Sunday Talks: Senator Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo…


Good grief this guy is useless.  Giving a great example of why politicians should shut up until they learn all the facts about subjects and events they are talking about, Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News to explain how President Trump’s Syria plan is the best thing ever…

Yes, this interview happens after Senator Graham has spent a full week telling all of the administration’s opposition how the Syria plan was the worst thing ever…

Durham’s Trail Leading to SSCI – Ali Watkins Never Slept With James Wolfe – It Was a Cover Story….


With media reporting that U.S. Attorney John Durham has expanded the timeline and scope of his investigation into U.S. government and intelligence community activity during the 2016 election, there’s an interesting quote from NBC:

…”Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.”…

The expanded investigative timeline is now into May 2017 when Mueller was appointed special counsel would mean all of the preceding (and surrounding) activity, leading up to Mueller, would be reviewed.   With that carefully in mind….

During the 2016 effort to weaponize the institutions of government against the outside candidacy of Donald Trump, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was headed by Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein.  After the 2016 election Senator Feinstein abdicated her vice-chair position to Senator Mark Warner in January 2017.

While the SSCI was engaged in their part of the 2016 effort Vice-Chair Feinstein’s lead staffer was a man named Daniel Jones. Dan Jones was the contact point between the SSCI and Fusion-GPS.

After the election, and after Feinstein abdicated, Dan Jones left the committee to continue paying Fusion-GPS (Glenn Simpson) for ongoing efforts toward the impeachment insurance policy angle.

Feinstein appears to have left because she didn’t want to deal with the consequences of a President Trump, IF he discovered the SSCI involvement. Dan Jones left because with a Trump presidency the SSCI, now co-chaired by Senator Mark Warner, needed arms-length plausible deniability amid their 2017 operations to continue the removal effort (soft coup).

The trail for this plausible deniability process and ongoing soft-coup effort first surfaces with Dan Jones appearing in the early 2017 text messages between Senator Warner and the liaison for Christopher Steele, lawyer and lobbyist Adam Waldman:

In those March 2017 text message you can see Senator Warner attempting to set up covert “no paper trail” communication with dossier author Christopher Steele. Adam Waldman represented Chris Steele and Steele’s employer, Oleg Deripaska.

Less than a month later you can see within the text messages that Christopher Steele is in direct contact with Dan Jones. “[Chris] said Dan Jones is coming to see you” etc.

(Text Messages Between Feinstein’s replacement, Mark Warner, and Chris Steele’s lawyer/lobbyist, Adam Waldman, noting the importance of Dan Jones)

Former Feinstein staffer Dan Jones talking to Christopher Steele in April 2017 is critical to understanding what was going on after Trump won the election.

Jones raised $50 million from those who were behind the 2016 stop Trump effort, and the purpose was now the 2017 impeachment effort [SEE LINK]. Jones having left the SSCI (now outside govt.) then paid Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS to keep up their efforts. As you can see from the texts, Jones was now talking in person (“coming to see you”) to SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner in April 2017.

[Side-Bar: The role of Fusion-GPS in 2017 shifted, and was now weighted toward feeding a specific media narrative that would aid impeachment (through the FBI, Weissmann and Mueller obstruction angle). Fusion-GPS was now the conduit for arms-length media leaks from the usurping small group still inside the DOJ and FBI. Dan Jones was paying Fusionon behalf of those with larger interests. Fusion was feeding the media.]

So you can clearly see the SSCI was heavily involved in the impeachment effort after the election.

TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2

Yes. As discussed at the time… https://twitter.com/ValorOf1776/status/1186015863557636096 

Kassie ⭐️⭐️⭐️✝️🇺🇸@ValorOf1776
Replying to @TheLastRefuge2

I guess it’s the reason why Feinstein released the full transcript of Glenn Simpson, so that they can coordinate their stories. – https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/sen-dianne-feinstein-unilaterally-releases-fusion-gps-testimony.html 

80 people are talking about this

Secondary documentation of the connection between the DOJ, FBI, Fusion, and Dan Jones shows up in the FBI investigative 302 notes of Bruce Ohr, released by Judicial Watch. [Pay attention to the May 8th, 2017, interview – pg 18, 19 of pdf]

The highlighted bottom portion of page 18 (May 8, 2017, interview) shows a heavily redacted text, but holds enough material to overlay with other research.

This is where Bruce Ohr is talking about Dan Jones efforts as they were currently aligned with Fusion GPS: “and had been on the staff of the [Senate Intelligence Committee]”…. “At the time of the interview [Jones] was working with the [Vice Chairman of the Committee Mark Warner]”… etc.

This part is heavily redacted because the corrupt agents within the current DOJ and FBI once again don’t want people to piece together what was happening.

This is not sources and methods being redacted. This is not national security being redacted. This is the trail of the connective tissue in/around the small group plotting that is being hidden.

