The tangled web of corruption, deception and manipulation within the DOJ National Security Division (Lynch, Yates, Carlin, Ohr) and FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, Page and Baker), continues to pose issues of complexity when trying to outline the story.  Best advice is to ignore voices who position themselves too far ahead of known evidence. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation.

Unlike some, we will not get ahead of the primary focus. For over a year CTH has focused on the demonstrable and provable foundation of the fraud; because the foundation brings down the entire apparatus.

Following that investigative path we have found ourselves paralleling a strategic plan as outlined by actions of congressional officials (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz), and the Trump intelligence community [Mike Rogers (NSA), Dan Coats (ODNI), Chris Wray (FBI) and Rod Rosenstein (DOJ)].

Four Corners of the demonstrable justice dept. conspiracy:

1. Exonerate Clinton
2. Investigate/execute, IC surveillance of Trump.
3. Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump.
4. The Insurance Policy.

Following the exoneration of Hillary Clinton, the next phase, the “Trump Operation”, was the need for the DOJ/FBI “small group” to have access to surveillance of Hillary Clinton’s political opposition, Donald Trump.  This was the U.S. government conducting political opposition research through a weaponized intelligence apparatus (DOJ and FBI).

Within the context of #2 and #3 you’ll note the entry and exit timeline of people connected to the same task is identical.  Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion-GPS, enters the timeline at the same time Nellie Ohr is hired by Fusion-GPS (May 2016).  Both Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr exit the activity timeline at the same time as the FBI gets FISA Court “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page, October 21st, 2016.

Everything after October 21st, 2016, when the FBI has “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page and the Trump Campaign, is part of the “insurance policy”.   The Title 1 surveillance authority gave the “small group” the tools needed to execute #4, which included the 2017 “Russian Narrative” and the appointment of SC Robert Mueller.

That’s the rough outline.  Within the rough outline there are sub-chapters of how it all took place. How it all came together:  The ‘dossier’ is a sub-chapter.  The FISA warrant is a sub-chapter. Establishing Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a sub-chapter. Etc.

♦Nellie Ohr was needed because she was a go-between from Team Clinton (Fusion GPS) to her husband Bruce Ohr inside the DOJ.  Nellie Ohr relayed information into the DOJ and she extracted information from the DOJ that was passed back to Fusion-GPS and by extension Christopher Steele.

Nellie Ohr was a communication transfer hub.

♦Christopher Steele was needed because:

A) the Clinton Team (Fusion GPS) needed to wash their opposition research and have it come out as “Intelligence Product”; and B) the DOJ and FBI needed to present intelligence product to further their insurance policy goal.

The Clinton ‘opposition research’, turned ‘intelligence product’, was carried by Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, the FBI and DOJ and was leaked to the media, as needed, to script the Russian narrative.  Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (ODNI) could enhance the IC product as needed [See: ‘Russian Election’ – Joint Analysis Report].

One of their collaborative IC constructs was the Clinton-Steele Dossier.  The FBI and DOJ used the Clinton-Steele Dossier, and leaks from those assembling the Clinton-Steele Dossier, as validation for an October 21st Title I FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page.

Three corners of the conspiracy construct relied upon the FISA “Title I” surveillance:

#2) Investigate, execute, IC surveillance of Trump; #3) Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump; and #4) The Insurance Policy;

All three of those corners relied on the FISA surveillance warrant being granted.

Another example post-election use of the FISA surveillance was how the Intelligence Community positioned the story of Carter Page in April of 2017 to gain the Special Counsel appointment, ie. the Mueller investigation (another false construct.)

Expose the fraudulent construct of the “FISA Title I” surveillance and the tenuously sketchy narrative built upon it collapses.  So, what is the weakest part of the FISA Title I construct?  Answer: The Clinton-Steele dossier.

Expose the fraud behind the FISA “Title I” application and the entire scheme is revealed. Investigators expose the FISA application to disinfecting sunlight by going through the ‘Dossier’ it is built upon.

That’s why Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Chairman Bob Goodlatte are focused on exposing the Dossier (Grassley), and FISA application (Nunes and Goodlatte); each complements the other.

Here’s a related interview with Devin Nunes and Hugh Hewitt [ AUDIO HERE ]

(Transcript) […]   Hugh Hewitt: All right, now the Carter Page surveillance that was authorized by the FISA warrant that has got a glaring omission in it, a material omission that I’ve written about for the Washington Post, have you seen any of the work product or summaries that resulted as a result of that FISA warrant?

Devin Nunes: Yes, we have seen, so our investigators and Trey Gowdy, and now two other members, John Ratcliffe from Texas and Bob Goodlatte. They have, they have went through and seen all of that.

Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?

Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.

Hewitt: Were there any other warrants issued at that time that are in the category of the Carter Page warrant that raise your eyebrows about appropriateness?

Nunes: Not that I’m aware of.

Hewitt: Now the Chief Justice appoints the FISA judges. Have you had a chance to chat with him or any of the FISA judges about what went on at the FISA Court with regard to the Page application?

Nunes: This is something that we grappled with, that we’ve been grappling with all through this investigation. We decided that we wanted to complete the FISA abuse portion before we approached the courts. Our next step with the courts is to make them aware, if they’re not aware already, that this happened by watching the news, so we will be sending a letter to the court. There is a, there’s a debate now into whether just send it to the Supreme Court or to send it to the FISA Court, and here’s why. And Hugh, you’d be a good guy to actually get your opinion on this. If, somehow, this case ends up at the Supreme Court, somehow, some way, by sending a letter to Roberts, do you conflict the Court?

Hewitt: The answer to that is no.

Nunes: Okay.

Hewitt: They will not issue an advisory opinion. And since he appoints the judges and is the leader of Article III, I would think you would invite him to come and talk with the committee. ¹You can’t compel him to come, obviously, but since he appoints the FISA judges, perhaps he would accept your invitation to a closed session. Would you welcome such an appearance by the Chief Justice before a closed session to discuss the FISA process?

[¹That’s nonsense. If the House can impeach a SCOTUS Justice; the House of Representatives can most certainly compel one to testify.]

Nunes: So this is something that we have, like I said, we have thought a lot about this. And the answer is we don’t know the correct way to proceed because of the separation of powers issue. So as you know, you know, we have, I’m not aware of, I’m aware of members of Congress going to the Supreme Court and having coffee with the judges, just to shoot the bull. I’m aware of, you know, dinners where congressmen have been with Supreme Court justices. But I’m not aware of any time where a judge has, for lack of a better term, testified before the Congress.

Hewitt:  It is perfectly appropriate to invite, though you ¹cannot compel the Chief Justice. And since he appoints the FISA judges, I doubt any of them would appear without his previous appearance and his warrant to do so. But I would encourage you to do that, because I would like to see if the Chief Justice would inform you of their reactions. I believe they are not going to be amused by this footnote. I believe it’s a material omission.

Nunes: Yeah.

Hewitt: I had one former federal judge tell me that it is, it is proof, it is probative evidence of a government intent to deceive the court that they did not disclose the origin of the Steele dossier, but instead disguised it as political manufactured.

Nunes: Yeah, and I think you have a very good point, and that was our read of it, also, in that you know, so in the application, there’s, you know, you would think you would go to great lengths to say where you got this from. And then it’s almost like you had to go out of your way to put the footnote in at the end in order to disguise it so that you’ve basically said oh, no, I did say this, when the reality is you really didn’t, right?

Hewitt: Yeah.

Nunes: And what would be interesting to see, and I don’t know, I’m sure it doesn’t exist, but if you had the changes as the FISA application made its way through the process of being developed before it was submitted to the court, and when that was put in and how the wording was changed.  (continue reading)

[Remember the batting order!]  BRILLIANT !!

As the 10-page Democrat declassification request (Schiff memo) is being reviewed by the executive branch, NSC, OLC and FBI/DOJ intelligence community, media are beginning to report on a previously unknown January 16th request made by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte to the FISA Court that would render the Schiff memo entirely moot.  Media just now catching on.

Chairman Goodlatte has written a letter to Presiding FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, requesting the FBI application documents that underwrite the October 21st, 2016, “Title 1” surveillance request against Carter Page.  Goodlatte is cutting to the chase and requesting the underlying FISC material directly from the court as provided by the DOJ and FBI.

The Goodlatte request presents a very interesting dynamic because Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer was the FISC Justice who wrote the extensive 99-page opinion (based on the reporting by NSA Director Mike Rogers and the admissions from the Department of Justice) that outlined the intentional abuse and misrepresentations to the FISA Court within the FISA-702 process.  [Her Opinion HERE]

Chairman Goodlatte is writing to FISC Judge, Collyer, who is clearly on record with strong admonitions toward the Obama administration for their duplicitous use of the FISA court. In April 2017 Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats declassified the opinion written by Judge Rosemary Collyer.  [We have discussed it at length.]

The exact details of Goodlatte’s FISC request are unknown.  For reasons you can clearly identify, and unlike all other team communication, Goodlatte didn’t publish this letter publicly.  Following Chairman Grassley’s incredible delivery last night, Chairman Goodlatte just gave a copy of his FISC letter to CNN, and they’re writing about it:

CNN – […] The request, a rare demand to the surveillance court, mirrors issues spotlighted in the memo released last week by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, which alleged that the FBI abused its authority in its request to monitor a member of the Trump campaign.

Goodlatte’s letter, sent last month and provided Tuesday to CNN by his office, asks for any court records related to the application for surveillance of Carter Page, the former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser whose ties to Russian officials have become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the special counsel probe into 2016 election meddling.

“I am shocked by media reports that the FBI may have relied upon an unsubstantiated ‘dossier’ which makes ‘salacious and unverified’ claims against President Trump,” Goodlatte wrote in his January 16 letter to Judge Rosemary Collyer.

“As the Presiding Judge of the FISC, you must be similarly concerned that the Executive Branch allegedly used an unverified dossier as evidence showing probable cause that someone connected with the Trump campaign, Carter Page, was an agent of a foreign power,” Goodlatte wrote.

Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, also wrote that he has “serious questions” about whether any other surveillance requests against Trump campaign officials were made before the court based on allegations in the dossier.

The FISA court’s rules authorize it to share its classified records with members of Congress, but under the government’s separation of powers, the court would not be required to produce any documents.

Goodlatte sent a similar request for documents last Thursday to the heads of the Justice Department and FBI, at the same time as the Nunes memo was being reviewed for a public release by the White House. (read more)

Given that Judge Collyer has been provided clear evidence of multiple misrepresentations to the FISA Court (October 2016); and accepting the U.S. Department of Justice was forced to admit material misrepresentations to the FISA Court; and accepting that Judge Collyer was clearly unappreciative of the abuse of the court…. will she release?

We wait and see.

Oh boy, this is Big Timber….

Goodlatte is at the plate flexing 18″ forearms, measuring up and digging in.

Judge Rosemary Collyer 99-page prior opinion below:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

Newly revealed text messages between FBI investigative officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.” Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

The new text messages begin around Page 119 of the pdf below:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/371002694/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-rnGpaGY4OR6P8VD4nYT5

Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has a very narrow focus on the DOJ/FBI ‘small team’ involvement into the 2016 election.  Johnson’s authority focuses on how the group inside the FBI worked to exonerate Hillary Clinton despite evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

However, within that investigative oversight, Chairman Johnson is bringing to light all of the communication within the ‘small group’ which includes the text messages between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok and lead legal counsel Lisa Page during their efforts.

Toward that end, Chairman Johnson has released an interim report on findings (Senate Link Here), and as outlined below in the embedded pdf.

WASHINGTON DC – U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a majority staff report Wednesday titled “The Clinton Email Scandal And The FBI’s Investigation Of It,” along with text messages between two agents that shed light on the investigation.

The report details the congressional investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement with their investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private server.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/371001146/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-wPO2i7VBs9qTcBOINCtL

The report outlines how information available to the committee at this time raises serious questions about how the FBI applied the rule of law in its investigation. The majority staff report found that:

• The FBI did not use a grand jury to compel testimony and obtain the vast majority of evidence, choosing instead to offer immunity deals and allow fact witnesses to join key interviews.

• There were substantial edits to former FBI Director James Comey’s public statement that served to downplay the severity of Secretary Clinton’s actions, and that the first draft of the memo was distributed for editing two months before key witnesses were interviewed.

• Director Comey stated that he had not consulted with the Justice Department or White House, when text messages among FBI agents involved in the investigation suggest otherwise. Two key investigators discuss an “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency, and “OUR task.”

• Messages discuss “unfinished business,” “an investigation leading to impeachment,” and “my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.” The messages strongly underscore the need to obtain still-missing text messages and other information regarding the FBI’s actions and investigations into the Clinton email scandal and Russian involvement in the November 2016 election.

• Senior FBI officials—likely including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe— knew about newly discovered emails on a laptop belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner for almost a month before Director Comey notified Congress.

Sharyl Attkisson does a great job staying at a high-level and focusing on the big picture of how the DOJ and FBI are subordinate to the oversight of congress.   The intelligence apparatus is not a 4th branch of government, they a part of the Executive Branch and subject to the oversight of the Legislative Branch (Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee in this example).

.

Focusing on the FISA “Title 1” surveillance application, and the use of the “Clinton-Steele Dossier”, is much more important than most media are willing to outline. Attkisson knows how many more relevant implications and discoveries are within that application.

The FBI corrupt use of FISA surveillance authority, writ large, is also why Chairman Nunes began with the FISA “Title 1” application; and why Grassley is enhancing the HPSCI investigative memo with more validation and details. The FISA surveillance application against Carter Page, and the combination of the Clinton-Steele Dossier therein, is how all of that gets exposed.

There is a deluge of information now coming out of months-long parallel investigations by the House (Nunes and Goodlatte), and Senate (Grassley and Johnson), along with DOJ Inspector General Horowitz.  It can be easy to get lost amid the deluge.

Representative Jim Jordan gives a solid summary of how the information intersects amid the “small group” within a corrupt upper-tier of FBI officials.  WATCH:

A very confident House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Laura Ingraham to discuss the HPSCI Memo and the latest declassified release from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

The latest revelation(s) from the declassified Grassley memo show how the sketchy Clinton-Steele Dossier, essentially political opposition research, was used as the centerpiece of evidence presented to the FISA Court to gain a “Title 1” retroactive surveillance warrant against Carter Page, and -by extension- the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump.

A few moments ago Senator Chuck Grassley released an updated version of his memo which substantiates his prior Criminal Referral, against Christopher Steele, to the Department of Justice.

Last Friday Chairman Grassley asked FBI Director Chris Wray to remove the prior redactions and declassify the underlying supportive documents; known as the “Grassley Memo”.  FBI Director Wray did not remove all redactions; but did remove most.  Here is the newest version (pdf link here):

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370918981/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4FYurQaOGkqAtR5CXj4u

BACK-STORY BELOW:

With the HPSCI memo now in the rear-view mirror, and the content in the bloodstream of the U.S. electorate, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is next.

Toward the end of December, the FBI provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, with FBI investigative documents (likely FD-302’s) from their contacts with Christopher Steele. According to most reasonable timing we can discover Steele met with FBI officials sometime around October 1st, 2016.

From the U.K. lawsuit against Christopher Steele (pdf here), Steele admits to having shopped the Clinton-Steele dossier to U.S. media outlets “in person” in late September (New York Times, WaPo, New Yorker and CNN), and mid-October, 2016 (New York Times, WaPo, and Yahoo News), per instructions from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS):

(Source – Page #8, pdf)

Additionally, in late October, 2016, Christopher Steele briefed Mother Jones via Skype.

According to the released HPSCI intelligence memo, the FBI sought a FISA application based on the Steele Dossier on October 21st, 2016. From those UK court records at least two briefings with reporters, containing five outlets, took place prior to the FBI using the Clinton-Steele dossier in their FISA application.

The “late September” briefings with the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker and CNN took place prior to Christopher Steele meeting with FBI officials early October. The implication therein is that the FBI had to know prior to their October 21st, 2016, court application that the information they were presenting to the FISA court was being heavily shopped to media outlets. This would be immediately disqualifying.

However, in the released HPSCI memo, it is noted that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about those media engagements taking place. See:

The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016. Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses? Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“. The FD-302’s (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, would contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped – OR – show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement.

The answers to those important questions appear to be the looming in the FBI classified documents behind the Grassley criminal referral.

In an effort to get the answer to those questions into sunlight; and with the understanding that Chairman Grassley has the FBI documents; Grassley has produced a memo for declassification that facilitates understanding how the FBI used the Clinton-Steele dossier.

Like the underlying documents behind the HPSCI (Nunes) memo, the Grassley memo cannot declassify the underlying information (ie. the FBI FD-302’s). However, unlike the process in the House, Senator Grassley cannot declassify the memo and submit it for public review without approval from the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

On January 5th, 2018, The Grassley Memo approach surfaces. Grassley issues a statement on the reason for the criminal referral. He lets us know that he ALSO has a classified memo that he is trying to get released! Unlike Nunes he needs to go through DOJ:

January 24th, 2018, Grassley Speech: “Hiding From Tough Questions” – In his 17 minute speech Grassley reveals important details about his investigation into Steele and the FBI.

Thanks to the brilliant work of DaveNYviii we can walk through this carefully, and watch the outline in a logical sequence.

FIRST – The Criminal Referral:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

SECOND – The Discrepancies: “If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

THIRD – The Grassley Memo: “Judiciary Cmte has access to the same information that House Intel Cmte saw before drafting ITS SUMMARY MEMO. Our committee doesn’t have the same authority to release classified information. We have to rely on the agency to review & potentially DECLASSIFY OUR MEMO”:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

In his speech, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley lets us know that unlike Devin Nunes and the HPSCI he has to get agency approval (DOJ) to declassify his memo.

Chairman Nunes had the clearance and a process to release his memo to the Full House, Executive Branch and then to the public. Senator Grassley does not have that same process or clearance availability… Yet.