FISA Judges Collyer and Boasberg Both Identified NSA Databases Used for Political Surveillance…

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.

Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.

Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]

With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.

Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.

One of the weird aspects to both Collyer and Boasberg is that both FISC judges did not ever seek to ask the “why” question: why are all these unauthorized database searches taking place?  Instead, both judges focus on process issues and technical procedural questions, seemingly from a position that all unauthorized searches were done without malicious intent.

Accepting that neither judge had the purpose of benefit to overlay any other information upon their FISA review, their lack of curiosity is not necessarily a flaw but rather a feature of a very compartmentalized problem.

Boasberg and Collyer are only looking at one set of data-points all centered around FISA(702) search queries.   Additionally, the scale of overall annual database searches outlined by Boasberg extends well over three million queries by the FBI and thousands of anonymous users; and the oversight only covers a sub-set of around ten percent.

As a result of the number of users with database access; and as Boasberg notes in his declassified opinion there is no consistent application of audit-trails or audit-logs; and worse yet, users don’t have to explain “why”, so there’s no FISC digging into “why”; the process is a bureaucratic FUBAR from a compliance standpoint; perhaps that’s by design.

All of that said, and accepting the FISC review is not engaged in the ‘why’, here’s the part where seemingly disparate dots start to connect and things are concerning.

REMINDER from the Mueller Report:

My strong hunch is that behind this process we will find the reason why the ‘Steele Dossier” was so relevant to Mueller.  You see, investigating the dossier made the 2017 Mueller investigation an extension of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation and not a criminal investigation (later, those were spun off).

By maintaining the counterintelligence process for Mueller, the FBI was able to continue exploiting the NSA database as a FISA(702) tool for their investigation.  The foreign actors played a key role in this process.  So long as the Mueller investigation was targeting foreign actors they could collect downstream evidence on the “702” (American persons) returns.

In essence, the “small group” was stretching the NSA database rules to conduct electronic warrantless searches and massive electronic surveillance on targets direct (“to/from”) and indirect (downstream).

The violations that Boasberg is identifying (March 2017 through March 2018) must also include FISA database searches conducted by Mueller’s FBI team.  It is all within the same system of electronic surveillance.  The pattern, frequency and specifics of the Boasberg report are identical to the 2017 Rosemary Collyer report. Same violations. Same processes.

Against what we see more visible every day; and thinking about how corrupt we already know the Mueller investigation to be; now consider that without going to federal courts to gain legal authority, warrants, taps etc….  using the database Mueller’s team could continue to exploit the FISA(702) process.

They could gather material for their criminal cases through the NSA database and then transfer those results to their spun off prosecutions.

That’s why the Steele Dossier was so important. The Dossier formed the basis to continue making the Mueller investigation a counterintelligence operation, Title-I. Without the Dossier creating the foreign construct, Mueller’s team would have had to follow Title-III.

There is a better than strong possibility the Mueller team monitored all of their targets, extracted the evidence they needed, transferred it to prosecutors and proceeded to construct cases. They didn’t need to do too much actual investigation because: (a) they knew the Russian-collusion/conspiracy was false; and (2) they could just access the NSA database and pull all the material they needed.

My hunch is that’s why the DNI, Dan Coats, sat on this Boasberg ruling for a year.  Boasberg presented this opinion in October 2018, it wasn’t released until October 2019. That could also be a motive why Dan Coats left right before Boasberg’s opinion was released.  Perhaps IC interests did not want anyone putting 2+2 together if this judicial review was released during the ongoing Mueller probe.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier in the second scope memo.  If these suspicions are accurate, the reason Mueller wanted the dossier included would be to maintain Mueller’s investigation as a counterintelligence operation. [An extension of Crossfire Hurricane] As a result, all previous FBI exploits using FISA(702) database searches would be authorized.

To get the Dossier moved from “political opposition research” into valid “investigative evidence” the FBI needed to find a way to get it into the investigation…. Hence, Carter Page and the FISA warrant became the unwitting target and vehicle to carry it.

That explanation also reconciles why Rosenstein signed-off on the 3rd renewal of the Carter Page FISA.  Rosenstein authorized a counterintelligence operation (2nd scope) and simultaneously re-authorized the cover story, the Carter Page FISA renewal.