At the top of page 19, the investigative notes of Ohr’s discussion continues.

Bruce Ohr is telling the FBI investigator, likely Agent Joe Pientka, about Glenn Simpson and Dan Jones visiting Christopher Steele sometime after May 8, 2017, and they were in the process of “lawyering up”.

Now before going deeper in the SSCI weeds, let me pause and explain the important specifics behind why the FBI was interviewing Bruce Ohr about Chris Steele; by overlaying what was going on in/around early 2017.

Chris Steele wasn’t alone in creating the “dossier”.  Heck, the purpose of Fusion-GPS contracting Steele; and the purpose of the FBI engaging with Steele; was the laundry value of having a known intelligence officer validate political opposition research which the FBI could use against Donald Trump.  The reality is: most of the raw material and research inside the dossier was from Glenn Simpson and Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS.

The ‘small group’ inside the DOJ and FBI always knew the provenance of the material; the plan and intent was to utilize Fusion-GPS for their political purposes.

Everyone carrying out this operation, all of the corrupt entities within it, knew the material from Chris Steele was essentially political opposition research. Many of those same people later weaponized the research into the FISA application to give it higher import and value.

That set’s up early 2017 – where the FBI was evaluating the extent to which Chris Steele was willing to remain on public record to support a false framework about the dossier itself.  This is the same time-frame where Fusion is being paid by Dan Jones to facilitate the calls for a special counsel.  Fusion drives that narrative with structured leaks to media.

Steele’s support was a key issue because the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials were about to hand-off the dossier to Special Counsel Robert Mueller (figurehead only) as the basis for the ‘small group’ and him to launch the special counsel aspect of an ongoing operation.

If Chris Steele suddenly walked away from the dossier, and/or admitted publicly the dossier was political opposition research primarily from Glenn Simpson and Nellie Ohr, the FBI would have a shit-storm on its hands…. and they needed to evaluate the position of Steele.  Steele could be a risk if he was not supporting the team playbook. That’s the driving purpose behind all of this 2017 “re-engagement” with Steele through Bruce Ohr.

The small group in the DOJ and FBI planned to continue, pass-off and modify the Trump investigation by shifting it to a special counsel. The centerpiece of that investigation would be using the dossier as justification for a need to investigate Trump as a Russian risk. The DOJ/FBI small group needed Glenn Simpson and Chris Steele to stand by the false narrative all of the players had assembled over the prior year.

The wildcard to retain the false story was Chris Steele… Steele was an outside participant, albeit aligned with the ideology and the purpose. Evaluating Steele’s willful participation in keeping the narrative as assembled was the reason for their urgent talks; however, the “small group” couldn’t run the risk of direct talks in the same way that Mark Warner couldn’t risk of a paper trail.

Additionally, in support of the 2017 use of Chris Steele to frame the Russia narrative, the CIA, FBI, ODNI and aggregate intelligence community simultaneously pushed the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report (JAR) and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), as evidence to support their Russia narrative.

Now, where’s John Durham been spending his time looking, and what part of the period is he looking at?  Yes, the JAR and ICA construct.

The prosecutor conducting the review, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, has expressed his intent to interview a number of current and former intelligence officials involved in examining Russia’s effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, Brennan told NBC News.

Durham has also requested to talk to CIA analysts involved in the intelligence assessment of Russia’s activities, prompting some of them to hire lawyers, according to three former CIA officialsfamiliar with the matter. And there is tension between the CIA and the Justice Department over what classified documents Durham can examine, two people familiar with the matter said.  (Link)

If the ICA is a false political document, then guess what?  Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud (it is).  Then the construct of the special counsel probe (remember the “originating” construct), was false (it was).

In early 2017 Adam Waldman and Dan Jones were facilitating a plausibly deniable information pipeline from Chris Steele to the SSCI and Senator Mark Warner.  At the same time, and for the same purposes, DOJ official Bruce Ohr was facilitating a plausibly deniable information pipeline from Chris Steele to the FBI/DOJ small group. The purposes were the same, everyone needed assurances Steele wasn’t going to back-out.

That corrupt planning activity is what the some unknown DOJ and FBI officials are hiding behind the Bruce Ohr 302 redactions.

Now remember, U.S. Attorney John Durham has interviewed Christopher Steele; so too has DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

It was AFTER those interviews with Christopher Steele when the IG report was delayed and reports started surfacing that Durham was adding additional resources, expanding his probe and retaining former FBI officials to assist.  It was after those interviews when Durham and Barr started taking the background material of Italy (Mifsud), Australia (Downer) and the U.K. (Halper) more seriously.

Now, where does the current DOJ and FBI small group start to place their defensive positions?  This is where it all starts coming back together:

[…] The Senate intelligence committee examined the allegations about Downer, Mifsud and Halper, as part of its bipartisan investigation into the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia was responsible for attacking the 2016 election, and found nothing to substantiate any wrongdoing, a committee aide said. (read full article)

Again, notice how yesterday the small group is utilizing the SSCI, and it is a committee aide within the SSCI that is leaking to NBC.  The small group are to pulling the Senate Intelligence Committee back into the picture.  That brings Dianne Feinstein, Mark Warner, Richard Burr, Daniel Jones, Adam Waldman and James Wolfe back in.

Why go there?….

Why is the small group pulling the SSCI back into the picture now?…

Because they have to.

In 2018 the DOJ and FBI covered-up the corruption evident during the 2017 pre-Mueller effort.  The current position of the small group is to force the 2019 DOJ and FBI to do it again.

Throughout the 2016 and 2017 effort, a part of one branch of the United States government, the U.S. Senate through the SSCI, was assisting the efforts of the DOJ and FBI against a candidate, president-elect and later United States President, Donald Trump.

The 2017 time period covers Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, Jeff Sessions as AG, Rod Rosenstein as Deputy, Chris Wray replacing James Comey as FBI Director, and eventually David Bowditch replacing Andrew McCabe as Deputy.   For all of the important decision-making Jeff Sessions was cut-out by design.  For example, the person who made the decisions about SSCI Director James Wolfe’s prosecution was Rod Rosenstein.

Bear with me….

As a result of a FOIA release in Mid December 2018, Judicial Watch revealed how the State Department was feeding “classified information” to multiple U.S. Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama administration immediately prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration:

The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN).

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a June 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department after it failed to respond to a February 2018 request seeking records of the Obama State Department’s last-minute efforts to share classified information about Russia election interference issues with Democratic Senator Ben Cardin (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv-01381)).

The documents reveal the Obama State Department urgently gathering classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Donald Trump taking office.  (read more)

The impeachment program was a plan, an insurance policy of sorts; a coordinated effort between corrupt politicians in the Senate and hold-over allies in the executive; however, because she didn’t want to participate in this – Senator Dianne Feinstein abdicated her vice-chair position to Senator Mark Warner.  [Background Here]

This is the pre-cursor to utilizing Robert Mueller.  A plan that was developed soon after the 2016 election.  The appointment of a special counsel was always the way they were going to hand-off and continue the investigation into Trump; but they needed a reason for it.

The continued exploitation of the Steele Dossier was critical; thus they needed Chris Steele to be solid.  And the continued manipulation of the media was also critical; thus they needed Fusion-GPS to continue.  [Dan Jones paid both]

While Mark Warner was communicating with Adam Waldman and Dan Jones as a conduit to Chris Steele, the FBI/DOJ team was communicating through Bruce Ohr to Chris Steele (and by extension to Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS).

Part of Warner’s role was to weaponize the Legislative branch to advance the ‘Muh Russia conspiracy’, a fundamental necessity if a special counsel was going to have justification.

The SSCI, and the security protocols within it, were structurally part of the plan; hence the rapid information from Obama’s State Dept. to the SSCI and Senate participants in the last moments prior to departing.

♦ On March 17th, 2017, the Senate Intelligence Committee took custody of the FISA application used against Carter Page.   We know the FISA court delivered the read and return Top-Secret Classified application due to the clerk stamp of March 17, 2017.

(Page FISA Application, Link)

The FISA application (original and first renewal) was delivered to Senate Security Director James Wolfe.  Senator Mark Warner entered the basement SCIF shortly after 4:00pm on March 17, 2017, the day it was delivered (texts between Warner and Waldman):

Now, when SSCI Security Officer James Wolfe was indicted (unsealed June ’18), we could see the importance of the March 17th date again:

(Wolfe Indictment Link)

We can tell from the description within the indictment the FBI investigators are describing the FISA application.  Additionally Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages with reporter Ali Watkins.  The FISA application is 83 pages with one blank page.

The logical conclusion was that Wolfe text Ali Watkins 82 pictures of the application.

FBI Investigators applied for, and received a search warrant for the phone records of journalist Ali Watkins.  Ms. Watkins was notified in February 2018, three months after Wolfe was questioned by FBI investigators in December 2017.

However, despite the overwhelming (public) circumstantial evidence that Wolfe leaked the FISA application, he was never charged with leaking classified information.  Wolfe was only charged with lying three times to federal authorities, and he pled down to one count of lying to the FBI.

CTH made the case in mid 2018 that someone at the DOJ had influenced a decision not to charge Wolfe with the leaking of the FISA application; despite the FBI and DOJ having direct evidence of Wolfe leaking classified information.

The logical reason for the Rosenstein DOJ not to charge Wolfe with the FISA leak was because that charge would ensnare powerful Senators on the powerful committee.  Worse still, in hindsight we now see how that committee was working to aide the purposes and intents of the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials as they built their impeachment agenda.

Remember, the SSCI has intelligence oversight of the DOJ, DOJ-NSD, FBI and all associated counterintelligence operations. Additionally, when the FBI was investigating Wolfe for leaking classified documents, according to their court filings they had to inform the committee of the risk Wolfe represented.  Who did they have to inform?.. Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.

Think about it.  Both gang-of-eight members (Warner/Burr), who happened -as a consequence of the jaw dropping implications- to be two SSCI members who were warned by the FBI that Wolfe was compromised…. and they, along with Feinstein in 2016, were the co-conspirators who used James Wolfe.  The ramifications cannot be overstated.

Any criminal charges for leaking classified intelligence information against James Wolfe would likely result in a major scandal where the SSCI itself was outlined as participants in the weaponization of government for political intents.  Thus, the perfect alignment of interests for a dropped charge and DC cover-up.  REMEMBER:

(Source)

If it already wasn’t transparently sketchy as hell, in an act of serendipity and self-preservation, the accused Security Director James Wolfe evidenced the schemes when he threatened to subpoena members of the SSCI as part of his defense. [See Here]

[…] Attorneys for James A. Wolfe sent letters to all 15 senators on the committee, notifying them that their testimony may be sought as part of Mr. Wolfe’s defense, according to two people familiar with the matter.

[…] Mr. Wolfe’s defense lawyers are considering calling the senators as part of the proceedings for a variety of reasons, including as potential character witnesses and to rebut some of the allegations made by the government in the criminal complaint, these people say.  (link)

Immediately after threatening to subpoena the SSCI (July 27, 2018), the DOJ (Rosenstein authorizing) cut a deal with Wolfe and dropped the charges down to a single charge of lying to investigators.  However, someone in the FBI who was doing the investigative legwork wasn’t happy with that decision.

The overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Wolfe leaked the FISA application went from a strong suspicion, to damn certain (after the plea deal) when the DOJ included a sentencing motion in mid-December 2018.

On December 15th, 2018 the DOJ filed a response to the Wolfe defense teams’ own sentencing memo (full pdf), and within the DOJ response they included an exhibit (#13) written by the FBI [redacted] special agent in charge, which specifically says: “because of the known disclosure of classified information, the FISA application”… Thereby admitting, albeit post-plea agreement, that Wolfe did indeed leak the damn FISA:

(link to document)

Right there, in that FBI Special Agent description is the bombshell admission that James Wolfe leaked the Carter Page FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

We know the special agent who wrote exhibit #13 in the December filing was Special Agent Brian Dugan, Asst. Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office.  The same investigator who originally signed the affidavit in the original indictment against Wolfe.

So with hindsight there was absolutely no doubt that James Wolfe leaked the 83-page Carter Page FISA application on March 17, 2017.  Period.  It’s all documented with circumstantial and direct evidence; including the admissions from the FBI agent in charge.

So, why was SSCI Security Director James Wolfe allowed to plea to a single count of lying to investigators?

Back to where this started….

During the 2016 and 2017 effort to weaponize the institutions of government against the outside candidacy of Donald Trump, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was a participating entity.  Dianne Feinstein, Richard Burr, Mark Warner, Daniel Jones, and James Wolfe were all participants of varying degrees.

The small group within the DOJ and FBI, now being investigated by Bill Barr, John Durham and Michael Horowitz, are pushing the SSCI back into the spotlight in an effort to utilize all of the legislative branch participants as a shield.   It’s the James Wolfe defense.

Pelosi Gaslighting Continues – False Claims: Administration “defying lawful subpoenas & document requests”…


Nancy Pelosi continues to mislead her ‘impeachment’ constituents.  Unfortunately the compliant media is refusing to hold her accountable.  House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.   As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

(Source)

“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word.  The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

Absent a vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) can only send out request letters. The compliance is discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

It is likely, highly likely, Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes to proceed with a full House impeachment authorization; so Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings have to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme. So far the media is complying.

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme can only succeed with a compliant media protecting it.  So far the media has been entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.  If the media would ask questions the fraud would collapse.

Adam Schiff has to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud is to create a public impression.  There is no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed.  The committee leadership are using the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create the needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 

There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.   The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority.  This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.  The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution. It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.  She is well aware of this.  Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme requires a compliant media to support her construct.  So far, they have.

.

Sunday Talks: Kevin McCarthy -vs- Maria Bartiromo…


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss ongoing politics in Washington DC.

McCarthy discusses the meeting between Speaker Pelosi and President Trump and the ongoing fiasco with Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” by decree.

New York Times Narrative Engineers Start Positioning DOJ/FBI “Small Group” Coup-Plotters as Victims of CIA and Intelligence Community Manipulation…


The background context has already been outlined –SEE HERE– so we won’t repeat.  Instead, we look at today’s defensive narrative engineering from the New York Times with a similar perspective, but a different set of reminders.

