Following leaked revelations that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page to conduct political espionage against the Trump campaign, former AAG Matthew Whitaker discusses the IG investigation and upcoming IG report.

Whitaker notes the bigger issues are how the FISA process generally has been abused and potentially long-term ramifications.  It is also worth remembering it wasn’t just “wiretaps” that were gained, the FBI requested and received full Title-1 surveillance authority including: wiretaps, electronic surveillance, the use of bugs and tracking devices, physical surveillance, electronic and satellite geolocation surveillance and much more.  The FBI requested a type of surveillance generally reserved for tracking suspected terrorists.

When Mr. Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain the warrant he was working under the guidance of FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok.  “Political Espionage“.

The New York Times is confirming that Kevin Clinesmith is the “low-level lawyer” within the FBI who doctored evidence within the Carter Page FISA application.

As anticipated, the DOJ and FBI ‘small group’ leaks are from their individual review of a heavily compartmented IG report; and now they are being selectively shaped by the favorite ‘small group’ media network: NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Politico et al.

Remember, each of the principals only was able to see the draft of the IG report specific to their outline therein.  All principal reviews were very compartmented.  No principal has any idea what the bottom line conclusions are from the totality of the assembled compartments.  An example of this is in the very first paragraph.

The New York Times article is purposefully heavy on narrative engineering.  However, given how the accountability trends are identified by the specifics of the narrative construction, that’s not a bad thing.  As CTH outlined in anticipation of this phase, take the first wave of media justification with a grain-of-salt. There are two clear angles visible in the narrative assembly.   First, here is the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powersout of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft.

One can read that from the perspective of accountability and become frustrated.  However, notice the construction closely: “to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump”… or put another way, there was an “abuse of power”, but that abuse cannot specifically be attributed to bias against the President.  Key point: there was an “abuse of power”, it is in the motive for that abuse where narratives step in.

Secondly on this point… CTH has specifically, intentionally and repeatedly outlined how the “bias” issue was a foregone conclusion ever since the July 2018 IG report of FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation outlined the same position.   If the IG report of the DOJ/FBI conduct in the “mid-year-exam” found no overarching political bias; and all of the principals were exactly the same in the 2019 report on the Carter Page surveillance issue; it stands to reason that same lack of bias conclusion would extend.

[…] Investigators for the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said.

Mr. Horowitz referred his findings about Mr. Clinesmith to prosecutors for a potential criminal charge. Mr. Clinesmith left the Russia investigation in February 2018 after the inspector general identified him as one of a handful of F.B.I. officials who expressed animus toward Mr. Trump in text messages and resigned about two months ago, after the inspector general’s team interviewed him.

Three points here: (1) While Clinesmith, as a normal function of his FBI job, did not report to Peter Strzok, when the teams were assembled for MYE, Crossfire Hurricane, and Robert Mueller investigation, Clinesmith DID work directly for Peter Strzok.  When the teams were selected, Kevin Clinesmith reported to Peter Strzok.  Therefore when the inappropriate behavior was identified; and when the action of manipulating FISA evidence was done; Kevin Clinesmith was reporting directly to FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok.

(2) Kevin Clinesmith remained in the FBI during the entirety of the Horowitz investigation. He was not released until the investigation was complete and the draft report was submitted.  So the FBI knew they had a problem with Clinesmith back in February of 2018 and he was allowed to continue work until September of this year. It would seem obvious he was being monitored.

(3) Clinesmith’s status during the investigation aligns with another Main Justice employee also connected to the FISA process who was similarly in position throughout and also left in September 2019.  That would be Tashina Guahar.

[…] More broadly, Mr. Horowitz’s report, to be made public on Dec. 9, portrays the overall effort to seek the wiretap order and its renewals as sloppy and unprofessional, according to the people familiar with it. He will also sharply criticize as careless one of the F.B.I. case agents in New York handling the matter, they said.

In my opinion, the report is going to be much more than that.  Why? Because they didn’t just get a ‘wiretap’, they got a Title-1 FISA authorized surveillance warrant; the most extensive and intrusive form of surveillance warrant possible.  A Title-1 warrant allows any and all surveillance. Wiretaps, bugs, electronic surveillance, physical surveillance, the works.  A Title-1 warrant is used against suspected terrorists in the U.S.

[…] In particular, while Mr. Horowitz criticizes F.B.I. leadership for its handling of the highly fraught Russia investigation in some ways, he made no finding of politically biased actions by top officials Mr. Trump has vilified like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy who temporarily ran the bureau after the president fired Mr. Comey in 2017; and Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent.

Notice the contradiction and the parsing: “in some ways he made no finding of politically biased actions“…  Some ways?  So there are findings of bias, just not in all ways.  Notice how they repeat a needed narrative tone, yet simultaneously contradicting their lead paragraph.