The ramifications here are actually bigger than the original FISA database abuse. It means the Mueller group had secret ongoing background surveillance on all of their targets; and they did not need court authority (Title-III warrants) to get evidence.  Maybe, just maybe, this is part of the reason why John Durham has expanded the time-frame for his review.

Now, bear with me….  Again, just to be prudent, we don’t have the supportive material yet to see through the Boasberg ruling, so there is some conjecture here.  However, if we  stand back and think about the bigger picture described; and we also think about current headlines continuing to surface; a whole bunch of sketchy new things start to reconcile.

Example:  Listen to the video here for a minute as Chris Ferrell explains how people were being monitored by a State Department “war room”.


Disgraced Pro Biden/Obama Ambassador Yovanavitch directed elements within the State Dept to conduct a monitoring mission that targeted U.S. Citizens. @JudicialWatch pursuing documents via FOIA

Embedded video

542 people are talking about this
Remember all of the State Department “unmaskings” that were taking place?  Hundreds of unmaskings assigned to U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, and yet no-one could identify who was doing them?

One of the significant changes between the Collyer report (covering 2016) and the Boasberg report (covering 2017) was an institutional inability to track who was doing the actual database searches.  Some internal process was modified to create IC anonymity.

Well, against the backdrop of Ambassador Yovanovitch in 2017 and 2018 “monitoring” American persons in/around her Ukraine interests; and considering all of these database search queries identified by Boasberg in 2017 and 2018 “incidentally” captured Americans; perhaps this explains how the Yovanovitch “monitoring” was taking place.

Burisma Leadership Meeting With Ambassador Yovanovitch in October 2018 – Link

We know what the FBI and “contractors” were doing in 2016; and given how invested the intelligence community is within the current stop-trump operations (writ large); and given the political stakes for the intelligence community, well, would there be a reason they would just stop electronic surveillance in January 2017 when President Trump was inaugurated?

I suspect this NSA database is being continually data-mined by ongoing institutional operatives and contractors who are working against the Trump administration.  I suspect the surveillance of their political opposition is ongoing….


Devin Nunes Discusses ‘whac-a-mole’ Chaos Amid Partisan House Impeachment Hearings – Predicts Marie Yovanovitch Will Build Narrative…

House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifying to her friends in congress during the Democrats’ “chaotic circus” of an impeachment inquiry.


Kyiv Marie Yovanovitch was FIRED in disgrace. The next “star” witness is literally a Trump hater removed from office for anti Trump bias, among other irregularities.
A disgruntled employee that hates Trump! That’s all they got right now!

View image on Twitter


There is a truckload of stuff on her. Her coming forward is a desperation move to get out in front of documents that are looming over her head.

NBC News


BREAKING: Former Ukraine Amb. Yovanovitch says she was informed by a top State Dept. official that she was removed under a “concerted campaign against me … as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.” 

After uncertainty, Yovanovitch arrives to testify in Trump impeachment inquiry

It had been unclear right up until the ousted ambassador arrived whether she would appear, because she still works for the State Department.

NBC News


BREAKING: Former Ukraine Amb. Yovanovitch: “Today, we see the State Dept. attacked and hollowed out from within. State Dept. leadership, with Congress, needs to take action now to defend this great institution, and its thousands of loyal and effective employees.”

REPORT: Joe Biden Had Working Relationship With ‘Whistle-blower”…

This makes sense on many levels.  As a member of the Obama National Security Council, the CIA “whistle-blower” would have held a working relationship with Vice-President Biden who was given the primary authority to oversee Ukraine effort within the Obama administration.

(Via Washington Examiner)  The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a “professional” tie is Joe Biden, according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.

Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”

Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a “professional tie” to a 2020 Democratic candidate. He had written earlier that while the whistleblower’s complaint was credible, he had shown “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A retired CIA officer toldthe Washington Examiner: “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”

As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.

A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House. (read more)

Another Day, Another Phony “Subpoena” Impeachment Narrative – Rick Perry Edition…

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” 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 Judiciary (only) 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.

Doug Collins: “Impeachment Inquiry Will Backfire”….

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.

