Interesting timing all things considered…. Michael Flynn removed and replaced his prior legal defense counsel, Covington & Burling, after asserting their ineffective and legally conflicted representation. [NOTE: former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a partner at Covington & Burling.] As a result of Sidney Powell taking over the Flynn defense, his prior counsel was supposed to turn over all client materials and evidence in the case.
After some recent jaw-dropping revelations in the case; which may include evidence highlighting how the FBI participated in framing Michael Flynn; and certainly contains evidence of an unethical prosecutorial agreement with the former defense counsel, to coerce a guilty plea by threatening to arrest Michael Flynn Jr; suddenly today Covington & Burling discover an additional 6,800 pages of evidence they conspicuously omitted.
The timing is very sketchy and Judge Sullivan does not appear amused. After receiving the supplemental notice of case material transfer (full pdf below) Judge Sullivan issues an order to the Covington law firm to re-re-review all of their case files and file a notice of compliance by Monday May 4th.
Judge Sullivan has been very favorable to the position of the justice department throughout the case, but it appears even he is starting to question all of these “unintentional” miscommunications and material coincidences that paint a very challenging picture for the prosecution to explain.
Here’s the filing from the Covington law firm where they attempt to explain their new discovery and why they failed to present this material over the past ten months.
Oh, whoopsie daisy…. There was a “miscommunication“.
.
Ms. Sidney Powell’s outlook on this case appears to be gaining momentum.
Lt. General Michael Flynn’s plea was based on: (1) a framing by the FBI; and (2) a threat against Michael Flynn Jr. if his father didn’t sign the plea.
If the reports are accurate it is very likely Judge Sullivan will allow the plea to be removed. If the documents are as strong as outlined the entire case could be dismissed.
Amid stunning new revelations and evidence in the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, Sean Hannity invites Flynn’s legal counsel Sidney Powell on his show so she can listen to him talk about it.
But seriously… I’m not kidding… watch this bizarre interview. Sean Hannity asks Sidney Powell several times to talk about the case against Roger Stone. What the heck?
Instead of asking questions about the case and her court filings, Hannity goes on to talk about what his sources are telling him about the documents that Ms Powell filed. This is the most odd non-interview you might ever watch. Something is VERY wrong here.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson provided some additional insight into the Flynn documents that were filed with the court last Friday noting the potential for the documents to be unsealed tomorrow. According to an earlier report by Maria Bartiromo the documents relate to notes taken by former FBI legal counsel James Baker; and surround the events that encompassed the FBI interview of General Flynn in January 2017. WATCH:
.
In a supplement to the defense motion to dismiss [pdf here] we discover some of the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct turned over by the DOJ to the Flynn defense. Specifically Lt. General Michael Flynn’s plea was based on: (1) a framing by the FBI; and (2) a threat against Michael Flynn Jr. if his father didn’t sign the plea.
If the reports are accurate it is very likely Judge Sullivan will allow the plea to be removed. If the documents are as strong as outlined the entire case could be dismissed.
Because the exhibits had to be filed under seal, they are heavily redacted; however, Flynn’s defense counsel, Sidney Powell, has asked the court to release & unseal the full content of the exhibits so the world can see the coercion behind the corrupt plea agreement.
The Mueller prosecution team lead by Brandon Van Grack put the agreement and threat in writing, but they also made a deal with the former defense team to hide the terms in an effort to cover-up their misconduct. Coercion to force a plea is unethical and unlawful.
According to the latest court schedule the deadlines are noted below. Michael Flynn’s new motion to dismiss is filing #181; the documents filed under sealed are item #182:
It is possible for the #182 documents to be unsealed prior to any motions on their content. According to Tucker Carlson these documents may be unsealed tomorrow.
Apparently, the seal documents include notes taken by former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker the FBI meeting where agent Peter Strzok and agent Joseph Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn at the White House.
According to Bartiromo James Baker’s notes are exculpatory in that they show the intent and purpose of the FBI interview was to frame Lt Gen. Flynn.
James Baker was removed from his position December 21, 2017, approximately three weeks after Flynn signed the plea agreement on November 30, 2017.
Baker’s removal from his position as FBI counsel was around the same time when SSCI Security Director James Wolfe (FISA leaker) was removed from his position at the Senate intelligence committee. James Baker remained in his position until he resigned from the FBI on May 4, 2018, right in the middle of what we know were FBI cover-up operations.
When James Baker resigned the James Wolfe indictment was hidden & sealed (since March ’18); the Julian Assange indictment was hidden and sealed (since March ’18); and two months later the FBI lied to the FISA court (July 12, 2018). {Go Deep}
.
One note of caution… There is another “James Baker” in the mix.
Col James Baker was the handler for CIA/FBI operative Stefan Halper. Col James Baker is likely the source of the original Flynn-Kislyak leaked transcript to the Washington Post.
Therefore a possibility exists the “Baker” notes or emails might pertain to Col James Baker, and not FBI Counsel James Baker. We’ll have to wait and see…
Former HPSCI Chairman, and current HPSCI ranking member, Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss several matters of importance. One of the critical topics touched is the ongoing investigations of Obama era intelligence and political surveillance via the DOJ-NSD FBI, CIA, DNI and State Dept.
Representative Nunes hits the key point when he highlights current redactions and current decisions to classify ongoing investigative documents. It is critically important to accept this reality. There are current intelligence officers and career officials in place hiding material by labeling evidence as classified. A recent example was the December 9, 2019, inspector general report about the manipulation of FISA. [@2:30 to @3:00 of video]
Who is doing these redactions?
.
There is an ongoing cover-up operation with its origin going back to June, July and August in 2018 led by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, AAG John C Demers, FBI Director Chris Wray and FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente. That cover-up continues through today.
