Fifth Redacted Name in Rosenstein’s Scope Memo Identified as Walid Phares…


An interesting new discovery amid revelations into the background motives of President Obama to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against his political opposition.

Today former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Walid Phares identified himself as the fifth target in the August 2, 2017, Rosenstein scope memo.  [The redacted section above] With this admission/discovery a more interesting background makes sense.

(Via John Solomon) […] Phares is speaking out for the first time, suggesting that one of the motives of those who made the allegations and sustained the investigation was to hamper the early Trump presidency’s foreign policy goals, including the 45th president’s long-promised plan to cancel the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.

“In my view, the push against the Trump campaign, and then the transition, and then the administration was on behalf of those who wanted to defend the Iran deal, to protect the interests of the Iran deal,” Phares told Just the News. (link)

.

As the story is told, the DOJ team led by Robert Mueller targeted Phares under the same FARA auspices they used against George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Carter Page.  The accusation that Phares was an unregistered foreign lobbyist.

Both George Papadopoulos and Whalid Phares were involved in connecting Egyptian leader Fattah Abdel al-Sisi with President Trump in New York for their first meeting.

(2016 meeting between candidate Donald Trump and President al-Sisi)

President al-Sisi was a key political nemisis of President Obama because of al-Sisi’s position against the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically against Mohammed Morsi, the brotherhood installed dictator of Egypt during the Islamist Spring.

President Obama supported the extremist regime of Morsi, and when the Egyptian people rose up behind General al-Sisi to remove Morsi, President Obama was furious.  Both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were consistently at odds with al-Sisi while they were in office.  However, there’s a lot of nuance because the Obama administration were very concerned about allowing the visibility of their support for the Brotherhood to surface.

CTH was very deep in the weeds during this entire timeframe in Egypt, long before candidate Donald Trump ever stepped into the picture.  This new admission by Walid Phares, a highly visible critic of the Brotherhood, now makes a ton of background activity make sense.

“The Obama administration obviously was not happy,” Phares said. “Not just because Donald Trump won the election, but they knew that he was about to change things. The most important point that they were concerned about, and that was not a secret, was the fact that Donald Trump said during the campaign that he will be withdrawing, he will be canceling, he used different terminology, the Iran deal. And the Iran deal was a major strategic achievement of the Obama administration. Definitely, they were not happy with that.”

“And Donald Trump, also during his campaign, was talking about changing, shifting alliances in the region,” he added. “He didn’t want the partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood … So it was a massive change in foreign policy.”

Way back in 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama chose Cairo, Egypt, as the first destination to deliver a very specific foreign policy speech.  Within the speech Obama outlined a new approach, the U.S. would no longer take interventionist action to maintain stability against radical Islam.  As an outcome of that speech the “Arab Spring” began.

When President Obama ignited the “Islamist Spring” with his speech in Egypt, what he really articulated was a shift in U.S. foreign policy to support The Muslim Brotherhood. As an outcome of the shift in policy President Obama helped kill the regional zookeepers (Hosni Mubarek, Egypt; Ben Ali, Tunisia and eventually Khadaffi in Libya) and Obama unleashed the big cats… radical Islamists.

Political Islam, writ large, is represented by The Brotherhood.  Turkish President Recep Erdogan sees himself as the modern leader of political Islam using the Brotherhood to recreate the Ottoman Empire.

Ben Ali (Tunis), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) and Khadaffi (Libya), were the first zookeepers removed.  Obama’s U.S. foreign policy supported Muslim Brotherhood replacements like Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.  However, Obama failed in the effort to remove Bashir Assad in Syria; as a result all extremist factions of the Brotherhood gathered to form ISIS.

Factions like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and ISIS all fall under the umbrella of The Muslim Brotherhood.  The exiled Brotherhood leaders initially fled Egypt to Qatar until they were further driven-out by the Gulf Cooperation Council and ultimately given safe-harbor in Turkey, by Recep Erdogan.