Content and distribution tells us this information is from the DOJ and FBI faction of the “Small Group“.  Not accidentally, and VERY importantly, this is the same faction under the microscope of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his pending IG report.  Additionally, and again very importantly, the principles within the IG report have already had an opportunity to review the part of the upcoming report that highlights their conduct.

So this New York Times reporting, from conversations with the DOJ and FBI small group participants, is coming out in advance of the IG report and with their review in mind.

Here’s the article, emphasis mine:

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.

[Note “prosecutors” is plural; more than one.  “prosecutors” also implies a shift from investigative review, to a likelihood of criminal conduct.  The media presentation of John Durham has gone from a single U.S. Attorney with a mandate from his boss, to a group of people, ‘prosecutors’, working with the U.S. Attorney.]

The prosecutors, led by John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, have interviewed about two dozen former and current F.B.I. officials, the people said. Two former senior F.B.I. agents are assisting with the review, the people said.

[Two dozen former and current FBI officials questioned, but none of the individual within the small group have been questioned yet.  In addition to the prosecutors, Durham also has two FBI agents assisting.  Later in the article we discover a strong likelihood that one of those FBI agents is the leak source for the New York Times.]

The number of interviews shows that Mr. Durham’s review is further along than previously known. It has served as a political flash point since Attorney General William P. Barr revealed in the spring that he planned to scrutinize the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which Mr. Trump and his allies have attacked without evidence as a plot by law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent him from winning the 2016 election.

[…] Mr. Durham has yet to interview all the F.B.I. officials who played key roles in opening the Russian investigation in the summer of 2016, the people familiar with the review said. He has not spoken with Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence official who opened the inquiry; the former director James B. Comey or his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe; or James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel.

[So Mr. Durham has not questioned the “small group” participants. Ultimately this appears to be the reason for the nervousness now originating a defensive posture.]

Those omissions suggest Mr. Durham may be waiting until he has gathered all the facts before he asks to question the main decision makers in the Russia inquiry.

[Or it could be that those “main decision makers” are targets of the investigation.]

The president granted Mr. Barr sweeping powers for the review, though he did not open it as a criminal investigation. That means he gave Mr. Durham the power only to read materials the government had already gathered and to request voluntary interviews from witnesses, not to subpoenawitnesses or documents. It is not clear whether the status of the review has changed.

[Why would Mr. Barr need to “subpoena” pre-existing documents he has been granted full presidential authority to review?  Methinks the New York Times engineer is conflating the power of a special counsel (prior investigation) with the power of a U.S. Attorney General who was granted full access to any/all classified information by an executive order from the President of the United States.]

Mr. Durham’s investigators appeared focused at one point on Mr. Strzok, said one former official who was interviewed. Mr. Strzok opened the Russia inquiry in late July 2016 after receiving information from the Australian government that the Russians had offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton to a Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Durham’s team has asked about the events surrounding the Australian tip, some of the people familiar with the review said.

Mr. Durham’s team, including Nora R. Dannehy, a veteran prosecutor, has questioned witnesses about why Mr. Strzok both drafted and signed the paperwork opening the investigation, suggesting that was unusual for one person to take both steps. Mr. Strzok began the inquiry after consulting with F.B.I. leadership, former officials familiar with the episode said.

[“why” did FBI leadership allow Strzok to create, draft and open the investigation?  LOL, that’s actually a big tell.  Apparently Comey and McCabe were smart enough to keep their signatures off a political investigation.  It’s called plausible deniability.  Same purpose for James Comey keeping copious notes (diary) in his home safe.

Mr. Durham has also questioned why Mr. Strzok opened the case on a weekend, again suggesting that the step might have been out of the ordinary. Former officials said that Mr. McCabe had directed Mr. Strzok to travel immediately to London to interview the twoAustralian diplomats who had learned about the Russians’ offer to help the Trump campaign and that he was trying to ensure he took the necessary administrative steps first.

[“Two” = Alexander Downer and Erika Thompson.   May 10, 2016, Papadopoulos meets Ambassador Downer at the Kensington Wine Rooms in London, England. MEDIA CLAIM: “Downer met with George Papadopoulos, where Papadopoulos — having been introduced through two intermediaries, Christian Cantor and Erika Thompson — mentioned that Russians had material on Hillary Clinton.”  Both Papadopoulos and Downer refute their May 10th meeting discussed Clinton emails.  Papadopoulos notes that Ambassador Downer is recording their conversation.  {Go Deep}]

It is not clear how many people Mr. Durham’s team has interviewed outside of the F.B.I. His investigators have questioned officials in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but apparently have yet to interview C.I.A. personnel, people familiar with the review said.

[So the leakers “people familiar” to the NYT are limited to knowledge inside the DOJ and FBI operational entities; just as we suspected.

[…]  Many of the questions from Mr. Durham’s team overlapped with ones that the Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has posed in his own look into aspects of the Russia inquiry, according to the people.

