There has been a great deal of speculation about FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page leaking to media in their efforts to shape stories conducive to their pro-Clinton/anti-Trump efforts. Prior reporting showed the strong possibility Page and Strzok were leaking to the Wall Street Journal.
“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.
“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?” (link)
Some new information today, and some additional research, and we can not only confirm the prior suspicions outlined by John Solomon (The Hill) – but we also discover the actual Wall Street Journal reporter they were leaking to.
Yesterday Senator Chuck Grassley released a series of text messages between Page and Strzok (full pdf here). Within the release there is a portion of messaging where Lisa Page is identified on the phone with “Devlin” (see page #5 – screen grab below):
[Peter Strzok is ‘INBOX’ and Lisa Page is “OUTBOX’]
It now appears the “Devlin” in question is former Wall Street Journal National Security reporter Devlin Barrett, currently with The Washington Post.
Here’s why? On October 28th, 2016 (as above), at the exact time the re-opening of the Clinton investigation hit the media news-cycle, Page and Strzok were texting. From the released messaging we see at 5:19pm Lisa Page is on the phone with “Devlin”:
♦Page: 5:19pm “Still on the phone with Devlin. Mike’s phone is ON FIRE.”
♥Strzok: 5:29pm “You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there’s news on.”
♦Page: 5:30pm “He knows. He just got handed a note.”
♥Strzok: 5:33pm “Ha. He asking about it now?”
♦Page: 5:34pm “Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now.”
This October 23rd, 2016, “scoop” aligns with the internal text messaging discussion between Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page who were discussing James Comey’s chief-of-staff James Rybicki recommending that FBI Asst. Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe should be recused from the Hillary Clinton investigation.
From the messaging the recusal was discussed mid-through-late October 2016:
00:52am …”if it’s a matter similar to those we’ve been talking about lately”…
It looks like the sourcing for the exclusive report by Devlin Barrett, on the controversy of Andrew McCabe and his financial connections to Clinton/McAuliffe, was again Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; key people within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
A third likely connection related to the relationship between Strzok, Page and Devlin Barrett comes after Barrett leaves the Wall Street Journal and begins working for The Washington Post.
Barrett’s use of Page and Strzok on this story is actually quite odd because the story is about Page and Strzok.
On December 15th, 2017, after the revelations behind the Mueller investigation having to remove Agent Strzok and Attorney Page as a result of the Inspector General outlining their extreme political bias, the couples text messages were immediately part of the story.
One of the Barrett Washington Post stories was about those messages between the couple communicating via phones “that can’t be traced”.
National security journalist Devlin Barrett wrote a story specifically using “sources” to explain the context of the Page/Strzok message about phones was to hide the affair:
By Devlin Barrett – Two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from a spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to people familiar with the matter.
The two officials, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page and senior counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, are the subjects of an internal investigation that has roiled the FBI and emboldened its Republican critics who have accused the bureau of political bias. Had Page and Strzok used personal phones instead, people close to case say, it’s unlikely their text messages would have come to the FBI’s attention.
The texts, a trove of which were released by the Justice Department this week, have raised questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russian officials to interfere with the presidential election. Page and Strzok, who have declined to comment, were involved in both. (read more)
In this example there’s a really odd dynamic about using the subject of the article as a source of information on the subject of the article. “According to people familiar with the matter”, is likely to be Peter Strzok and Lisa Page themselves.
That’s perhaps the weirdest example of journalistic ethical juxtaposition in the past few months. Again, “sources say” now appears to be reporter Devlin Barrett writing an article based on direct information from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were the subjects of the story. Obviously they would have a vested legal interest in shaping/spinning that story in a very specific direction.
Knowing that DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok were key sources for Barrett’s stories at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, you can go through all of his old articles at both publications and clearly identify stories were Strzok and Page were leaking to him.
Lastly, knowing Strzok and Page were key DOJ/FBI investigators on: #1) the Hillary Clinton investigation; #2) the Trump/Russia Counterintelligence Investigation; and, #3) the Robert Mueller investigation; and knowing they were leaking to the media to shape the outcomes of their own investigative narrative in each example; it makes you wonder who else within the DOJ and FBI team was also leaking to the media.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte is a key figure in the overall investigation and reform effort needed within the U.S. Justice System because the House Judicial Committee holds primary oversight over the U.S. Department of Justice.