The Cost of a Political Divide

QUESTION: Trump Impeachment. Y’know Marty, since the Democrats have tried unsuccessfully for so long to find some dirt on Trump, the guy must be squeaky clean, no?


ANSWER: Impeachment occurs when someone does something while in office. It is not based on what they did before. All the stuff they bring up from his past, such as tax returns to pictures with Epstein, are all an attack upon his character in hopes that it will persuade some to vote against him, but they are preaching to the choir. Both Republicans and Democrats bash the opposition to keep their constituents happy, for they are just biased and would never vote for the other party because they lack any ability to think objectively. I get emails that are always claiming Trump is a prior crook or something and how he should be impeached, but that only reveals their bias.

They are going after the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh again. This is a pointless effort and highly damaging to the entire political system. What he did or did not do in college 40 years ago is absurd. No one’s entire life should be judged based on an incident they were involved in at a drunken party in college. It is rare to find someone who can even believe what they once did back in their school days.

Brett Kavanaugh cannot go to many places in Washington, according to the Washington Post. He is isolated by these personal attacks to this day. The allegations have scarred him and his family for life. As reported, at the La Ferme restaurant in Chevy Chase, a woman yelled at him and his wife insulting him in public, and on a different night, one customer stood to applaud him. He simply cannot go out in many parts of Washington for people are no longer respectful or civil.

The Democrats want to hold impeachment proceedings to try to remove him from the Supreme Court. Good luck with that. Again, you cannot impeach someone for what happened 40 years before. Only a fool does not learn from their mistakes. We all change as we mature. It is called wisdom.

Christine Blasey Ford who made the unsupported allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her and in the process destroyed him and his family’s life forever, has herself been subjected to the new world where respect has vanished and people are no longer civil in public. She relocated four times and has been unable to return to teaching. She too cannot go out to dinner without being harassed. Welcome to the new world of political fragmentation. What she has experienced is not much different from the person she accused. Making such public accusations that are exploited for political purposes is something that will change your life forever. You will never convince the core of the opponent so your life will be destroyed in the process. You might as well move out of the country.

Worse still, Ford’s testimony exposed a gender war simmering below the surface. There were women who supported Ford ONLY because she was a woman. Their position was that women tell the truth and all men were scum and should not be believed. That was a raw feeling which also emerged in addition to the political divide. I am sure Ford would never testify if she knew the real cost of what has truly changed her life. This is society. There is no changing the way people will react in such a politically charged environment. Some women will say she has a right to tell her story. The difference is only between a local setting and one that will be plastered on the front pages of the entire world. Life is not fair — we just have to get used to that.

The fallout has been seriously damaging to the point that this will impact people who would normally be willing to take positions in government. There are people I know who would have been interested in being president, but they have no desire to put their family through such an ordeal.

The same is now true about any position from Federal Reserve to Supreme Court. What was done to Kavanaugh was such a violation of personal dignity that NOBODY who is qualified will want to subject their family to such nonsense. And as for Trump, he is probably the PERFECT person for president BECAUSE he has thick skin. It takes a rare person to be able to handle such personal attacks constantly.

This is the destruction of our government. All this hatred and demands to go after anyone you disagreed with defeats the very purpose of civilization. Years ago, if the opposition won you simply moved on. Today, they spill out such hatred there is no longer any point to being one nation under God. Divide the country, build a wall down the center, and FORCE everyone to move to the side where they politically agree or just leave. The day is coming when there will be no returning to normal.


Multiple Reports: Trey Gowdy Joins Trump Legal Team – Impeachment Defense…

The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting todayconfirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.

Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.

Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.

In that regard this is a good pick.

We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors.  However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.

Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.

A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.

Additionally, another benefit to Trey Gowdy is there’s no need to bring him up-to-speed on the central issues. Mr. Gowdy was one of two House members who has reviewed every bit of classified documentary evidence gathered during the republican congressional investigations of the DOJ and FBI conduct.

House member John Ratcliffe and former member Trey Gowdy were selected by their colleagues to represent their interests. As a result Gowdy has seen all of the classified intelligence that lay behind all of the known events; and as a consequence all security clearances are pre-established. That could become an important benefit considering where this ridiculous impeachment path is heading.