Mr. Horowitz’s report, which is most likely to be made public in the coming weeksis expected to criticize law enforcement officials’ actions in the Russia investigation. Mr. Horowitz’s findings could provide insights into why Mr. Barr thought that the Russia investigation needed to be examined.

[Well, there’s the motive for the current narrative engineering.  Horowitz’s report is coming out; small group participants will be criticized; and the justification for Barr and Durham to look at their behavior will be bolstered by IG Horowitz.]

In his review, Mr. Durham has asked witnesses about the role of Christopher Steele, a former intelligence official from Britain who was hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by a firm that was in turn financed by Democrats. Law enforcement officials used some of the information Mr. Steele compiled into a now-infamous dossier to obtain a secret wiretap on a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, whom they suspected was an agent of Russia.

[Interesting the NYT doesn’t write that Mr. Durham has interviewed Christopher Steele about his work on the dossier and his contact with the small group (he has).  One would think that would be an important notation in a paragraph about Mr. Steele, no?]

[…] Mr. Durham’s investigators asked why F.B.I. officials would use unsubstantiated or incorrect information in their application for a court order allowing the wiretap and seemed skeptical about why agents relied on Mr. Steele’s dossier.

The inspector general has also raised concerns that the F.B.I. inflated Mr. Steele’s value as an informant in order to obtain the wiretap on Mr. Page. Mr. Durham’s investigators have done the same, according to the people familiar with his review.

[Well, well, well, I answered by own question.  The NYT doesn’t want readers to know John Durham interviewed Steele, because the NYT is admitting the Steele information was “unsubstantiated”, “incorrect”, and the FBI “inflated” Mr. Steele to gain a political weapon.  Hmmm… methinks those exact words will be in the IG report; I digress.]

Mr. Horowitz has asked witnesses about an assessment of Mr. Steele that MI6, the British spy agency, provided to the F.B.I. after bureau officials received his dossier on Mr. Trump in September 2016. MI6 officials said Mr. Steele, a Russia expert, was honest and persistent but sometimes showed questionable judgment in pursuing targets that others viewed as a waste of time, two people familiar with the assessment said.

[That preceeding paragraph is just loaded with juicy stuff.  The NYT is sharing that MI6 told the FBI Steele was a sketchy fellow.  The NYT is positioning the dossier to the FBI in September 2016, but we know the dossier material was in Brennan’s briefing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in August 2016…. So the NYT is positioning the FBI as a victim of bad intel from the dossier that was initiated by John Brennan. Very interesting.  Additionally, “two people familiar with the MI6 assessment” is confluent with two people who have read the IG report which will outline the MI6 assessment.  See how that works?]

One former official said that in his interview with Mr. Durham’s team, he pushed back on the notion that law enforcement and intelligence officials had plotted to thwart Mr. Trump’s candidacy..

[…]  The former official said he was reassured by the presence of John C. Eckenrode, one of the former senior F.B.I. agents assisting Mr. Durham. Like Mr. Durham, who investigated C.I.A. torture of detainees overseas, Mr. Eckenrode is also familiar with high-stakes political inquiries.

He is probably best known for working with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the former United States attorney who in 2003 was appointed to investigate the leak of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, to a journalist.

“Jack is as straight a shooter as you can get in the F.B.I.,” Asha Rangappa, a former F.B.I. agent, said of Mr. Eckenrode, a friend. “It’s the first reassuring thing I’ve heard about this review.”  (Read Full Article)

Oh good grief.  Asha “Comey is my Homey” Rangappa, likes one of Durham’s FBI investigators…. who also worked with corruptocrat Patrick Fitzgerald, one of James Comey’s corrupt friends who is now Comey’s corrupt lawyer.

Given that some of these NYT leaks come from inside Durham’s team, it’s likely John Eckenrode is the source.

Asha “Comey is my Homey” Rangappa (seated)

The key takeaway from this NYT article is the beginning of the public defense narrative for the DOJ/FBI small group.  They are starting to position themselves as victims of false information delivered to them by the CIA and Intelligence Community.

Apparently, this is the big picture defense they will use when the IG report drops.

Reminder: John Durham Questioning CIA Officials About Intelligence Community Assessment…


Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:

Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.

CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s likely Durham will cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.

Scope: This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

DOJ-FBI “Small Group” Promote Defense of Spygate Operations – Former FBI/DOJ Officials Nervous, Hiring Lawyers…


The activity of the “small group” of coup plotters consists of three generalized subsidiary agencies: (1) DOJ/FBI, (2) CIA/ODNI, and (3) The State Department.

Within each “small group faction” a years-long review of their narrative constructs shows the groups have specific and unique media outlets for their offensive (’16, ’17) and defensive (’18, ’19) propaganda efforts.

•The DOJ/FBI faction of the “small group” leaks to narrative engineers at the New York Times and NBC. •The CIA/ODNI faction utilize the Washington Post and ABC; and •the State Dept. faction use CNN and CBS. Each faction uses the same reporters & pundits for their distribution. This pattern, albeit generalized, has been consistent for several years.