Start by reminding yourself of a series of documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, 2020. [SEE HERE] Within the release there is a rather alarming letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court dated July 2018. [Link to Letter]
After the FISA Court reviewed the December 9, 2019, inspector general report, the FISC ordered the DOJ-NSD to declassify and release documents related to the Carter Page FISA application. In January the FISA court ordered the DOJ and FBI to release certain materials making them public for the first time.
That FISA court order is what led to the DOJ submitting documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That court order is what led to the judiciary committee current document release. The current FISA court is forcing sunlight on the DOJ and FBI.
In the cover letter for this specific release to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees, the DOJ cites the January 7, 2020, FISA court order:
Keep in mind that prior to this release only the FISA court had seen this letter from the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).
As we walk through the alarming content of this letter I think you’ll identify the motive behind the FISC order to release it.
First, the letter in question was sent by the DOJ-NSD to the FISA Court on July 12, 2018. It is critical to keep the date of the letter in mind as we review the content.
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found. On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA redactions:
As you can see: Christopher Steele is noted as “Source #1”. Glenn Simpson of Fusion-GPS is noted as “identified U.S. person” or “business associate”; and Perkins Coie is the “U.S-based law firm.”
Now things get very interesting.
On page #8 when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the DOJ notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.
This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.
Let’s look at how the IG report frames the primary sub-source, and specifically notice the FBI contact and questioning took place in January 2017 (we now know that date to be January 12, 2017):
Those interviews with Steele’s primary sub-source took place in January, March and May of 2017; and clearly the sub-source debunked the content of the dossier itself.
Those interviews were 18-months, 16-months and 14-months ahead of the July 2018DOJ letter to the FISC. The DOJ-NSD says the sub-source was “truthful and cooperative” but the DOJ doesn’t tell the court the content of the truthfulness and cooperation. Why?
Keep in mind this letter to the court was written by AAG John Demers in July 2018. Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein was Deputy AG; Christopher Wray was/is FBI Director, David Bowditch was/is Deputy, and Dana Boente was/is FBI chief-legal-counsel.
Why would the DOJ-NSD not be forthcoming with the FISA court about the primary sub-source? This level of disingenuous withholding of information speaks to an institutional motive.
By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?
It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.
In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex. Bob Mueller is a “dear friend” of current AG Bill Barr.
This letter justifying the FISA application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
This is not simply a hunch, because that motive also speaks to why the FISC would order the current DOJ to release the letter.
Remember, in December 2019 the FISC received the IG Horowitz report; and they would have immediately noted the disparity between what IG Horowitz outlined about the FBI investigating Steele’s sub-source, as contrast against what the DOJ told them in July 2018.
The DOJ letter (July 2018) is a transparent misrepresentation when compared to the information in the Horowitz report (Dec 2019). Hence, the court orders the DOJ to release the July 2018 letter so that everyone, including congressional oversight and the public can see the misrepresentation.
The court was misled; now everyone can see it.
We can see it.
The content of that DOJ-NSD letter, and the subsequent disparity, points to an institutional cover-up; and as a consequence the FISC also ordered the DOJ to begin an immediate sequestration effort to find all the evidence from the fraudulent FISA application. The proverbial fruit from the poisonous tree…. And yes, that is ongoing.
Moving on… Two more big misstatements within the July letter appear on page #9. The first is the DOJ claiming that only after the application was filed did they become aware of Christopher Steele working for Fusion-GPS and knowing his intent was to create opposition research for the Hillary Clinton campaign. See the top of the page.
According to the DOJ-NSD claim the number four ranking official in the DOJ, Bruce Ohr, never told them he was acting as a conduit for Christopher Steele to the FBI. While that claim is hard to believe, in essence what the DOJ-NSD is saying in that paragraph is that the FBI hoodwinked the DOJ-NSD by not telling them where the information for the FISA application was coming from. The DOJ, via John Demers, is blaming the FBI.
The second statement, equally as incredulous, is at the bottom of page nine where the DOJ claims they had no idea Bruce Ohr was talking to the FBI throughout the entire time any of the FISA applications were being submitted. October 2016 through June 2017.
In essence the claim there is that Bruce Ohr was working with the FBI and never told anyone in the DOJ throughout 2016 and all the way past June 29th of 2017. That denial seems rather unlikely; however, once again the DOJ-NSD is putting the FBI in the crosshairs and claiming they knew nothing about the information pipeline.
Bruce Ohr, whose wife was working for Fusion-GPS and assisting Christopher Steele with information, was interviewed by the FBI over a dozen times as he communicated with Steele and fed his information to the FBI. Yet the DOJ claims they knew nothing about it.
Again, just keep in mind this claim by the DOJ-NSD is being made in July 2018, six months after Bruce Ohr was demoted twice (December 2017 and January 2018). If what the DOJ is saying is true, well, the FBI was completely off-the-rails and rogue.
Neither option speaks well about the integrity of either institution; and quite frankly I don’t buy the DOJ-NSD spin. Why? The reason is simple, the DOJ is claiming in the letter the predication was still valid… if the DOJ-NSD genuinely didn’t know about the FBI manipulation, they would be informing the court in 2018 the DOJ no longer supported the FISA application due to new information. They did not do that. Instead, in July 2018, they specifically told the court the predicate was valid, yet the DOJ-NSD knew it was not.
The last point about the July 2018 letter is perhaps the most jarring. Again, keep in mind when it was written Chris Wray is FBI Director, David Bowditch is Deputy and Dana Boente is FBI chief legal counsel.
Their own FBI reports, by three different INSD and IG investigations; had turned up seriously alarming evidence going back to the early 2017 time-frame; the results of which ultimately led to the DC FBI office losing all of their top officials; and knowing the letter itself was full of misleading and false information about FBI knowledge in/around Christopher Steele; this particular sentence is alarming:
“The FBI has reviewed this letter and confirmed its factual accuracy?”