By statutory construct the DOJ and FBI are directly and primarily accountable to Chairman Bob Goodlatte and the House Judicial Committee, on all matters. This primary oversight structure is why Chairman Goodlatte and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz are working so closely during the ongoing justice department investigation.
Chairman Goodlatte appears on Sean Hannity television show to discuss one of the more concerning and troubling recent revelations about the FBI; and their investigative bias within the Hillary Clinton investigation and subsequent surveillance on her political opponent Donald trump.
It is interesting this text sequence from FBI agent Peter Strzok happens on the same day (September 10th, 2016) that Hillary Clinton made her infamous “Basket of Deplorables” remark. –SEE HERE–
♦The FD-302 is an FBI form that is used to document interviews/interrogations. It details questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.
♦The FD-1023 is an FBI form that is uses to document meetings between FBI and sources. It does not necessarily discuss what was said. It is also called a CHS Report. (Confidential Human Source).
The 1023 gives extensive detail about the informant and what is to be asked, as well as ‘by whom’ and ‘where’ and ‘when’. However, it does not give the informants answers or details of the meeting. That is where the 302 comes in. The 302 reveals the content of interview, as well as identifies all participants.
The investigative 302’s and 1023’s would identify people involved on both sides; the informants (sources) and the DOJ/FBI personnel in contact with the sources. This is a critical part of the investigative material needed to understand what was taking place during the FBI investigation.
Remember the investigative batting order: Nunes first (Intelligence Community), Grassley 2nd (FBI and Steele Dossier), Goodlatte 3rd (DOJ via OIG), and IG Horowitz is clean-up with his year-long investigative evidence. Each committee chair has a specific role to play in the investigative outline and breaking down all of the inherent issues.
Robert Mueller is trying to build a possible obstruction case to take down Trump. There is no case for a conspiracy with Russia. Mueller is certainly not a fan of Trump as the rumors paint it in Washington. Nothing would crown his career more than taking down a president.
Trump is often his own worst enemy. He clearly does not understand the legal system. Granted, he knew there was no Russian connection. If there had been, it would have been leaked to CNN and it would be around the world months ago. Mueller, in my opinion, has abused his entire authority for he was charged to investigate a Russian connection. That failed, so he has to find something to do to justify all the money he gets.
Trump had ordered the firing last June of Mueller according to leaks. He eventually backed-off after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive. This is being called the “West Wing Confrontation” and Mueller learned about the episode in the process of interrogating former and current senior White House officials.
Mueller is examining a possible obstruction case to bring down Trump and chalk one up for the Bureaucrat team. The real question is rather blunt. Is this now a personal vendetta since there was no Russian connection? If a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate let’s say you killed someone and that proves to be false, should they then make a case against you for tax evasion just so they win something? Is that abuse of power itself? Seems to me Congress should be investigating Mueller for abuse of power.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, releases a new batch of text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page (full pdf).
In the text exchange Peter Strzok is ‘INBOX’ and Lisa Page is ‘OUTBOX’
Additionally, Chuck Grassley sends a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray (full pdf) with questions about the substance surrounding the Text Messages.
Always remember the batting order: Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was first up; closely coordinating with Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (2nd up); closely coordinating with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (3rd up); all of them coordinating with the DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz (clean up). This is a long developed plan.
In order to carry out the entire reform operation, communication is made through public letters. Sunlight is part of the strategy. Questioning each other publicly and answering each other publicly is part of the strategy… the media is not used to this. Deception needs whispers. Deception doesn’t like transparency.
IG Michael Horowitz shares his responsive letter to Grassley, Nunes and Goodlatte (pdf link here). Pay attention to Page#1 second paragraph, and the last paragraph on page two:
Beginning Page #1, Paragraph #2: Inspector General Michael Horowitz is openly responding to Senator Grassley, saying the FBI told his office the exact same thing about losing the Strzok and Page text messages.
However, in paragraph #3 Horowitz states as a result of the congressional action; and as a result of Attorney General Jeff Sessions responsive engagement therein; his office received the pressure (help) it needed to get DOJ/FBI forensic tools activated to find the texts.
This is exactly why the White Hats (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte and Horowitz) are communicating publicly. They are using public pressure, ie. outrage therein, upon the DOJ and FBI to force compliance.