The originating media entity -utilizing the leaks, opinions and agenda of the faction most concerned- starts the process. The secondary media groups come in for support – reporting on the reporting; and then reporting on the reporting of the reporting… and so on. This process provides a concentric distribution effort to bolster the originating premise.

Similar to the Journ-o-list effort of Ezra Klein, all of the ideologically aligned reporters share information for the larger process of defending the prior activity and advancing a unified narrative. [Reference Buzzfeed’s Ali Watkins sharing leaks from SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to her peers at WaPo and New York Times while she had sex with the source to keep the information pipeline open.]

It is important to remember this concerted process whenever we are reviewing media articles concerning the matters of interest to each of the “small group” factions.

In essence, the propagandists within the media are the same; and the sources for the positions reflected in the articles are the same. Wash, rinse and repeat depending on the identified risk.

So today we see NBC and the New York Times going “out front” on behalf of their interests. Referencing the faction each outlet represents we see the *reporting* is to defend the interests of the DOJ and FBI.

The first “small group” report is from NBCToplines:

  • The Durham investigation is more broad and therefore more troubling.
  • Durham is moving to interview current/former CIA and current/former Intelligence Community operatives.
  • The CIA and Intelligence Community operatives are hiring lawyers prior to speaking to Durham.
  • The Durham investigation appears again looking at the ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment); which again is the part of Small Group operation which constructed the ‘vast Russian conspiracy’ (election interference) narrative.
  • The Small Group is worried the investigation has now shifted into a possible criminal probe.
  • The Small Group members themselves have NOT been questioned. This is making them nervous; hence the reporting.
  • Barr and Durham visiting Italy, the U.K. and Australia to speak with Mifsud, Halper and Downer respectively is really making the Small Group nervous.

Here’s the key NBC paragraphs, emphasis mine:

(Via NBC) A review launched by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis, multiple current and former officials told NBC News.

[The “multiple current and former officials” are members of the small group.  Based on the outlet and the material, these members are DOJ and FBI officials].

The prosecutor conducting the review, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, has expressed his intent to interview a number of current and former intelligence officials involved in examining Russia’s effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, Brennan told NBC News.

Durham has also requested to talk to CIA analysts involved in the intelligence assessment of Russia’s activities, prompting some of them to hire lawyers, according to three former CIA officialsfamiliar with the matter. And there is tension between the CIA and the Justice Department over what classified documents Durham can examine, two people familiar with the matter said.

[Here we see Durham doing what we suspected five months ago. {Go Deep} Durham is looking at who put together the December 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR); and the January 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); essentially the originating documents that promoted the vast Russian conspiracy and set the cornerstone for a special counsel investigation therein.]

With Barr’s approval, Durham has expanded his staff and the timeframe under scrutiny, according to a law enforcement official directly familiar with the matter.

[This is common sense.  If the ICA is a false political document, then guess what?  Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud (it is).  Then the construct of the special counsel probe (remember the “originating” construct), was false. (it was)]

[…] If Durham is conducting a criminal investigation, it’s not clear what allegations of wrongdoing are being examined. The Justice Department has not detailed any, and a spokeswoman declined to comment for this story.

“I don’t know what the legal basis for this is,” Brennan said, calling the probe “bizarre.”

[…] Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.

[…] Skeptics who have been trying to track Durham’s movementssay he has yet to interview key figures, including former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Stzrok and former FBI general counsel James Baker.

[“skeptics”?  Who are they?  …and why are they “trying to track Durham’s movements”?]

“Nobody who knows anything has been interviewed,” said a person in touch with those former officials.

[So the group is talking to themselves and using a third party to push their collective discussion into the media.  Important to note.]

[…] A Western intelligence official familiar with what Durham has been asking of foreign officials says his inquiries track closely with the questions raised about the Russia investigation in right-wing media.

[So some entity in the intelligence community, likely outside the U.S. , is in contact with the small group and keeping them apprised of what Durham is doing?  Interesting. Pay attention to what NBC is admitting here… Corrupt officials, co-conspirators, within the intelligence apparatus are monitoring John Durham; relaying information back to their allies; who then talk among themselves and coordinate media leaks based on the information they are able to extract from the tracking.   That’s a big admission.]

[…] The Senate intelligence committee examined the allegations about Downer, Mifsud and Halper, as part of its bipartisan investigation into the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia was responsible for attacking the 2016 election, and found nothing to substantiate any wrongdoing, a committee aide said. (read full article)

[Again, notice how the small group is utilizing the SSCI, and it is a committee aide within the SSCI that is leaking to NBC.  We already know the SSCI was completely compromised by the effort to remove President Trump from office. {Go Deep}  Part of that SSCI effort led to the discovery of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaking the FISA application to the media.  The SSCI was/is part of the coup/impeachment effort.]