As a gatekeeper between radical Islamist elements and Europe, President Erdogan holds the ultimate leverage and blackmail over his NATO allies.

Erdogan essentially holds the position of power because if Europe does not acquiesce to his demands he can open the gates and flood the EU with extremists.

Erdogan loved to play this power game against the EU and ultimately against the U.S.

President Obama embraced President Erdogan because ideologically the Obama administration and Erdogan both supported political Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood.

Erdogan’s regional arch nemesis has always been Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.  As a general al Sisi had to deal with the outcomes of Muslim Brotherhood extremism, and ultimately remove Mohamed Morsi from office.   President Sisi formed the Arab coalition that is now aligned with President Donald Trump against the radical elements of political Islam known as The Muslim Brotherhood.

The Trump-era U.S/Arab coalition includes Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Yemen.  Additionally the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are aligned against the radical elements within political Islam (The Brotherhood), and the U.S. is supporting the GCC coalition with self-defense military purchases.

This is where the Northern Syria border with Turkey comes into the picture.  Most of the neocon U.S. politicians wanted the U.S. military to continue the role of zookeepers to keep political Islam in check.  In essence the Lindsey Graham and John Bolton position was for the U.S. military to remain in Syria to keep the big cat cages closed.

Senator Graham’s policy viewpoint means no exit from the middle-east, ever.  This view is against the policy view of President Donald Trump.

Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan wanted to be the biggest cat in the zoo.  His goal was/is the recreation of the Ottoman Empire and his alignment with The Muslim Brotherhood is purposeful to achieve this goal.

Ultimately the largest stakeholder in this dynamic is Europe, because they stand the greatest risk if Erdogan is successful and then turns his assembly toward Europe.  Remember, Erdogan as President of Turkey is now the gatekeeper; and Erdogan is also a member of NATO.

Unfortunately Europe refused to defend itself; and the NATO alliance was/is too weak to kick Erdogan out. The EU weakness is visible in their position not take their own ISIS fighters back for trial and punishment; and instead, just like Lindsey Graham, the EU position demanded the U.S. to remain as perpetual zookeepers.

Making matters worse the EU refused to pay for the U.S. to remain as zookeepers, and the EU simultaneously fights the U.S. on trade agreements so they can continue their one-way financial benefits.  This hypocritical and one-sided position is part of the reason why President Trump has long held a view the NATO alliance does not benefit the U.S.

In 2019 Turkish President Erdogan was going to enter Syria regardless of what the EU, NATO or the U.S. said about it. Erdogan has the support of political Islam and ultimately that was what was important to his objectives.

With Europe refusing to stand-up to defend their own interests, President Trump trusted his instincts and took the bold approach to remove U.S. forces from the untenable position of guarding the peace between Syrian factions and Turkish elements.

Instead, President Trump openly supported the Arab coalition and the GCC that has been assembling a military coalition to protect itself from the Muslim Brotherhood. That is why President Trump was willing to support Saudi Arabia with more weapons and U.S. training while withdrawing troops from Syria where the U.S. was having to stand alone to protect the interests of Europeans who will not protect themselves.

In one regional area the U.S. supports and defends Israel, Egypt and Jordan. In the Southern region the U.S. supports the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and Qatar).

President Trump then uses economic weapons against Turkey to keep them in check and Trump warned Erdogan about prolonged entry into Syria and what he would do economically against them.  Erdogan made some noise in public about the threat, but he also realized President Trump was serious.  Erdogan realized he could quickly be a target like China; …and Trump doesn’t bluff; …and he’s done it before.

Meanwhile, President Trump continues to use economic weapons against the EU, pulls troops from Germany, and essentially leverages U.S. economic power against the EU for creating this NATO mess and refusing to defend themselves.

When considering a military option, President Trump reserves deployment of military weapons for allies that are: (A) willing to protect themselves, and (B) willing to pay for the support of the U.S. military protection.

[Payment can come directly (cash purchases), indirectly (benefits within trade agreements), or strategically (take action upon demand) the latter is how President Trump gets Saudi Arabia and OPEC to control their oil production valves.]