Really?
As we have just shared, the July 2018 letter itself is filled with factual inaccuracies, misstatements and intentional omissions. So who exactly did the 2018 “reviewing”?
This declassification release raises more questions than any other in recent memory. Perhaps AG Bill Barr will now start asking some rather hard questions to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Here’s the Full Letter. I strongly suggest everyone read the 14-pages slowly. If you know the background, this letter is infuriating…
It is not accidental the fraudulent letter to the FISA court was written on July 12, 2018.
This is the exact same timeframe when the DOJ and FBI were involved in two other operations, two cover-up operations, to protect their prior activity.
The position of Bill Barr today is a direct result of decisions made by the DOJ in the summer of 2018. The events surrounding the leaking of the FISA warrant used against U.S. person Carter Page, and the 2018 DOJ decision not to prosecute SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for those leaks, was the fork in the road moment for the DOJ.
This was the point of no return…
This is when every downstream action had to be taken to cover-up these decisions…
Everything since has been designed to protect three specific cover-up operations…
In the summer of 2018 Attorney General Jeff Session was recused, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was in charge and the Mueller investigation was ongoing. That was when the DOJ made a decision not to prosecute SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for leaking classified information (The Page FISA Warrant).
As a result of people at the highest level of power and authority making a decision to protect themselves and the gross abuses of power by current and former DC officials and politicians…. DC-based U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on a plea deal where Wolfe plead guilty to only a single count of lying to the FBI.
If the DOJ had pursued the case against Wolfe for leaking the FISA application, everything would have been different. The American electorate would have seen evidence of what was taking place in the background effort to remove President Trump. We would be in an entirely different place today if that prosecution or trial had taken place.
Three events revealed the Wolfe issue and highlight the cover-up:
EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.
EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced. An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.
EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story. On July 21st, 2018, the DOJ/FBI declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
♦ Later on December 14th 2018 a fourth albeit buried public release confirmed everything. The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked by Wolfe:
So on July 12, 2018, the DOJ and FBI were lying to the FISA court; and telling the court there was reasonable justification for the Carter Page FISA warrant, when they knew that was false. At the same time the DOJ and FBI were debating what to do about SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaking the FISA application.
But wait it gets worse….
Simultaneous to the decision to mislead the court; and simultaneous to the decision-making regarding Wolfe; there was yet another (a third) DOJ cover-up effort that was also necessary to retain the origin of the Russia-collusion fraud.
To further understand the decision-making of Rosenstein/Liu, as to why they hid the James Wolfe leak it is important to note the DOJ in the Eastern District of Virginia was creating the cover-story to block sunlight on the origin of how Wikileaks gained the leaked DNC emails.
On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:
On Tuesday April 15th 2019 more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….
The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.
How does this all connect?
What does it mean?
James Wolfe was confronted about his leaking by the FBI in December of 2017. At the same time the FBI were investigating Wolfe and the SSCI, the FBI was also investigating Wikileaks and Julian Assange. This matters because it shows what the mindset was within the DOJ in late 2017 and early 2018.
In both examples, Wolfe and Assange, the actions by the DOJ reflect a predisposition to hide the much larger background story:
• A prosecution of Wolfe would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and the United States senate. Two branches of government essentially working on one objective; the removal of a sitting president. The DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and congress.
• A non-prosecution of Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia “hacking” the DNC. If Assange were allowed to show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.
As soon as Robert Mueller was going to release his Russia report, the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment; in a similar way the DOJ shut down Wolfe with a weak plea agreement.
Again, the key takeaway here is the timing. Both DOJ operations were taking place at the same time (Fall 2017 through spring/summer 2018). Both hold a similar purpose.
What we can see from both DOJ operations is an intentional effort by Main Justice not to expose the epicenter of a multi-branch effort against the White House.
Some people within the FBI were obviously participating along with people within the DOJ. However, not all Washington DC FBI agents/officials were involved. We know there were genuine investigators, at least in the Wolfe case, because their investigative evidence shows Wolfe was leaking classified information. If they did not present the investigative evidence that proves Wolfe leaked, quite simply we wouldn’t have it to show you.
Unfortunately, in hindsight we can see something internally within the DOJ happened because the FBI evidence against Wolfe was buried. Some high-level group inside the DOJ in Washington DC, in the Summer of 2018, was making decisions on what NOT to do.
These two events highlight corruption within the DOJ that existed despite the presence of AG Jeff Sessions, and apparently with the participation of DAG Rod Rosenstein.
The decisions in the Wolfe case are critical. That’s the fork in the road. If the Wolfe prosecution had continued it would have undoubtedly surfaced that key government officials and politicians were working together (executive and legislative).
The ramifications of the Wolfe case are stunning. Had the prosecution continued it’s very likely a seditious conspiracy would have surfaced.
♦ I often field a question: If you know this; if all of this information is in the public sphere; then why didn’t any member of the media cover it?
Here’s the answer: They couldn’t….
…..At least they couldn’t cover it and still retain all of the claims they had been making since March 2017 when journalist Ali Watkins gained a fully non-redacted copy of the Carter Page FISA application and first renewal.
Politico, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post are all implicated in the James Wolfe leak to Ali Watkins. They had the FISA information since March 2017, yet those media outlets were disingenuously falsifying their reporting on the actual content of the FISA application despite their actual knowledge.
Remember all of the media denials about what Devin Nunes wrote in the “Nunes memo”? Remember the media proclaiming the Steele Dossier was not part of the FISA application?
How was the media fifteen months later (July 2018) going to report on the Wolfe leak to Watkins without admitting they had been manufacturing stories about its content for the past year-and-a-half?
It was in the media’s interest NOT to cover, or dig into, the Wolfe story.
Additionally, from both the DOJ and Media perspective, coverage of the Wolfe leak would prove the senate intel committee (SSCI) was, at a minimum, a participating entity in the coup effort. That same SSCI is responsible for oversight over the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD, ODNI, DNI, and all intelligence agencies.
Worse yet, all officers within those agencies require confirmation from the SSCI (including Chair and Vice-Chair); and any discussion of the Wolfe leak would highlight the motive for ongoing corruption within the SSCI in blocking those nominations (see John Ratcliffe).
Stunning ramifications.
There was a clear fork in the road and the DOJ took the path toward a cover-up; which, considering what the DOJ was simultaneously doing with Mueller and the EDVA regarding Assange, is not entirely surprising.
Was that decision wrong? Oh hell yes, it was corrupt as heck. .
Were the decisions done with forethought to coverup gross abuses of government? Yes.
Where the DOJ is today is directly connected to the decisions the DOJ made in 2017 and 2018 to protect themselves and internally corrupt actors from discovery.
It is often said: “the coverup is always worse than the crime.” This is never more true than with these examples, because where we are today… now miles down the path of consequence from those corrupt decisions… is seemingly disconnected from the ability of any institutional recovery. That’s now the issue for Bill Barr.
If Bill Barr wanted to deal with the issue he would not be telling President Trump to stop talking about the corruption; instead he would be holding a large press conference to explain to the American people about that fork in the road.
That type of honest sunlight delivery means taking people back into the background of the larger story and explaining what decisions were made; with brutal honesty and without trepidation for the consequences, regardless of their severity and regardless of the friends of Bill Barr compromised by the truth.
Here’s a big reason why Bill Barr should take that approach: We Know.
We know; the DOJ trying to hide it doesn’t change our level of information.
Regardless of whether Bill Barr actually admits what surrounds him, there are people who know…
We know….
You know….
AG Bill Barr shouting at President Trump ‘don’t tweet‘ like the Wizard of Oz doesn’t change the fact the curtain has been removed.
Turn around Bill, it’s time to come clean.
…”Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”..
Do you remember this: “The seditious group filled the DOJ fire truck tanks with gasoline, and then they lit the House on fire. General Flynn is trapped on the roof…. The neighborhood is shouting at fire Chief Barr “put out the f**king fire you idiots“, and wondering why everyone is just watching the House burn.” … Well, consider:
An interesting albeit not too surprising dynamic erupts as the DOJ defends the latest releases of information showing massive corruption within the FBI and simultaneously attempts to defend current FBI Director Christopher Wray from his participating in those corrupt endeavors.
Two different FBI sources reported earlier today to both The Federalist and separately to The Daily Caller that FBI legal counsel Dana Boente and FBI Director Christopher Wray tried to block the release of exculpatory information to Lt. General Flynn’s defense team.
“The assertion that Director Wray pushed to withhold exculpatory evidence in the Michael Flynn case is 100% false,” DOJ Director of Communications Kerri Kupec told the Daily Caller. “To the contrary, the Director has been nothing but cooperative throughout this process.”
So here we are again… stuck in this who to believe scenario. And to evaluate the merit of both sides of the issue it is worth staying at the 30,000 ft level to avoid confusion.
First, what else could Bill Barr say after spending the past 14 months pouring buckets of effusive praise upon FBI Director Wray?…. ‘whoops, my bad, he is a badie; and my judgement sucks’? Not likely; think about it.
Regardless of Wray’s corrupt intents and activities, AG Bill Barr attached his credibility to Wray by proclaiming the FBI director as the second coming of all things “exceptional”, and “outstanding.” It is worth noting this level of praise from Bill Barr came AFTER it was already publicly clear that Christopher Wray was a duplicitous, scheming and conniving fraud.
As a direct consequence of his long-ago decision to stake his reputation on the credibility of Wray, Bill Barr doesn’t have many options. Ergo Bill Barr saying Chris Wray did not impede the release of the information should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. What else could he possibly say?…
Secondly, what Christopher Wray has done (or not done) speaks so loudly now that no-one can hear a word he’s saying.
After all, keep in mind when FBI Director Wray became fully aware of the internal schemes throughout Spygate: the phony Clinton investigation (IG report); the Andrew McCabe lies (IG report); the Comey wrongdoing [IG report x 2 (Memos and FISA)]; and the FBI FISA abuse; what exactly did Chris Wray do publicly? Promise some re-training and leadership pamphlet distribution?…
Stay elevated…
FBI Director Chris Wray became aware of the gross FBI corruption in late 2017 (I’m being very generous here on the timeline). Yet Wray allowed 40 FBI agents to participate in a fraudulent Robert Mueller investigation for another 18 months… and did what?
And let’s not forget this little gemfrom July 2018, long, long after Chris Wray knew that he was leading an institution that was part of a corrupt take-down of a U.S. President:
There was nothing within that 2018 letter to the FISA court that was either “factual” or “accurate”; instead it was a complete fraud…. A fraud that was so structurally brazen in its intent to falsify information to the court, that the court literally banned any participants from the FBI from providing any further material to the court.
Further, the FISC ordered the FBI to go back through: (1) the entire evidence file gained from the Carter Page FISA application and begin sequestration effort; and (2) later demanding the names of dozens of targets from other FBI attestations to similarly fraudulent FISA applications identified by the inspector general.
So who are we going to believe?
Two independent FBI insider sources who tell two independent U.S. media outlets…. or one U.S. Attorney General who had previously attached his credibility to the corrupt head of a corrupt institution who is now under a FISA court microscope?
Bueller?….
Bueller?….
Anyone?….
Anyone?…
Here’s my strong spidey sense. Remember that FISA Court-ordered sequestration of evidence from the FBI exploitation of the FISA application?