The White Hat team are telling us, the public, what is going on. We are responding to what is going on. Our response to the sunlight is causing changes in behavior. That internal (amid themselves) and external (with public) communication collaboration is needed because the entities within the DOJ and FBI are working against investigative interests.
Those who have participated with the historic corruption within the DOJ and FBI are trying to stop oversight from exposing their activity. The oversight is smartly using public sunlight to expose the road-blocks; this approach puts the internal corruption team on their heels.
It is critical to understand how this intensely modern-era communication plan is using social media (and new-media leverage), to working around the traditional U.S. media who align with the Black Hats in the DOJ and FBI.
The text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strozk and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were originally released to Fox News and CBS. SEE HERE and SEE HERE.
The messages reflect a strong bias against President Trump. However, the bigger story is not the anti-Trump bias within the text communication, the BIGGER story is why the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), began even looking at Agent Peter Strozk’s communication in the first place.
Remember, the original mandate by the Inspector General’s office was initiated to review and discover any politicization of the FBI and/or DOJ officials.
After news broke of Strzok’s removal from investigative duty within the FBI counterintelligence unit, what the OIG responding statement said was for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein:
In essence the IG began looking for any investigative issues that might show how political bias might have resulted in manipulated or changed investigative outcomes. Potentially those outlined issues are brutally unethical, and most likely unlawful. Emphasis:
“The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review of allegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 election stated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review.
The OIG has been reviewing allegationsinvolving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.”
It was within this IG investigation that SOMETHING pointed the investigative agents in the direction of FBI Agent Peter Strzok. What that something was and is remained an unknown variable in early December as the stories first broke. The outcome of the subsequent OIG inquiry led to Agent Strzok being removed mid-summer from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
There was some precipitating event that led the IG to investigate the communication of FBI Agent Strzok. That precipitating event or behavior is where the real story lies, and not in the downstream collection –and current release– of biased text messages between Strzok and his mistress FBI Attorney Lisa Page who worked for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Against the backdrop of current activity, and knowing there is a newly established special joint task force within the DOJ and FBI to identify leaks, we can reasonably speculate Agent Strzok was caught while the IG was investigating politicization, and the DOJ/FBI leak task force was hunting intelligence “leakers“.
As Judicial Committee Representative Jim Jordan rightly outlined, Agent Strzok would not likely be removed because he had biased text messages with his mistress. So long as that bias did not interfere with his work duty, there is no inherent issue. Strzok was not in a position of supervision over Lisa Page so they could encounter like rabbits to their black-hats desire if their relationship was known by FBI leaders. [Though there could be a blackmail angle specifically due to the counterintelligence nature of Strzok’s job.]
If FBI Agent Strzok was a “leaker” to the media, or worse, well, that becomes an entirely different kettle-o-fish. It appears from the text messages both Strzok and Page were leaking to The Washington Post and Politico. Getting caught as a leaker is likely the original reason Strzok was removed and reassigned to the HR post; not necessarily the bias; those discoveries came later.
The bias, writ large, becomes an issue later when there’s evidence of action taken as a result of that bias. Agent Peter Strzok leaking information to the media; his changing the outcome of an FBI investigation into a political ally, Hillary Clinton; and his investigative involvement in the Trump Russia Conspiracy, via the Steele Dossier and FISA-702 abuse; and his role in targeting political opposition, well,that’s the real issue evident here.
AUGUST 2017 – […] A former FBI agent who worked with Strzok on and off over several years in the bureau’s counterintelligence division said that Strzok’s move to HR means he has now been separated from counterintelligence work altogether.
[…] Strzok’s departure also came one week after The Washington Post reported that Mueller had obtained a search warrant to raid the home of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The Post report cited “people familiar with the search,” prompting questions about whether anyone on Mueller’s team had leaked the existence of the search warrant to the Post. (link)
Which leads us to the next headline story, EARLY DECEMBER 2017, that dovetails into this ideological weaponization by FBI/DOJ/DC officials leaking to the media.
Donald Trump Jr. has now written a letter of complaint to the House Rep. K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican who is heading the House Intelligence inquiry into Russian election interference. Don Jr’s outline specifically focuses on the erroneous leak to CNN about the content of a received email; and requests an investigation into how the leak took place:
[…] Republicans suspect that the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat, leaked the erroneous “scoop” to CNN. They say his staff regularly leaks, with CNN being a favorite, with a spin that is not accurate.