As a result of this strategic approach; and after President Trump removed U.S. forces from the border and gave Erdogan a taste of what he asked for (war); and after an initial week of severe battles where military casualties were too great to continue; the Turkish government and Kurdish opposition forces in Syria signed a peace agreement.

The border region has been stable ever since, and note U.S. forces are not involved.

We are out of one Syrian quagmire, the area is stable, President Trump’s approach worked; and, perhaps more importantly, Lindsey Graham was taught a lesson.

Quite remarkably Lindsey Graham admitted he was wrong and Trump was right…

However, conversely John Bolton, who relies on a career of blood-brokering, would not admit he was wrong and instead writes a ridiculous dossier.

 

Jerry Nadler / Lawfare Planning to Impeach AG Bill Barr?…


In 2018/2019 the roadmap to impeach President Trump was clear; many denied its visibility until it was almost too late.  In the past week several moves within DC present a roadmap to impeach AG Bill Barr.  Could this be the DC defense against USAO John Durham’s findings surrounding the DC soft-coup effort?  You decide.

♦On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦On Tuesday, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept. (LINK) Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦And now today the DOJ is announcing that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

With those final two departures there’s no longer any Main Justice leadership in position from the era of Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein.  Seems like quite a coincidence.

DOJ Sues Former NSA John Bolton Over Book Release….


Earlier today the DOJ filed a civil action [see pdf here] against former National Security Advisor John Bolton for refusing to comply with the classified intelligence review prior to publishing a book.  [DOJ FILING LINK]  Perpetual warmonger John Bolton worked as NSA to President Trump from April 2018 to September 2019.

Bolton was always an odd pick for National Security Advisor given his propensity to advance mid-east wars and advocacy for military strikes against North Korea.

…”On June 7, 2020, without Defendant giving any prior notice to the NSC, press reports revealed that Defendant and his publisher had resolved to release the book on June 23, without completing the pre-publication review process. Subsequent correspondence with Defendant’s attorney confirmed that public reporting.

Simply put, Defendant struck a bargain with the United States as a condition of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public.”… (pdf)

An embed of the lawsuit is below:

.

It is worth remembering during the impeachment effort John Bolton was holed-up in Qatar seemingly plotting his next moves.   Bolton is a deep state traveler of the highest order.  Qatar is the funding mechanism for many anti-Trump operations in the U.S.

The Qatari government has long been a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and officials within Qatar held and influential friendship with former senator John McCain and his tribe of war advocates.

Qatar funds the Brookings Institute; which is the funder of Lawfare; which is the organization of ideological “beach friends” etc. etc.  All of these affiliated entities are connected by their desire to oppose President Trump.  There are trillions at stake.

It is not coincidental that Bolton’s anti-Trump activity aligns with the timing of the Pentagon.  Nothing is accidental. [Note the DATES]

Haya Al-Thani@hayabntalwaleed

You guys is this John Bolton spotted just casually walking around AlMessila area in Doha?😅

Embedded video

2,890 people are talking about this

NBC Report Implicates Google in Antitrust Activity…


NBC News is taking a victory lap after their successful efforts to target their competition, The Federalist website, results in GoogleAds demonetizing the outlet. However, within the article the NBC report also implicates Google in large-scale antitrust violations.

According to NBC the outlet asked Google to take action against the Federalist. Emphasis mine:

(Via NBC News) […] The two sites, ZeroHedge and The Federalist, will no longer be able to generate revenue from any advertisements served by Google Ads.

A Google spokesperson said in an email that it took action after determining the websites violated its policies on content related to race.

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race from monetizing,” the spokesperson wrote. “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

[…] Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention. (link)

Apparently NBC has a self-admitted division within its news operation that is specifically focused on eliminating any competition.  To accomplish this objective NBC requests Google to target and remove revenue from their competition.  An alignment of self-serving interest based on ideology.  This is only one example of an unlawful antitrust violation.