My hunch is that’s likely part and parcel of the motive for Bill Barr to bring in the Missouri Attorney to look at the Flynn case. The timing doesn’t seem coincidental. It was immediately after the FISC order when AG Barr had the US Attorney start looking through the evidence against Flynn.
I suspect the Flynn release today is a consequence of that FISC order and not a sudden change of heart by AG Bill Barr to begin some magnanimous review of a case that he allowed Brandon Van Grack to retain control over…. and did nothing about… for over a year since Barr was confirmed.
I’d be willing to bet a donut on that suspicion.
I’ve had this suspicion for a long time….
REMINDER – United States Attorney General Bill Barr was not around in 2017 or 2018 when the DOJ was faced with the issues resulting from an investigation of intelligence leaks and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Security Director James Wolfe.
When the prosecution of SSCI Director James Wolfe was being considered, AG Jeff Sessions was recused; the Robert Mueller probe was ongoing; and as a consequence Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and U.S. Attorney for DC Jessie Liu were decision-makers.
I’m not going to repeat all the issues, you can re-read them HERE; however, the baseline is that Wolfe could not be prosecuted without running the risk of collapsing key institutions of the U.S. government. The consequences of a Wolfe prosecution were beyond the capacity of Rod Rosenstein, or the DOJ to handle. There would have been massive constitutional crises created and the literal definition of ‘sedition‘ was at the center of it.
Accepting the 2018 objectives from Rosenstein; and factually I doubt Jeff Sessions would have made a different decision even if he was not recused; when AG Barr takes the helm in February 2019 he is forced to carry-over those same objectives.
In essence, regardless of Bill Barr’s outlook or opinion of what took place, he had no alternative except to defend the previous decisions. As a result Barr has no option except to protect Rod Rosenstein.
If former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was ever to be prosecuted the same issues that surfaced with James Wolfe would surface again. The actions by DAG Rosenstein in 2017 merged with the objectives of Andrew McCabe at the same time. {SEE HERE}
It can be debated whether Rosenstein collaborated with McCabe purposefully, or whether he was blind to the prior year corrupt activity within the DOJ/FBI and fell into a trap. It doesn’t really matter what Rosenstein’s 2017 motives were; the facts show Rosensteins’ actions facilitated the goals of McCabe and the corrupt actors within the DOJ/FBI.
Those actions had consequences, very serious consequences, and those consequences are what matters.
There is no way of prosecuting Andrew McCabe without putting Rod Rosenstein into the same crosshairs of consequence. {Go Deep} Rosenstein facilitated the FBI operations being run by Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, Clinesmith, Pientka and eventually culminating in Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissman et al.
When you truly understand this context you also understand why Joseph Pientka III has a blanket protective order over him. The all-encompassing protective order is as much about preserving and protecting the institution of the DOJ as it is protecting the fulcrum of corrupt activity Supervisory Special Agent One, Joseph Pientka III, represents.
The DOJ had to throw a bag over Pientka or eliminate him. Thankfully, and not surprisingly, they chose the former and now he’s under federal protection; so they can continue the cover-up. If it had been an Obama/Clinton AG, they’d have just killed him.
In 2018 DAG Rosenstein could not prosecute James Wolfe without exposing ‘seditious‘ activity within the U.S. government itself. Not pretend sedition or theoretical sedition, but an actual pre-planned subversive operation with forethought and malice.
Likewise AG Bill Barr could not prosecute Andrew McCabe without exposing the same ‘seditious‘ activity; which also encompasses the activity of Rod Rosenstein. Whether Barr wants to protect Rosenstein is moot; if Barr wants to protect the institutions from sunlight on two years of actual seditious activity, he has to protect Rosenstein.
It’s the underlying activity that cannot be allowed to surface; the institutions of government are not strong enough, nor are they set-up to handle, prosecutions that overlap all three branches of government. [ex. read former questions]
However, that said, now AG Bill Barr is facing a downstream and parallel issue within the prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. How can Michael Flynn be sentenced for lying to the FBI when the DOJ is necessarily refusing to prosecute Andrew McCabe (at least what has been made public) for the exact same behavior?
Against this dynamic, the DOJ has two options: (Option A) go even harder at General Flynn using additional charges that are not as comparable to McCabe. (Option B) find a way to drop the prosecution.
This background dynamic is likely why the McCabe prosecution was not resolved in 2018 and took so long. This issue explains why there was such a delay in the McCabe issue(s) since Bill Barr came into the picture in February 2019.
If Flynn just took the plea, everything would have been easier for the DOJ. There would have been nothing to compare between the two, and time would have created distance to avoid any real comparison. But Flynn reversed position and backed away from the plea.
So what did we see?
We saw McCabe given an institutionally necessary free pass, and now Barr bringing in another federal prosecutor from St. Louis to reevaluate Flynn’s position. The two options again being debated: Crush Flynn on other matters; or drop it.
Take the totality of all these issues together. Think about them for a while…
…Now do we see why AG Bill Barr needed President Trump to shut up?
When Barr said “he’s making it harder for me to do my job”, in essence President Trump was making it harder for Barr to protect his institutions. Trump is too much sunlight.
Rod Rosenstein essentially protected James Wolfe because he saw no way the institutions of the U.S. government could survive the potential evidence in a trial. Setting aside opinion on Rosenstein’s enabling of the sedition; enabling underpinning seditious activity; the decision makes sense. [Consequences too big to jail]
Bill Barr essentially protected Andrew McCabe, and as a consequence Rod Rosenstein, out of a similar necessity. From AG Barr’s perspective, there was no way the institutions of government could survive the potential evidence at a McCabe trial; and McCabe would call Rosenstein as a defense witness. [Consequences too big to jail]
At the heart of the matter, in the real activity that took place, there was a multi-branch seditious effort to remove President Donald J Trump. From the perspective of those charged with the actual administration of justice – there is no way to put this in front of the American public and have the institutions survive. What we are witnessing is a dance between increasingly narrowing rails and the DOJ, via Bill Barr, trying to find an exit.