CTH would not expect to see too much of Mr. Gowdy as the House impeachment battle continues.  In the background Gowdy will likely be absorbing information, reviewing every document, process and witness, along with helping coordinate the aggregate defense strategy.

My hunch is Gowdy’s profile strength will be saved in the event a Senate trial becomes a reality.


Maria Bartiromo: IG Report on FISA “Will Be Released October 18th – As Thick as Telephone Book”…

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-framefor this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.

If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.

A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…

If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.

We saw a profound disconnect between the 14-page ‘executive summary’ and the main 568-page body of the investigative report when the DOJ and FBI released the IG report on FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton Investigation.   The summary was completely disconnected from the material within the report; stunningly so.

The June 14th 2018 OIG Executive Summary was so ridiculously detached from the evidence within the report; and the roll-out day was so transparently coordinated; FBI Director Christopher Wray held an immediate press conference to announce the “inspector general found no evidence of political bias” during the 18-month investigation.

Director Wray made that specific proclamation at 5:30pm on Thursday, June 14th, 2018,less than three hours after the 568-page IG report was published.  The FBI timing was purposefully positioned just before the 6:00pm broadcast evening news, so that media could run with the headline “No Bias”.   It was a transparent DOJ/FBI public relations and political con job.

The June 2018 IG report was full of examples of political bias, but Director Wray’s intentionally misleading proclamation -in combination with a profoundly obtuse executive summary- set the foundation for how the report was broadcast to the public by the majority of the media.  Christopher Wray is still the current director of the FBI.

If Ms. Bartiromo is correct that DOJ officials are releasing the widely anticipated IG report on a Friday (October 18th), unfortunately that Friday document dump would be an indication the intent of the DOJ leans toward diminishing the content.

🇺🇸 Miguelifornia@michaelbeatty3

BOOM@MariaBartiromo is hearing..

Embedded video

10.9K people are talking about this

Defense Intelligence Agency Employee Arrested Leaking Classified Information to NBC Reporter…

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) employee Henry Kyle Frese was arrested yesterday and charged with leaking multiple classified intelligence reports to media. (Full pdf below).

According to the indictment Mr. Frese was caught leaking classified intelligence information to two journalists, one of which he was romantically involved.

Mr. Kyle Frese has a twitter account HERE. Cross-referencing information from within the indictment, research by Matthew Keys has indicated journalist #1 is Courtney Kube from NBC, and journalist #2 is Amanda Macias from CNBC.  The intelligence leaked by Mr. Frese to Ms. Macias likely revolves around North Korean defense systems. [DOJ Announcement Here]

WASHINGTON – A U.S. counterterrorism analyst was arrested at the Defense Intelligence Agency where he worked on charges related to alleged leaks of information to two journalists, the Justice Department said.

Henry Kyle Frese, 30 years old, accessed classified intelligence reports about a foreign country’s weapons systems last year and provided them to two unidentified journalists, according to newly unsealed court documents.

The journalists aren’t named in the indictment, but they are identifiable as Amanda Macias, a national security reporter for CNBC, and Courtney Kube, a national security reporter for NBC. Public tweets cited in the court filings correspond to tweets sent by Ms. Macias and Ms. Kube in July of last year.

Both journalists and NBC and CNBC didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, the Justice Department said Mr. Frese “was caught red-handed disclosing sensitive national security information.”  (link)

Here’s the indictment:

(Direct Link to PDF)

Chuck Ross


FBI wiretapped DIA analyst Henry Kyle Frese, who allegedly leaked classified information to journalists at CNBC and NBC (and was romantically involved with one of them). 

Intelligence analyst allegedly leaked classified info to journalist with whom he was romantically…

An analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency has been charged with leaking top secret information about a foreign country’s weapons systems to journalists.

867 people are talking about this


Kyle Frese is Never Trump and an advocate for Endless War.

Every single time. 

Kyle Frese@HKFrese

Once again we remind our current, and any potential future allies, that at some point we will fuck them over. 

143 people are talking about this

Kyle Frese@HKFrese

Once again we remind our current, and any potential future allies, that at some point we will fuck them over. 

NBC News


BREAKING: In an extraordinary Sunday night statement, the White House announces that the US “will no longer be in the immediate area” of Northern Syria, allow Turkey to launch an invasion in the region and give Turkey responsibility for captured ISIS fighters in the area.