Again, the traditional media cannot win the debate of ideas without putting mechanisms into place to tilt the stage in their favor.

This is a rather stark admission; and the fact that NBC would publicly admit their intent is evidence of how little the media is concerned about the nature of their ideological manipulation.

However, there’s another public admission within the article that is worth highlighting.

[…]  Google added that it takes into account all of the content on a websiteincluding comments to determine if a policy violation has occurred.

That is how Google has gone beyond the scope of commerce, and into the realm of curtailing speech.  By weaponizing their ability to demonetize a platform Google attempts to force digital platforms to remove public speech they disagree with.

What you the reader/commentator write on a website can end-up with Big Tech targeting that website financially.  Think about the larger ramifications here.  Hopefully, in a modern era where so much information is now captured by alternative outlets, everyone is starting to see just how big an issue this control authority has become.

On May 28th, after President Trump signed an executive order targeting on-line censorship, CTH wrote a twitter thread about it.  There has to be a breaking point where the FCC or DOJ steps in to address these issues, if our constitutional republic is to survive.

[Read Executive Order Here] – In the periphery of this executive action there are indications, and a widespread expectation, the DOJ is close to filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google Inc and their affiliated companies. There is a possibility the controlling ideology of ‘big tech’ is about to merge with legal action by the DOJ.

The DOJ action has not yet happened, but there are signals it is close. There have been visible signals, subtle but visible, the DOJ was/is about to move on a massive (the biggest in history) antitrust lawsuit against Google and all affiliates.

The issue will not necessarily surface as most would think; via a bias based on conservative -vs- leftist ideology in content manipulation; though those underlying aspects are a part of the larger underpinning we will soon see surface.

Antitrust lawsuits, writ large, are based on “prices”, “costs”, and net “financial” distortions caused by corporations not competing based on open commerce. “Antitrust” in it’s structural form is based on costs and the manipulation of prices.  Essentially, controlled commerce.

In the digital sphere the targeted firms have not opened themselves to liability based on ideology; but rather Google, all subsidiaries and alliances, have opened themselves to antitrust violations through the manipulation and control of financial benefit.

Demonitization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws…. But will they take action? That’s the question.

Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the media company GoogleAds and not the free market. Devaluing certain content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

Underpinning that revenue control is the ideological nature of the control enforcer, in this example Google. However, for the purpose of antitrust lawsuits, that motive is irrelevant.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.  Google (and all subsidiaries) will lose on the substance of their defense because ultimately their business practice has resulted in, and arguably they have engaged in, price fixing.

It will take time, but from an optimistic position if the DOJ take action eventually Google would be forced to settle a lawsuit.  There could be a massive financial settlement in addition to a negotiated Consent Decree. Within the decree terms, we could even see a break-up.

Any antitrust action is only tangentially related to President Trump’s previous confrontation with Twitter and big tech social media based on ideological lines. However, it is easy to see how the two issues will merge.  The monetary distortions are based on ideology.

As soon as the DOJ takes action Silicon Valley will hold an even larger self-interest in the 2020 election outcome; and they will respond accordingly.

This is definitely worth watching…

 

Sunday Talks: Senator Ron Johnson Discusses Obamagate Subpoenas and Committee Investigation…


Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his committee investigation into what the U.S. intelligence apparatus was doing during the 2016 election, transition, and first two years of President Trump’s tenure in office.

It’s a good interview, and chairman Johnson outlines additional subpoenas that his committee is submitting to compel testimony and gain documents.  However, it’s now mid-June 2020.

Obama-Era Political Surveillance – Were Black Files Created?…


I’m reposting a prior research outline below because something odd is happening in the background of this story. I’m not sure what it is, but there are small -seemingly disconnected- issues surfacing, that might tie back to this much bigger and purposefully avoided story.  I have learned to trust my instincts on this.

♦One – The FISA reauthorization legislation was dropped by Nancy Pelosi and all media conversation immediately vaporized.
♦Two – Crowdstrike is very concerned about this story every time it surfaces.
♦Three – If you understand the scale and scope of surveillance… does that explain the behavior of some people today [legislative (politicians), judiciary (judges), Pentagon (military)].

Are black files being used in 2020?

With the release of recent transcripts and the declassification of material from within the IG report on the Carter Page FISA, there is a common misconception about how the intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign. In this outline we hope to provide some deep source material that will explain the origin, and specifically why the those inside the Intelligence Community began using Confidential Human Sources.

During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being exploited by contractors within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.

On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.

NSA Director Mike Rogers was made aware.

Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.

On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 “about”(17) and “to/from”(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.

When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was taking place in the GOP primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.

Additionally, tens-of-thousands of searches were identified by the FISA court as likely extending much further than the compliance review period: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error rate”.

In short, during the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of “Spygate”, as it unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.

It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance tool that created their initial problem. Here’s how we can tell.

Initially in December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates and all needed to be researched.

However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.

On Super Tuesday, March 2, 2016, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee. On March 5th, Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on March 8th Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.

The next day, March 9th, NSA security alerts warned internal oversight personnel that something sketchy was going on.

This timing is not coincidental. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.” Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the primary search target, over multiple date ranges, was Donald Trump.

There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her report, there is no reason to believe the 85% non compliant rate was any different from the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012.

As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during Obama’s second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down “contractor” access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way to get access.

Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton campaign contract Fusion GPS… who then hire Christopher Steele.

Knowing it was federal “contractors”, outside government with access to the system, doing the unauthorized searches, the question becomes: who were the contractors?

The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known FBI contractor; they were also contracted by the DNC. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and is now the head of Crowdstrike; a rather dubious contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.

James Comey’s special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI “special employee” with security access to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project in November 2015 and she was a CIA contractor; and it’s entirely likely Glenn Simpson or people within his Fusion-GPS network were also contractors for the intelligence community.

Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It’s all part of this same network; Attkisson even names Shawn Henry as a defendant in her ongoing lawsuit.

All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.

It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted system users would have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users (including those inside the official intelligence apparatus) needed to find another back-door to continue… Again, the timing becomes transparent.

Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9th; the same intelligence agencies began using confidential human sources (CHS’s) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence assets like Joseph Mifsud and Stefan Halper the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the same political surveillance operations.

When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on March 28, 2016, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a known entity to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort’s entry into the Trump orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia collusion script two weeks later.

The shift from “unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database” to legally authorized exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated “spygate”, or what officially blossomed into the FBI investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31.

If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance audit; and if the political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.

Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an “about” query shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.

That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 “about query” is then piped to Steele and turns up inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn’t Trump’s lawyer, it was an art dealer from New York City with the same name; the same “identifier”.

A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?

Start by reviewing the established record from the 99-page FISC opinion rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details within the FISC opinion.

I would strongly urge everyone to read the FISC report (full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had an “institutional lack of candor” in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons’ private information for multiple years.

Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer’s brief and ruling is not an easy read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era surveillance issues. So we’ll try to break down the language.

.

For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.

Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was alerted of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) “About” queries using the FBI/NSA database that holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.

The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance audit on/around March 9th, 2016, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May 1st, 2016.

While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) “about query” option, and went to the extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on April 18, 2016(keep these dates in mind).

Here are some significant segments:

The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were conducting searches and then removing, or ‘exporting’, the results. Later on, the FBI said all of the exported material was deleted.

Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.

♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (“702”); and the “16” is a check box to initiate a search based on “To and From“. Example, if you put in a date and a phone number and check “16” as the search parameter the user will get the returns on everything “To and From” that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts, contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.

♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the “17” is a check box to initiate a search based on everything “About” the search qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check “17” as the search parameter the user will get the returns of everything about that phone. Calls, texts, contacts, geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result, 702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date parameters.

And that’s just from a phone number.