All of this 2020 angst is a downstream consequence of the 2018 decision not to prosecute James Wolfe; and the specific reason why they made that decision.
Those who framed the sedition recognize Bill Barr’s outlook on institutional preservation is an opportunity to weaponize against him. That is why four prosecutors could so easily defy his authority and set Barr up with the Roger Stone sentencing recommendation.
The Lawfare team know Bill Barr is trying to navigate away from exposing seditious corruption the same Lawfare team helped facilitate. The Lawfare group know Barr cannot prosecute McCabe; and they know exactly why. The Lawfare group can also see Barr protecting Rosenstein; and again, they know the reason why.
The corrupt crew saw what the DOJ and FBI did when they had the opportunity to expose it all in 2018. DAG Rosenstein was afraid.
In 2020 AG Barr’s priority for the institutions is also why AG Barr is afraid.
The seditious group filled the DOJ fire truck tanks with gasoline, and then they lit the House on fire.
General Flynn is trapped on the roof…. The neighborhood is shouting at fire Chief Barr “put out the fucking fire you idiots“, and wondering why everyone is just watching the House burn.
Meanwhile, there’s several firefighters who know what’s in the tanks, and they are standing, smiling, hoses at the ready, cheering-on the angry shouts from the crowd…
President Trump says: Point the compromised firehoses at the smiling firefighters while making them hold the Zippo’s… then watch what happens.
The only way I have ever seen for Barr to get out of this mess; the one crack in the current lock box; is the FISA court order for the DOJ to present the identified downstream consequences from fraud upon the court.
As I said months ago… The FISC might actually be the ladder truck here.
With the DOJ and FBI currently assembling a review and investigative consequences, ie. the sequestration material, Flynn’s current legal status might be identified as an outcropping of fraudulently obtained FISA warrants, and/or a fraudulent investigation.
In a supplement to the defense motion to dismiss [pdf here] we discover some of the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct turned over by the DOJ to the Flynn defense. Specifically Lt. General Michael Flynn’s plea was based on a threat against Michael Flynn Jr. if his father didn’t sign the plea. This will very likely get the plea dismissed.
Because the exhibits had to be filed under seal, they are heavily redacted; however, Flynn’s defense counsel, Sidney Powell, has asked the court to release & unredact the full content of the exhibits so the world can see the coercion behind the corrupt plea agreement.
The Mueller prosecution team lead by Brandon Van Grack put the agreement and threat in writing, but they also made a deal with the former defense team to hide the terms in an effort to cover-up their misconduct. Coercion to force a plea is unethical and unlawful.
Today’s filing by Sidney Powell proves what CTH originally outlined in April 2019: Reposted Below:
The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017. However, the released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe. The first scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.
The second 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:
This second scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally and strategically (you’ll see why), this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.
With Paul Manafort outlined as an investigative target in the original authorization and the first scope memo, the second scope memo authorizes expansion to his business partner Richard Gates and their joint businesses. This memo also permits the investigation of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and all of his interests; and in ultimate weasel sunlight, Rosenstein authorizes an investigation of his boss, AG Jeff Sessions.
Before getting to more targets, notice the underlined passage about starting with a lot of investigative material because the special counsel was picking up a Russian interference investigation that had been ongoing for “nearly 10 months.”
I would also note that our CTH research indicates all of the illegally extracted FISA-702(16)(17) database search results would be part of this pre-existing investigative file available immediately to Weissmann and Mueller. However, in order to use the search-query evidence, Weissmann and Mueller would need to backfill some alternate justification; or find another way to “rediscover” the preexisting results….. I digress
The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):
General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey.
The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016:
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:
And don’t forget, Andrew McCabe was also likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. A massive leak of classified information:
Within the case against Michael Flynn…. Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then again on May 31st, 2017.
To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)
What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating to the court was there was factually a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview. Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.
In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. It seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.
We know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):
The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.
The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:
Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.
It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading. The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.
May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.
This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the many reasons why Rosenstein apologists and the ‘trust the plan’ crew should be collectively slapped across the face with a cold fish.
Moving on….
♦ Another issue is reconciled on Page #13 of the Weissmann/Mueller report surrounding why FBI Director Chris Wray asked DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to become chief legal counsel of the FBI.
Look at the investigative structure as outlined by the Weissmann report:
Technically the 40 FBI agents remained under FBI supervision at all times. Additionally the assigned FBI attorney worked under the FBI legal supervision; not the supervision of the special counsel.
[ie. Mueller retains plausible deniability for criminal investigative wrongdoing]
Initially in May 2017 this meant FBI chief legal counsel James Baker, part of the original small group, was coordinating the FBI roles and legal responsibilities. However, by the end of 2017 James Baker was in trouble as congress highlighted his corrupt endeavors.
Remember what was going on in late 2017?
In addition to the FBI issues with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surfacing internally, by December 2017, immediately after Michael Flynn signed the guilty plea… all hell broke loose.
Can you imagine an institutional idiot like FBI Director Chris Wray watching all of the information about McCabe, Strzok, Page, Kortan and Baker start erupting in the headlines and all around his office?… and simultaneously he has 40 corrupt FBI investigators attached to the corruptly organized Weissmann/Mueller detail?
That reality is exactly why Chris Wray needed to get one of the corrupt DOJ insiders to take over as FBI legal counsel. Director Wray saw the need for massive ass-covering; and the perfect man for the job was the guy who participated in the FISA application fraud, Dana Boente.
Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that every person identified in this outline is still in their position of authority to this day. Including the 40 FBI agents who participated in three years of corrupt investigations of a non-existent Russia conspiracy.