View image on Twitter
344 people are talking about this

Obviously Mr. Frese didn’t see his arrest coming…

Rod Rosenstein “Unindicted Co-Conspirator”? – Durham Expands Timeline for Probe…

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]

The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.

Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.

As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein.  However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation.  First watch this:


Setting aside the common mistake in part of that report by John Roberts, the fact that Durham is looking into the Mueller phase of the coup (early 2017); in combination with White House officials now sharing documents surrounding the Mueller-Rosenstein White House visit; and accepting the ongoing redactions by the DOJ on material that touches Rosenstein; there is a moderate possibility Rosenstein is now a Durham target.


There are four central actions taken by DAG Rod Rosenstein that frame the four corners of his active involvement within the “small group” coup effort.  Four corners that would highlight Rosenstein as an “unindicted co-conspirator”:

♦Corner One – Rosenstein’s contact with Mueller immediately following the firing of James Comey (less than 15 hours); and the documented contact with Mueller during the period of May 10th through May 17th (leading to the appointment); and the material evidence that Rosenstein lied to the White House when he took Mueller into the Oval Office on May 16th to interview the special counsel target.  As Devin Nunes outlined in January: “Rosenstein made Trump the target of Mueller“.

♦Corner Two – DAG Rod Rosenstein expanding the special counsel investigations. Rosenstein wrote three scope memos in total. The first initiated the special counsel under the predicate of looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and/or Trump campaign official conduct therein. The second scope memo expanded the depth of the Mueller probe and allowed the investigation to look at other issues unrelated to Russia interference (Manafort taxes, FARA, etc.). The second scope memo also authorized Mueller to use the Steele Dossier as an investigative tool.

The third expanded scope memo allowed Mueller’s team to go after targets unrelated to Russia interference, and unrelated to the other matters. The third memo specifically allowed Mueller to target Mike Flynn Jr. as a tool to get General Flynn to take a plea deal.


♦Corner Three – DAG Rosenstein cooperated in the Mueller claim of Russian election activity through DOJ indictments of ridiculous Russian-related entities; none of which would ever be prosecuted – and almost all of which seemed constructed to promote the guise upon which the Special Counsel was launched.  It would have also been DAG Rod Rosenstein who approved of the James Wolfe plea deal, burying the FISA leak and the involvement of senators within the SSCI in the overall coup effort.

♦Corner Four – DAG Rosenstein was specifically in charge of authorizing or granting the aggregate activity of Mueller’s team; which would include the aggressive methods used by the DOJ and FBI evidenced by raids on Paul Manafort and SWAT deployment against Roger Stone (with CNN media to broadcast). More concerning, and perhaps most damning, DAG Rosenstein would have to sign-off on the $10,000 sting operation against George Papadopoulos at Dulles International Airport.  DAG Rosenstein also threatened President Trump not to declassify material in Sept. ’18 or he would face obstruction.

We’ve always said that Attorney General Bill Barr’s biggest challenge would not be gathering evidence of what took place; the evidence is so obvious there have been books written about it. The real challenge for AG Barr is navigating through what We The Peopleare already aware of; against a likely disposition that Barr would not want to believe it, and certainly would be conflicted in facing it.


The reports of AG Bill Barr personally going to see and interview the places and people at the very epicenter of the fraudulent 2016 predicate, is an indication that Barr doesn’t really have any options. The scale of what took place is so serious; and the evidence therein so obvious; if he doesn’t get his arms-around-it the Attorney General is looking at very serious long-term institutional damage.

The obvious stares us in the face.  If Durham has indeed expanded his time-frame to looking at early 2017, he is looking at DOJ and FBI activity entirely under the authority of Rod Rosenstein.

It would be, at least should be, impossible for either Barr or U.S. Attorney John Durham to complete their investigation/review of what took place, and then deliver a report -or statement- that results in nothing; or worse, attempts to justify all of the known activity. Simply put, too many millions of Americans are aware.

All of that said, it could be possible the DOJ action to redact, remove and/or keep the demonstrable activity by Rosenstein hidden, is not to protect Rosenstein – but rather because Rosenstein is an investigative subject or target therein. Again, WATCH: