, accepting that Michael Flynn was under court approved surveillance reconciles all the issues.

Additionally, this would explain two more issues.  #1) President Obama warning incoming President Trump not to hire Michael Flynn as his Nat. Sec. Advisor; and #2) a very strong possibility that Flynn’s status is the redacted paragraph in the January 20th, 2016, Susan Rice memo.

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

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

I would suggest the redacted section relates to President Trump being under FBI investigation; and/or incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn being under investigation and FISA surveillance.  Hence the issues with “sharing information”.

While Michael Flynn being under active FISC authorized surveillance would indicate there’s no need for unmasking of Flynn, there would be a need for unmasking of everyone else captured within the Flynn surveillance.   Hence the dozens of White House unmaskings identified by Devin Nunes in March 2017.

Additionally, Flynn being under FISA authorized surveillance still doesn’t excuse the leak -likely by Andrew McCabe- to the Washington Post about the phone contact between Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak on December 29th, 2016.

There are likely multiple FBI 302 reports on all sorts of contacts by Michael Flynn; as the FBI was conducting political surveillance under the auspices of “investigating” and updating their files.

This FBI surveillance background of Flynn would also reconcile another unusual date within the Mueller report.  An FBI 302 written on January 19th, 2017, before the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, about Kislyak:

Flynn was under surveillance and the FBI reports on Flynn’s surveillance did not start with the January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn – As you can see above there are FBI 302 reports that preceded it.  [h/t Techno Fog]  This aligns with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Mary McCord, Devin Nunes and Robert Mueller all saying Flynn was under investigation prior to the 12/29/16 Kislyak call.

If Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell can get all of the material requested in her August 30th motion for evidence.  She will expose the fact that General Flynn was under a fraudulently obtained FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant.

In the 19-pages (full pdf below), Ms. Powell walks through the history of the DOJ, FBI and intelligence apparatus weaponization against Mr. Flynn and lays out the background behind everything known to have happened in 2016, 2017 through today.

From the corrupt DOJ lawyers who were working with Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele, including Mr. Weissmann, Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Zainab Ahmad; to the 2015/2016 FISA database search abuses; to the CIA and FBI operation against Flynn including Nellie Ohr; to the schemes behind the use of DOJ official Bruce Ohr; to the corrupt construct of the special counsels office selections; to the specifics within the malicious conspiracy outlined by hiding FBI interview notes of Mike Flynn,… all of it…. Is a stunning filing that many CTH readers are well prepared to understand.

.