(Go Deep)

Next up we look at the New York Times….

Hillary Clinton Reignites Her “Vast Russian Conspiracy Theory” Against Tulsi Gabbard…


Despite the abject nuttery, there is good news here.  Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing current Democrat Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a secret Russian agent:

“[Tulsi Gabbard is] the favorite of the Russians, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” (link)

The insufferable Mrs. Clinton re-initiated her vast Russian conspiracy theory during an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.  Yes, THAT David Plouffe.

However, Clinton nuttery aside, this level of political quackery -as expressed- is not all bad news.  Clinton’s tendency to make herself stupid and small is a strong indicator: (A) she’s not stable; (B) she’s not viable; and (C) she knows she could never re-enter the race.

Rand Paul Stands The Gap – Senator Paul Blocks Senate vote on House Resolution Condemning Trump Syria Withdrawal….


Great job by Senator Rand Paul. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to bring the anti-Trump House resolution to the floor.  However, because the procedure for a single senator to bring vote to the Senate Chamber requires unanimous consent, the maneuver can also be blocked by a single senator.

Today, Rand Paul stood up and would not allow Chuck Schumer to advance a Senate vote on the House resolution condemning Trump.

(Washington DC) […] Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to get consent Thursday to bring up the resolution, arguing that “we’re in real trouble.”

“The most important thing we can do right now is send President Trump a message that Congress, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans, demand he reverse course,” Schumer said.
The resolution passed the House on Wednesday by a wide margin in 354-60 vote. All 60 votes against the resolution came from Republicans.

Under Senate rules any one senator can try to set up a vote on a bill. But because that requires unanimous consent, any one senator can block it.

Paul, a libertarian-leaning GOP senator, objected to Schumer’s request for a vote, arguing that he was trying to sidestep the Constitution.

“He should come to the floor and say that we are ready to declare war. We are ready to authorize force, and we are going to stick our troops in the middle of this messy, messy, five-sided civil war where we would be ostensibly opposed to the Turkish government that has made an incursion,” Paul argued. (read more)

Nancy Pelosi’s USMCA Strategy for 2020 is Contingent Upon the Canadian Election…


Earlier today Nancy Pelosi was questioned about why the House was not voting to pass the USMCA trade agreement.  Speaker Pelosi immediately fell back upon her talking point: “we are working toward yes.”   This is complete hogwash.  There are no discussions. Pelosi is doing what Pelosi does best, politicizing anything positive for the U.S. economy in a concerted effort to undermine Trump in 2020.

Here’s what is going on.

Nancy Pelosi and her far-left ideologues entered an agreement with their Canadian liberal allies and Justin Trudeau to stall the USMCA passage.

Trudeau’s government ideologues agreed not to call the USMCA up for a vote in the Canadian parliament.

Speaker Pelosi is waiting to see if Trudeau can win re-election.  If Canada re-elects Trudeau on October 21st, Pelosi will announce the labor provisions are not strong enough within the USMCA deal; discussions with the Trump administration are not resolving the issues; the U.S. workers are not protected enough, and she is tabling any vote.

Speaker Pelosi will then wait until after the 2020 election.  The purpose is political.

Ratification of the USMCA would be a boost for the U.S, and North American, economy.  More growth in the economy is politically adverse to her interests.  Part of the 2020 Democrat strategy is to stall the U.S. economy, stoke a recession narrative, and hopefully weaken President Trump’s re-election bid.  That’s the plan.

For Canada’s part of the scheme, Justin Trudeau -if successfully reelected- will announce that Canada is waiting for the U.S to work out the USMCA labor disagreements.  This is the quid-pro-quo between liberals in the democrat party and liberals in Canada.

However, if Trudeau loses the election then Pelosi loses her partner in the plan.  As a consequence Canadian ratification of the USMCA will be certain, and it will be outside the control of U.S. Democrats…

So, if Trudeau loses the election Nancy Pelosi will bring the USMCA to a vote timed with the impeachment vote.  This plan allows democrats to try and dilute the political nature of the impeachment scheme by referencing the Trump administration USMCA vote as an example of Democrats not being political.   This is how they scheme.

If it does not benefit Democrats, it simply is not done.

Yes, this is what Democrats spend 100% of their time doing… This is how they roll.  24/7/365 constant planning and political strategy sessions to best exploit and shape events to their narrative.  Here’s the talking points if Trudeau loses on Oct 21st:

…’See, we’re not politically motivated, we’re giving the same president we are impeaching a win; because this trade deal is in the best interest of America.  Just like the impeachment of this corrupt president is in the best interest of America’….

This is why it is so frustrating trying to communicate with and work with Republicans.

As a group they are the worlds worst strategists; most often, intentionally so.  The right side of the UniParty prefers to be the party in controlled-opposition because Wall Street pays them better for their votes, and their constituents are oblivious to the construct.

It’s a big club….