Today, with the latest revelations, FBI Director Christopher Wray looks like:
A very interesting development that could prove to be quite important. Today Michael Flynn’s counsel received a letter from the DOJ notifying his defense the Missouri U.S. Attorney, who was brought in to review all of the evidence in the case, has delivered new evidence and information on the case filed under seal. Here’s the letter:
Further reporting from Sean Davis at the Federalist gives some background on the sealed evidence that indicates the provided information is exculpatory. According to Davis’s sources the internal investigative documents “will reflect poorly on the FBI.”
[…] The new documents, which were filed under seal by the Department of Justice Friday, allegedly include exonerating evidence about Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations with foreign diplomats as Trump’s top incoming foreign policy adviser and is currently attempting to withdraw his plea, as well as evidence of malfeasance by the FBI during its investigation of Flynn.
According to the FBI official who spoke to The Federalist, FBI general counsel Dana Boente led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure of the new materials. Boente, who briefly served as acting Attorney General after Trump became president, personally signed off on one of the federal spy warrants against former Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.
The new documents, which were filed under a protective order by DOJ on Friday, will reflect poorly on the FBI, the official told The Federalist. It is not clear when, or even if, those documents will be unsealed and made available to the public for review. (read more)
It is very interesting that Davis’ source specifically cites FBI general counsel Dana Boente as a bad actor in this ongoing saga. Apparently Boente tried to block the release of the information helpful to Michael Flynn and his defense team. This is particularly important because it aligns with our own research and analysis.
Early on CTH identified Dana Boente as part of the problem. Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse. Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey. Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media (MSNBC), essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI…
But hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years and were doing so under the supervision of… wait for it…. yep, Dana Boente.
Here’s the backstory on Dana Boente as a key player in the Spygate cover-up, as we presented the information over a year ago. [NOTE: feeling confident that Boente was one of the key corrupt actors, I noted originally to bookmark that post]:
If you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.
Boente took over for former chief legal counsel James Baker, after the discoveries around Baker and McCabe could no longer be hidden. After being removed from responsibility eventually Baker resigned and went to work with the Lawfare group. Boente’s job at FBI was/is to bury information, block congressional inquiry, and protect the crew. Boente, along with Christopher Wray, is still there.
In a Fox News interview on Sunday, June 23, 2019, Devin Nunes said “someone at the FBI” appears to have been “determined to hide” then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s notes from both the FISA court and Congress. Our research identified that “someone” as Dana Boente and crew in 2018.
Throughout 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and through today, across both administrations, the corrupt group within the FBI in DC were/are protecting themselves.
The FBI redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The FBI removed Page and Strzok texts and emails. The FBI hid texts and emails from Lisa Page to Andrew McCabe. The FBI kept documents from congress. The FBI has leaked false information to media to cover their tracks; and yes the Trump FBI and GOPe politicians have participated writ large, many still do.
The corrupt FBI under Comey, McCabe and Baker is being protected and facilitated by the corrupt FBI under Christopher Wray, David Bowditch (San Bernadino infamy) and Dana Boente. It’s one long continuum of exactly the same behavior. Remember, 50 FBI ‘agents’ on Mueller’s team? Etc…. This DC network is ideologically aligned, operating on their own self-interests, and facilitated by a compliant media.
In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division. It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.
The DOJ-NSD is where FISA warrants come from. The weaponized and highly politicized officials within the DOJ-NSD were using the auspices of FARA violations (foreign agent registration act) to gain FISA court authorized surveillance on politicians all over Washington DC. Combined with the NSA database extractions, by federal contractors authorized by the FBI, it’s a massive web of political surveillance.
When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord. After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.
Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th. The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline.
On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries. Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.
With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD. Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.
When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017. [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]
On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election. This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.
The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools. [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]
The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.
With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente. [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG] Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.
Question: If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?
The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.
See the issue?
How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA?
See the issue now?
In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:
U.S. Attorney for EDVA
Acting Deputy AG.
Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.
It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.
This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation. [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]
Somehow Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.
On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed. Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.
On May 9th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey is fired.
On May 10th, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe opens a criminal ‘obstruction of justice investigation’ of President Trump to parallel/compliment the ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and administration.
On/Around May 11th, 2017, Mary McCord departs. Dana Boente now becomes the Asst. Attorney General and head of the DOJ National Security Divison. Simultaneously retaining role as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.
On May 16th, 2017, Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to meet President Trump. On May 17th, Rosenstein appoints the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. On May 18th, 2017, Scott Schools authorizes Robert Mueller:
And we’re off to the Trump-Russia-Collusion-Obstruction races…
With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. By now everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.] All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.
Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible people who didn’t participate in one form or another.
Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when he actually left the DOJ-NSD or the EDVA role.
On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announces Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker). As Mueller is using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators, Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.
As we recently discovered, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey. Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed. The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:
As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein. There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false. So Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.
Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office (March 4, 2019). This field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.
The April 11th, 2019, recently released Julian Assange indictment stems from the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:
However, on Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….
The investigation took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.
Why the delay? Here’s where it gets interesting….
This FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”
(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.
“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)
It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).
To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looks like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report is dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story:
(Bloomberg) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimesduring the 2016 election.
The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance. (more)
The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview. There’s the FBI motive to shut Assange down.
The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike. Almost all independent research into this DNC hack claim also challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers.
Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse. Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey. Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media, essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI… but hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years.
Seriously?
There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch or Boente. Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger community from the Trump disruption.
In the end it all comes back to the same series of questions. Who was recommending to President Trump that he retain and promote DOJ and FBI officials who were part of the anti-Trump Russia collusion-conspiracy program?
People who knew the DC system and were vulnerable to DC peer influence. People who would take counsel and advice on who was needed and where. People in positions of influence with President Trump. People who could intentionally, or unwittingly, steer these placements from a position of advisement close to the President.
Appointing Rod Rosenstein as DAG was one of those key placements.
Appointing DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu was another.
From Rosenstein we get: Mueller, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente.
Meanwhile Jessie Liu quashed cases against: Awan bros, James Wolfe, Greg Craig and Andrew McCabe.
The Russia Conspiracy Collusion is built on a foundation of purposeful lies. The DC network within the FBI and DOJ are at risk if those lies are exposed.
One of the cornerstone lies is that the Russians hacked the DNC servers…. that entirely false claim was manufactured in the heart of the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The central claim is based on a secret evaluation by political operatives, and pushed by an intelligence apparatus that needs the Russian Conspiracy to hide their schemes.
Unfortunately, with President Trump effectively communicating the latest information on the federal efforts to mitigate COVID-19, more corporate U.S. resistance media have decided not to carry the live broadcasts from the White House task force briefings.
Today at 5:00pm ET the White House will hold a beating for the media and share the latest mitigation efforts against the coronavirus. [Livestream Links Below]
A Washington Examiner report on a recent expansion of John Durham’s team, to include U.S. Attorney Anthony Scarpelli, may reconcile recent earlier reports by John Solomon of “clear evidence” showing Durham is narrowing in on some key DOJ and FBI figures.
According to the Examiner Scarpelli was brought over in part based on his work on Violent Crimes and the Narcotics Trafficking Section of the DOJ. In that capacity Anthony Scarpelli would hold a Top Secret/SCI clearance (he does); which becomes a valuable necessity for the specifics of the type of investigation ongoing.
WASHINGTON – […] Amid the pandemic, Durham and a team of prosecutors and investigators have continued their work, even requesting witness information after the country largely shut down in March because of coronavirus restrictions, according to people briefed on the investigation. Leading up to the lockdown, Durham’s team had spent many days a month reviewing classified intelligence inside a special facility for reviewing classified documents known as a SCIF.
In recent weeks Durham has added to his team of investigators who operate in Connecticut and Washington, DC, including FBI agents and the chief of the violent crimes and narcotics section in the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, Anthony Scarpelli, people familiar with the probe said.
[…] Durham’s scrutiny of the Russia intelligence is “like a proctologist,” one source told CNN. But it’s unknown what Durham’s findings or his end goals may be.
He could bring charges or issue a report, as Barr suggested in a recent interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where he also called the FBI’s Russia investigation “one of the greatest travesties in American history.”(more / CNN)
Some cautious optimism?
Here’s how AG Bill Barr described recent events to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Now Mr. Attorney General, I want to close with a couple of specific issues. The investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham into the circumstances surrounding the surveillance of President Trump’s campaign, transition, and early administration, does that investigation remain on track undisturbed by the virus?
WB: Yes.
HH: There are guidelines concerning the announcement of indictments or the closing of the investigations prior to the election. When is that deadline for U.S. Attorney Durham? And do you think he will make it either to disclose indictments or to disclose that the investigation is over?
WB: As far as I’m aware, none of the key people that, whose actions are being reviewed at this point by Durham, are running for president.
HH: But would not the announcement of indictments after a time certain have an impact on an election of the sort that the U.S. Attorney’s manual recommends against?
WB: Well, what is the sort that the attorney manual recommends against?
HH: As I recall, this came up with Director Comey making his announcement, and the concerns in 2016 that he had acted improvidently during the run up to the election. I don’t recall what the exact timing is.
WB: Yeah, well, that was directly as to a candidate.
HH: And so it would not matter, in your view, if there is an investigation, and the day before the election, someone is indicted?
WB: Well, you know, I think in its core, the idea is you don’t go after candidates. You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same, you know, within a certain number of days before an election. But you know, as I say, I don’t think any of the people whose actions are under review by Durham fall into that category.
HH: That’s big news to me. I had assumed that they would be in the category of people that could not be indicted given the obvious connection to President Trump, but I’ll take the news and I’ll put it away. Let me ask you about Senator Grassley. A couple of weeks ago, he tweeted, and this is a direct quote, “We are learning FBI flubs on Carter Page spying case are just tip of iceberg. IG audited 29 other spying applications on Americans and found problems with every one of them, in caps. Constitutional rights are at stake when FBI fails to justify use of spying tools. Reforms needed to protect civil liberties.” Is Senator Grassley correct, Mr. Attorney General?
WB: Yes, well, I think as I have said, I think that the failure to follow the guidelines and the requirements in preparing FISA applications, you know, is very disturbing, especially coming as recently as it has. And you know, we shouldn’t proceed with FISA unless we have safeguards and ensure that the law is being scrupulously followed by the FBI.
HH: Are you shocked by what you have found to date or have been briefed by U.S. Attorney Durham to date about?
WB: I wouldn’t use the word shocked, right? You know, I’m very troubled by it, but you know, I think the reason that we have this investigation is because there are a lot of things that are unexplained. And I think we’re getting deeply into the situation, and we’ll be able to sort out exactly what happened.
HH: I’m not going to ask you, because you wouldn’t answer whether there will be indictments or not. But when do you expect that the public will know a definitive assessment of where the U.S. Attorney Durham is going?
WB: As soon as we feel we have something that we are confident in to tell the people about.
HH: Is that imminent?
WB: No, it’s not imminent. But I’m not sure what imminent means. I’m not sure what imminent means, but it’s not imminent.
John Solomon appears on Fox Business News with Lou Dobbs to discuss his latest articleabout HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff blocking release of congressional transcripts.
Additionally, Solomon again says he believes “clear evidence” exists to show that U.S. Attorney John Durham is going to indict people in/around the DOJ/FBI/CIA surveillance operation against Donald Trump….. and there will be more declassified material being released soon.
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
(Link to Original Flynn Filing)
Centinel2012 