Search an ip address “about” and read all data into that server; put in an email address and gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about) and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic ‘identifier’.

The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places, numbers, addresses, etc. By using the “About” parameter there may be thousands or millions of returns. Imagine if you put “@realdonaldtrump” into the search parameter? You could extract all following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. You are only limited by your imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.

As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing “raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information”.

In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any attempt to “minimize” or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the results were named and obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:

But what’s the scale here? This is where the story really lies.

Read this next excerpt carefully.

The operators were searching “U.S Persons”. The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016, showed “eighty-five percent of those queries” were unlawful or “non compliant”.

85% !! “representing [redacted number]”.

We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and 99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.

The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.

Also notice this very important quote: “many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.” This tells us the system users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over different dates.  The same people were being repeatedly queried.

Specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored.

Additionally, notice the last quote: “while the government reports it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of” these non lawful searches “since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate”.

That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening since 2012.

2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:

  • Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become special prosecutor in 2017.
  • Who was Mueller’ chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the Mueller special counsel.
  • Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
  • Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
  • Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense Secretary? Ash Carter

Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.

And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with James Comey.

Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The results were extracted for?…. (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I’ll explain why momentarily.)

OK, that’s the stunning scale; but who was involved?

Private contractors with access to “raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI’s requests“:

And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.

[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby, goes to the White House the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]

None of this is conspiracy theory.

All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a footnote on page 87: “deliberate decisionmaking“:

This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: “([redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into [redacted])”, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and distribution of surveillance data.

Note: “no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016“, that is important.

Summary: The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.

The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and we are not the only one to think that’s what this system is being used for.

Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize the FISA legislation, Nunes wrote a letter to ODNI Dan Coats about this specific issue:

SIDEBAR: To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the “About” query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process completely. [SEE HERE] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as a full combatant command. [SEE HERE] Unfortunately it didn’t work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge James Boasberg [SEE HERE]

There is little doubt the FISA-702(16)(17) database system was used by Obama-era officials, from 2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.

Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.

When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.

All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers fired.

Everything after March 9th, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of the FISA database. [Explained Here] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes sense; he was FBI Director when this began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.

The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.

Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:

The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)

Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.

The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.

Lesson Learned – It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.

The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the “Secret Research Project” was now worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be visible in footnote #69:

How this all comes together in 2019/2020

Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence provided by the FISC, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. The Obama administration already knew everything about the Trump campaign, and were monitoring everything by exploiting the FISA database.

However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal albeit ex post facto justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.

That’s why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly committed to and defending the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content.

The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains two purposes: (1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama); and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist Clinton).

An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep}.

The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.

Ultimately that’s why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.

Was the Peter Strzok created “EC” that initiated Crossfire Hurricane really just a massive effort to cover-up the Obama-era surveillance network?  {Go Deep}  Is that underlying surveillance network the real threat explaining why Michael Flynn had to be removed?

.

.

In this video Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the notification.

.

Sunday Talks: Richard Grenell Discusses The Declassification of Documents…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell discusses his prior approach toward declassifying documents behind the Obama administration’s efforts to disrupt the incoming Trump administration.

As Grenell notes the prior administration was politically focused on targeting Donald Trump and weaponizing the intelligence apparatus to disrupt the Trump administration. Grenell discusses the over-classification of documents as a tool to hide intentional wrongdoing and corrupt intent.

It’s worth noting the interview is heavily edited; which, given Ms. Bartiromo’s granular insight on the issues, may indicate some of the conversation extended beyond what would be comfortable for the current investigation to be seen in public. (Just a hunch).

Diana West Discusses Ideological Pentagon -VS- A Pragmatic Commander in Chief…


This is a little lengthy of a discussion, but it touches upon something very relevant to this election cycle.  Author Diana West discusses a network and pattern of ideology within the modern pentagon leadership, and how a worldview is threatened by President Trump. The interview and discussion is below.