Mr. Schiff, who is a big fan of the discredited Trump dossier, appeared on TV afterward. Mr. Futerfas said he misrepresented his client’s testimony.
[…] Mr. Futerfas’s implication is that the leakers let the story catch fire on social media and other venues before correcting it.
“Ranking Member Schiff and his staff do not leak classified or confidential information, and any disclosure of non-public information by the congressional committees undertaking investigations is singularly unhelpful,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “It is imperative that all investigations into Russia’s covert political interference campaign operate with appropriate discretion and refrain from publicizing information for short-sighted political gain.” (read more)
Having some idea of how these DC investigative practices work, it is highly doubtful that Don Jr’s attorney self-initiated that complaint on his client’s behest.
There is a strong possibility the investigative unit, the new leak task-force, and/or the IG office, needs that initiating complaint in order to continue targeting the potential subjects of the leaks.
Given the recent activity surrounding the House Intelligence Committee, there is a better than good likelihood Minority Chairman Adam Schiff is one of the targets; and if the pattern exhibited within the Strzok investigation is followed, Schiff’s communications might also be monitored within the net as it is cast.
FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s former boss was Bill Priestap, FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence. [The same Bill Priestap James Comey stated was the person who decided not to tell congressional oversight of the investigation] Bill Priestap’s boss was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was also Lisa Page’s boss. Directly above McCabe in the chain-of-command was FBI Director James Comey. The Chief Legal Counsel for the entire unit was James Baker.
Notice how things are seeming to gain speed within the daily/weekly discovery cycles?
Amid the latest Democrat dismissive statements surrounding evidence of FBI and DOJ having a ‘secret society’ of anti-Trumpers, and bias in Mueller’s FBI probe, Representative Matt Gaetz discusses events with Tucker Carlson:
According to a Fox News exclusive report the Department of Justice has found the missing text messages between Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page, and is in the process of recovering them.
(FOX NEWS) Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Wednesday night on “Hannity” that the Justice Department has started recovering some of the missing texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, citing DOJ sources.
Federal law enforcement officials had notified congressional committees that a technical glitch affected thousands of FBI cellphones between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017. This meant that 5 months’ worth of texts would be missing from Strzok and Page, both of whom are under scrutiny after it was revealed that the former members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team exchanged anti-Trump texts during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Hannity said sources at the DOJ told him they have begun to recover some of the texts from that time period. Specific content from those texts has not been released.
The missing messages have caused problems for the Justice Department inspector general’s office.
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have sent a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz noting that the IG’s office said on Dec. 13 that it had all the messages between Strzok and Page between Nov. 30, 2016, and July 28, 2017.
Lawmakers later learned of the five-month gap.
The lawmakers said they wanted the IG’s office to “reconcile” those two points.
The five-month stretch of missing messages covers a period of time that includes President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the firings of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James Comey and the standing-up of former FBI Director Mueller as special counsel to investigate alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 election. (link)
Robert Mueller’s investigation has climbed all the way up to Donald Trump himself. He is now demanding to interrogate Trump under oath in hopes of getting him on a perjury charge as he desperately tries to take him down on an obstruction of justice charge chalking one up for the Bureaucrats he has been protecting.
When Hillary was questioned by Comey, he didn’t even take notes. That is NEVER done and it was intentional to ensure she would NEVER be charged with anything. Mueller is clearly taking the direct opposite approach. He is obviously positioning himself to try to take Trump down on obstruction of justice since he cannot show he conspired with Putin. This is all about trying to Impeach Trump, and it is in accordance with the totally arbitrary rules for Impeachment that demonstrate there is no real rule of law in such matters.
This is how corruption is played out in the JUST-US Department. It is never about ethics or the rule of law. It is about how to win at all costs on anything even when they are dead wrong. The probe that was supposed to be about Russia interfering with the US elections turns into charging people with tax evasion and everything other than the purpose of the probe.
There is just no rule of law anymore. Comey and Mueller are former Department of Justice colleagues, and they have a work-related friendship. That is not considered to be a conflict of interest. Both are just bureaucrats and like the police, they need not be best friends to have each other’s back. There should have been ZERO contact. Working together is still a conflict of interest. Typically, even a CEO spends more time with his personal assistant than his wife even if there is no affair on the side. We all spend more time with the people we work with than typically anyone else. But of course, they do not consider Mueller working with Comey a conflict. Had he NOT known him at all, he would have charged Comey with leaking documents to the press with is also a felony.
This has been a war of Bureaucrats against Trump – make no mistake about that. He is not one of “THEM” and they only want career politicians in Washington. All others please get out. Mueller is out to overthrow the White House if he can.
Meanwhile, Senator Ron Johnson confirms that informant’s text messages infer there are bias issues in the FBI against Trump. He confirmed also that others are saying they have additional information about a secret society within the FBI trying to sabotage Trump to take him down as an outsider. There is clearly a war going on inside the bureaucracy and it is all about keeping control in Washington.
Thanks for the great conference in November–I really enjoyed it.
I thought you might want to use this quote some time, which would well relate to the present FBI scandal. It comes from Wm. Penn, whose “Some Fruits of Solitude” is included in Book 1 of the Harvard Classics Five Foot Shelf of Books. (The three authors in book 1 are Ben Franklin, John Woolman, and Wm. Penn)
Each sentence or idea in the “Solitude” is numbered. The one that I wanted send to you is no. 354.
354: The Prince cannot be preserv’d, but where the Minister is punishable: For People, as well as Princes, will not endure “Imperium in Imperio” (meaning An Empire within an Empire).
JTB
REPLY: Yes, we have a very DEEP STATE and it is trying to defend itself by taking down Trump. They are completely destroying our future. They only see their own power and to hell with democracy, ethics, or God. It is all about them.
You’ve likely begun to hear about this letter from DOJ to Devin Nunes. Please read it and evaluate. Important Tip: Notice the DOJ/FBI are referencing the Nunes Memo from a perspective of they know what the underlying documents are:
Notice all the inherent assumptions within the letter?
As a reminder, always question the assumptions.
♦Assumption #1 – The DOJ is presenting this letter to Devin Nunes from the position that the Nunes Memo is underpinned by documentary evidence they have provided. The DOJ provided FISA documents and FBI investigative documents, and they are assuming that’s the underlying material.
♦Assumption #2 – The DOJ is presenting this letter, and it is being interpreted by almost everyone, including Adam Schiff and media, to center around the Nunes Memo being written about, or including, FISA documents.
There is nothing to indicate either of those assumptions are correct. In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that nothing about those assumptions are correct.
Secondly, how can ranking member Adam Schiff write a rebuttal memo to the Nunes memo, without any knowledge of the underlying evidence behind Nunes claims?
Again, more assumptions are needed. ie. Schiff has to guess at the underlying evidence based on what he can read from the Nunes memo. If he does that, he’s going to screw himself.
Here’s what is going on:
Think about the Nunes memo for a moment.
What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”? From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017. In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.
No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Devin Nunes, has actually seen the full material. Therefore people are ‘jumping to conclusions’ based on their own inherent reference points.
People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes.
Now, as I go forward with this you’ll be lost unless you have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERE – Remember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:
[…] Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.
The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI. It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.
Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.
Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]
♦ Now, HERE IS WHERE YOU NEED TO PUT ON A “Politics only” FILTER.
Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?
Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?
If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it. If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read more – Critical to understand)
Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled by ODNI Dan Coats for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see.
Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him. Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself. Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.
Sneaky Schiff used this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”. It worked.
However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes (and maybe DNI Dan Coats) has any idea what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017. However, we have an idea from his statements.
It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017. It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information, Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns.
After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.
WATCH:
1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.
“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
•“Who was aware of it?”
•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”
•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”
Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]
Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns. April 4th, 2017Susan Rice appears:
With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell. This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘, to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.
Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer. Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.
You already know the routine. MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice. Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas) The full interview is below:
However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.
In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….
So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap). Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.
See where this is going?
.
See how that works?
.
Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material. That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.
This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing. Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017 MSNBC statement for additional context:
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.
That right there is the story. With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.
Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.
The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.
If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.
Reverse the safety. No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama. They had no choice.
Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking. She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence. She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.
Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes. The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value. The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.
The interview goes much further. There is a lot of news in this interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review:
.
Summary: In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, this PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.
Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located. No-one else does, including Adam Schiff.
Now do you see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 