Again, take this stuff with the proverbial grain of salt.  This is the “small group” selling their narrative through their media allies.  They are trying to make an argument that they are simultaneously undermining.  That’s what happens in the narrative engineering process.

This entire NYT article is fraught with the intent to be obtuse.

[…] The early accounts of the report suggest that it is likely to stoke the debate over the investigation without definitively resolving it, by offering both sides different conclusions they can point to as vindication for their rival worldviews.

[…] The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first approved wiretapping Mr. Page, who had close ties to Russia, as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power in October 2016, after he had left the campaign.

The Justice Department obtained three renewal orders. The paperwork associated with the renewal applications contained information that should have been left out, and vice versa, the people briefed on the draft report said.

“and vice versa”, meaning there was information that should have been included.  Yes, that would be the exculpatory information…. the absence therein speaks to the motive of assembly.

The email Mr. Clinesmith handled was a factor during the wiretap renewal process, according to the people.

Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agencythat contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own understanding.

Mr. Clinesmith included this altered email in a package that he compiled for another F.B.I. official to read in preparation for signing an affidavit that would be submitted to the court attesting to the facts and analysis in the wiretap application.

The details of the email are apparently classified and may not be made public even when the report is unveiled.

[…] Additionally, Mr. Clinesmith worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia investigation. He was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.

Wait, the article just said, including the lead paragraph, Horowitz found no evidence of political bias?

Shortly after Mr. Trump’s election victory, for example, Mr. Clinesmith texted another official that “the crazies won finally,” disparaged Mr. Trump’s health care and immigration agendas, and called Vice President Mike Pence “stupid.” In another text, he wrote, in the context of a question about whether he intended to stay in government, “viva la resistance.”

In a June 2018 report by Mr. Horowitz about that and other politically charged texts, which identified him as “F.B.I. Attorney 2,” Mr. Clinesmith said he was expressing his personal views but did not let them affect his official actions.

The inspector general apparently did not assert in the draft report that any of the problems he found were so material that the court would have rejected the Justice Department’s requests to continue surveilling Mr. Page. But the people familiar with the draft were uncertain about whether Mr. Horowitz said the problems were immaterial, or instead avoided taking a position on that question.

[…] The report is also said to conclude that Joseph Mifsud, a Russia-linked professor who told a Trump campaign official that Russia had damaging information on Mrs. Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic emails — a key fact used to open the investigation — was not an F.B.I. informant. That undercuts an assertion of conservative critics of the inquiry.

No-one in conservative critic circles said Mifsud was an “FBI informant.”  The concern is whether he is a CIA, or Western Intelligence, operative…. not FBI.

You can continue reading the NYT article here.  The bottom line is there is going to be much more than presented in these weak defenses and media constructs.

Having read the initial round of justifications and defenses, CTH is more optimistic than a week ago on the issue of accountability.  It won’t stop at Kevin Clinesmith.

Earlier this morning President Trump called in to Fox and Friends for an hour-long  interview about the breaking story of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulating FISA documents to gain surveillance on the 2016 Trump campaign.

President Trump notes the current trickle of information is only the beginning and the background story could be the biggest political scandal in modern U.S. history.  President Trump awaits the final reports showing the full scope of the investigations and the likelihood of FBI spying and surveillance on his campaign and administration.

Additionally, President Trump discusses the frustrating political agenda behind the Pelosi and Schiff partisan impeachment effort at great length.  WATCH:

.

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HERE

At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.

The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrettnoted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”

At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

However, that said, the edits help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.

The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.

If the WaPo article had added all the detail and left in how the line-level attorney worked for Peter Strzok everyone would have known who it was.  Hence they put in more details about his activity but removed the Strzok reference.

Kevin Clinesmith was one of the key FBI small group members on the original Clinton investigation known as the “mid-year exam”, or in text messages the “MYE”.

Within the MYE Clinesmith was one of the key legal staff working with Peter Strzok.  Clinesmith was lawyer #2 for Strzok who eventually transferred to the subsequent Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Clinesmith was also previously reported to be having an intimate relationship with another member of the FBI team, Sally Moyer, though that is uncertain. [Tashina “Tash” Guahar was also a key legal figure on the Main Justice side of the MYE team.]

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).

Ms. Moyer was responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.

When the MYE investigation finished, the Carter Page FISA construction is where Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer come together in their next assignment, the FBI investigation of Trump.

Additionally, Tashina “Tash” Guahar was then Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice. In essence the FISA lawyer.

[Related Sidebar: Current ICIG Michael Atkinson, the IG who modified the whistle-blower forms and allowed a hearsay CIA whistle-blower complaint, was the chief legal counsel for the head of the DOJ-NSD at the time all of this was happening.  Yeah, sketchy]

This is what it looks like put together:

In the Carter Page FISA application FBI line-level lawyer Clinesmith is responsible for the underlying evidence. FBI unit chief lawyer Sally Moyer is responsible for the citations (the “woods file”) that identifies the underlying evidence.  And then DOJ Tashina Guahar is responsible for the final application assembly; then it goes off to the top level DOJ and FBI superiors for signatures and submission to the court.

The WaPo article cites Clinesmith: “erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim.” That “back up citation” would be where his girlfriend Sally Moyer puts the Woods File citation.

This FISA assembly process: Clinesmith to Moyer to Guahar, took place in October 2016.

Almost three years later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz finishes his investigation and notes the issue with the documentation that supports the Woods File requirement.

This is part of Horowitz draft report as delivered to Attorney General Barr in September. According to the Washington Post Clinesmith is “forced to resign.”  Sally Moyer has unknown status at the FBI.  However, Tashina Guahar was still at DOJ-NSD.

Shortly after IG Horowitz delivers the rough draft of his investigation to AG Bill Barr, Tash Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp.   With this hindsight the reason for Guahar’s mysterious exit makes sense.

According to both the CNN and Washington Post report, the issue with the underlying ‘Woods File’ evidence has led U.S. Attorney John Durham to conduct a criminal investigation.  That investigation would include Kevin Clinesmith, the “line-level lawyer”.

A concerning part of the Washington post report is this:

[…] That conduct did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had a proper legal and factual basis, the officials said.

That sounds like a white-wash outcome; mistakes were made, move along etc. etc.  But, if we look back upon the status of our research when the Sally Moyer transcript was released, that outcome was actually predictable.

FromMAY 2019:

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.

Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:

.

Pictured Above: Ms. Sally Moyer

A review of the Moyer transcript clarifies a few aspects:

First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the 2018 inspector general report into FBI conduct during the 2016 election outlining the DOJ and FBI activity.

In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth. Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:

Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how FBI verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.

The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the FBI source material is just accurately cited and attributed.  Note that’s where Clinesmith comes in.

Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion.  The FBI citation is the “Woods Procedure”, and it is in this citation process where Kevin Clinesmith is said to have made false documents to support the citation(s).

Sally Moyer infers the merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim.  However, this is where the IG report is taking issue with the FBI citation:

…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)

If he’s altering an email, it sounds to me like Clinesmith is modifying communication with an FBI source to construct a citation for a claim within the FISA application; perhaps that FBI source is Christopher Steele.

Again, it’s circular.

Here we go.  Today is the day the inspector general closed the “Principal Review” phase of the upcoming IG report.  Now is when the small group of corrupt DOJ and FBI officials -spotlighted by the IG investigation- begin trying to shape the narrative; and the leaks start with a whopper:

….An FBI official was caught altering documents within the 2016 surveillance operation against President Trump…

Keep in mind which FBI officials are now working for the media outlet, CNN, that is providing the leaks; ie. former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe; the spokesman for James Comey, Josh Campbell; a former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa; or the former FBI chief legal counsel, James Baker.  All now work for CNN.

It’s important to note the media source aspect because normally this type of leak would go to the Washington Post or New York Times first; ergo, it likely stems as a personal leak to one of the former allied FBI officials now working for CNN.

Washington (CNN) – An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

[…] Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham.

[…] It’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

[…] The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn’t yet known, and it’s not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government. No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.

The Justice Department and inspector general’s office declined to comment. (read more)

Josh Campbell is James Comey’s spokesperson and working for CNN:

Representative Jim Jordan appears with Bret Baier to discuss the last two weeks of impeachment testimony.  Baier, the evolving human cabbage patch doll, attempts to protect the DC impeach narrative.

.

Jim Jordan is exceptional. At the conclusion of todays testimony Jordan also held a brief press conference (below).

.

Representatives Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise discuss the partisan effort to remove President Trump through a one-sided impeachment effort.

.

Within the interview Ms. Stefanik notes the outside money pouring in to her district in a concerted effort to remove her from office.  The link to support her IS HERE

Support Elise Stefanik Here

Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race.  Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.  CNN is reporting:

The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th.  That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.

Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done.  We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020.  So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.

But that is not all that is inside this window.

Eight Legislative Days in December

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released.  On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative:  Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump.  This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch.   This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump.  It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings.  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling.  There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100% – Probability of loss to Pelosi 80%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday November 25th.

The House’s letter to federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington points out that it is considering impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, for which McGahn would be a key witness since he spoke to special counsel Robert Mueller for the obstruction investigation, and for lying to Mueller, after testimony at Roger Stone’s criminal trial raised questions about Trump’s written answers to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90% – Probability of loss 50%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry”, and the committee approach therein.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

This is why Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release for their narrative foundation.