The conversation necessarily gets in the weeds and is filled with unique insight into a very complex alignment. However, in the big picture it’s not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.  During the campaign and early administration President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat.  The same type of perspective applies internally to the U.S. military.

President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare makes the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hits the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  The primary has become the contingency. The value of James Mattis replaced by the effectiveness of Robert Lighthizer.  JC Milley isn’t in the planning room; Milley’s been replaced by Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).

In the Trump era the President is telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and asks them for ‘contingency’ preparation.  Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy is lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on economic strategy.

Take away power, or worse yet, stop using military power, and the leaders within the system start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent.  Overlay this military view upon pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse.

CTH touched on this last year when we noted how the Pentagon, specifically the joint chiefs, never took any action when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman positioned himself as an opponent to President Trump’s policy perspective.  The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.

Another example was Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and the visit Pompeo and Milley took to Mar-a-Lago in December, where they were informing President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here].

Yet another related example was Navy Secretary Richard Spencer threatening President Trump and attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher.

All of these examples paint a picture of a Pentagon operating outside the chain-of-command and civilian oversight.

Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of hyper-polarization, normally democrats would be alarmed about military leadership going rogue with their own agenda; however, as long as their agenda is anti-Trump, the political-left is now okay with it.

Recently democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump.  The media didn’t bat an eyelash…  The traditional checks-and-balances, things that keep us stable, are seriously getting sketchy.

Ms. West takes a deeper look at the internal ideology within the Pentagon and then notes the tentacles that extend beyond the military into the Brookings Institute and Lawfare agencies.   The larger assembly of the resistance movement becomes visible. WATCH:

.

…. It’s only a “soft-coup” until the military shows up.

Woke Federal Judge Sullivan Uses Lifeline To Save Toxic Flynn Prosecution


Righteous, Progressive Ex Fed Judge Gleeson Portrays Himself Above American Law

Kelly OConnell image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJune 11, 2020

Righteous, Progressive Ex Fed Judge Gleeson Portrays Himself Above American Law

I. ENTER JOHN GLEESON, STAGE LEFT

Judge Sullivan asks Gleeson for Ruling
When the Justice Dept.  informed Fed Judge Emmet Sullivan of Gen Flynn’s case prosecutorial abuse, ordering dismissal, Sullivan flipped the script, claiming DOJ had no absolute right to dismiss. Instead, Sullivan invited retired Fed .Judge John Gleeson (who had just excoriated DOJ over Flynn’s dismissal by op-ed) to rule on Flynn). So Gleeson filed an amicus brief employing sophistry and anti-Trump outrage, calling Flynn’s dismissal, “Preposterous,” “Corrupt,” and a “Gross abuse of power.” And yet neither Gleeson, nor Sullivan seem bothered by the case’s 900 pound gorilla – Federal misconduct.

Mueller’s Flynn Case Can’t Die

The real issue? The Left can’t bless Flynn’s dismissal, for if he was railroaded at the start of the Russia hoax, then the entire “collusion” was contrived. Further, Sullivan knew of the Flynn problems and looked the other way to help the left. Gleeson is described as a Clark Kent of law with “Unimpeachable Character,” Echos of tainted hoax-lord Bob Mueller, anyone?.

Leftists Claim Intellectual/ Moral Superiority

These dodgy maneuvers highlight the most bombastic claims of leftism. Liberals claim intellectual and moral superiority over any opposition. The clear implication here is Trump, AG Barr and department are ethically obtuse, unable to grasp the monstrous illegality in freeing Flynn, or too dumb to know.

II. DUE PROCESS

Trump’s Friends Get No Due Process

Gleeson claims the DOJ acted corruptly protecting Trump’s friend and employee, Gen. Flynn, stating: “the instant the Executive Branch filed a criminal charge against Flynn, it forfeited the right to implicate this Court in the dismissal of that charge simply because Flynn is a friend and political ally of the President.” Is it true Flynn gave up the right to protest abuse or error when he took a plea from Trump’s legal system? Does that even make sense? Wow. In an interview, Judge Gleeson speaks of the need for “Milk of Human Kindness,” in sentencing. But where is his empathy now? Or did Flynn simply commit the mortal sin of being Trump’s ally?

Government Can’t be Criticized While State Can’t Prove Case

So Gleeson believes if the state lies to Gen.  Flynn, it’s immaterial. What matters is whether Flynn lied to the state. And if he did, he must be punished, period. More problematic for Gleeson, is evidence tampering. So could the Feds prove their case in a regular trial? Probably not. Most shocking is neither Gleeson nor Sullivan have a problem with this.

III. DUE PROCESS REMEDY

Due Process Supersedes

A colossal problem for Gleeson and Sullivan is Flynn was not afforded Due Process from the very beginning. A desire to punish Trump’s “friend” Flynn doesn’t excuse the state from not informing him he was under investigation, could stay silent, leave, or get an attorney, and needed a Miranda warning.  In fact, had Flynn known he was a subject of investigation as were his rights, he would have never been prosecuted because the entire FBI casual conversation was a setup to entrap Flynn, which no attorney would allow. Yet, it’s sad Gleeson drags Trump into his argument. Is being friends with Trump a sin?

Guilt “Already Adjudicated”

Further, when Gleeson states Flynn’s guilt was already “adjudicated”, he’s confusing a positive law understanding for the proper remedy—a natural law analysis taking into account all elements of the case. So Gleeson either doesn’t understand the importance of the Natural Law/ Due Process clause in assessing the case, or more likely, he’s pretending it doesn’t matter since “its already been adjudicated.”  Yet, if all cases had this standard, where the only thing that mattered was having “already been adjudicated,” you could close down all courts of appeal.

Fruit of Poison Tree

The main problem here is that Flynn’s supposed lies don’t cure earlier FBI wrongdoing. This is what’s known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Generally, information gained illegally by police can’t be used for prosecution. This applies for Flynn because the FBI never told him he was under investigation  and so can challenge so-called “lies.” Flynn claims during a casual FBI conversation he was going off memory without preparation and couldn’t recall everything he said to Russian Kislyak – so he had no intent to deceive.

IV. WOKE JUDGES = POLITICIZED CHAOS

Sullivan’s Deus Ex Machina

Of course, the real purpose of Gleeson’s entry is to act as a deus ex machina (a tool used by ancient playwrights to solve storyline problems). Instead of stating his own opinion, Sullivan has Gleeson do so, since he already outlined this in an op-ed. So Sullivan takes the scrutiny off himself while preserving his position. Yet he knows his position lacks, explaining hiring his own lawyer for the case.

Gleeson Leftism

Sullivan is apparently a leftist and Gleeson is also a man of the Left, appointed by Bill Clinton. According to Powerline, retired Gleeson was:

A left-wing judge whose attitude towards crime depends on the identity of the alleged criminal. He favored leniency for street criminals but, favors toughness for political enemies… Also, Gleeson has no appreciation of the distinction between judge and advocate. Thus he was always the perfect candidate to advise Judge Sullivan, who clearly wants to advocate in the Flynn case.

Gleeson actually secretly advocated for defendants as a judge! He’s in the  “Marshall Project,” meant to “create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system.”

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, as a good leftist, Gleeson answers to another authority, but not Natural Law. It’s built from the tears and aspirations of Social Justice. If both Sullivan and Gleeson trample upon the rules and spirit of American jurisprudence, that’s okay. The methods of socialism are antinomian, or lawless. These judges take comfort knowing, even risking exposure, they serve a higher order they know is the only salvation and heaven this world will ever offer: global Marxism.

DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec Discusses DOJ Position on Flynn Case…


DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec is interviewed by Liz MacDonald to discuss today’s DC Circuit Court hearing in the Flynn case.  As Ms. Kupec notes there are several irregularities in the case stemming first-and-foremost from a decision by Judge Emett Sullivan refusing to accept an unopposed motion by both the DOJ and Flynn defense to drop the case.