Tag Archives: Title I FISA warrant

May 16 2019

Congress v Trump – Have They Destroyed the Constitution?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted May 16, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

Originally, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was “We The People.” The structural design was based largely on the writings of Montesque and embodied the separation of powers — Executive (bureaucracy), Congress (the people), and the Judiciary (the arbitrator). Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), at the age of 81, gave his assessment of the direction of the country in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention:

“…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

He understood it would be impossible to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering for he understood the cycles of history. After all, he was friends with Edward Gibbon who wrote the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and reviewed the text before it was published. Franklin believed that the Constitution they had just drafted “with all its faults” was still better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

There is a serious fault in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers neglected to take into account. I believe their judgment was colored by the propaganda which survived from Cicero who painted Julius Caesar as a dictator when in fact it was his own political party, known as the Optimates, who were a conservative political faction in the late Roman Republic.  The Optimates were the corrupt senators who had to flee Rome when Caesar approached because the people cheered Caesar against the corruption of the Senate. Due to the failure to truly uncover other contemporary writers when Gibbon was doing his research, the design of the United States was fatally constructed upon these misconceptions and we are now paying the price for those mistakes.

The Constitution was not supposed to be a self-actuating or a self-correcting document. Unfortunately, allowing it to be amended has destroyed its very intent. Once they installed the income tax on a progressive basis, they conveniently interpreted that you can discriminate against class and occupation but not anything else from religion to race and gender. We have proven that there is no EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and that the observation of Thrasymachus (c 459-400 BC) is the correct one of history — all governments interpret laws only in their own self-interest.

Even with constant attention and devotion of all citizens, our Constitution has utterly failed to protect our liberty and by far it never provides equal justice for all. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response was indeed a reflection of his understanding of the cycle of history. While we pretend to call ourselves a Democracy, we are by no means such an institution. We are exactly what Franklin replied: a REPUBLIC.

While it is a theory that democratic republics are founded upon the consent of the people, any review of history reveals that they are founded upon pretenses and have never been able to constrain those in power. Once they get a taste of that power, they abuse it. This is what drives the cycle of history which shows that society is born, matures, corrupts, and collapses by normally suicide taking shape as a revolution.

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution. Wilson was elected twice to the Continental Congress representing Pennsylvania. He had a good legal mind and was a major contributor in drafting the United States Constitution. Because of his brilliant legal mind, he was also appointed as one of the six original justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wilson believed that “the House of Representatives [shall] form the grand inquest of the state. They shall diligently inquire into grievances.” Indeed, the original idea was that Congress was elected by the people and was their representatives in a Republic. The Senate did not stand for election but were appointed to represent the state in which they served. The idea that Congress would be the overseer was essential. They were to have the power to investigate the executive branch. Under the Roman system, there was a Tribune who has the absolute power to investigate and criminally charge anyone in government. That became the watered-down version of the Office of Inspector General, which will investigate but is under the Justice Department in the Executive Branch which has no power to initiate its own actions.

However, the Constitution does not actually authorize such a power. It states:

SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There is actually no provision of the Constitution which expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony. Nevertheless, such a power had been frequently exercised by the British Parliament and by the Assemblies of the American Colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was asserted by the House of Representatives as early as 1792 when it appointed a committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his army by the Indians in the Northwest and empowered it to “call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” (3 Annals Of Congress 490–494 (1792); 3 A. Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives 1725 (1907)).

However, the Supreme Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be “implied” as inherent even though it was never expressly granted.  In 1927, the Supreme Court wrote in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–175 (1927):

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry—with enforcing process—was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.”

Chief Justice Warren, in a 1957 opinion, took a hostile approach to the exercise of the investigatory power by Congress. He wrote:

“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).)

Justice Harlan addressed the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959). See also Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503–07 (1975).)

Congress has overstepped its bounds in using its investigative powers against the opposition party for purely political purposes. Partisanship has now not just influenced how those powers are used, it has become the dominant justification. A Democratic Congress investigated Richard Nixon. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led House issued more than 1,000 subpoenas and held hearings on the Clintons. Now the Congress has gone completely far beyond its powers historically demanding Trump’s tax returns. This has nothing to do with his current administration nor does it have any relevance to legislation. Donald Trump has rightfully declared, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and will sue to block them and instruct officials to ignore them. In this regard, the powers of Congress have been seriously abused over the decades. Partisanship renders oversight illegitimate. To ignore the partisanship is very dangerous because it is taking government in the direction of dysfunction.

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. In Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether or not the House of Representatives could compel testimony. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.”Clearly, the Kilbourn decision would mean that the investigation launched against Trump has exceeded the outermost boundaries of the power of Congress. Those powers are confined by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”

In practice, much of the litigated dispute has been about the reach of the power to inquire into the activities of private citizens; an inquiry into the administration of laws and departmental corruption, while of substantial political consequence, has given rise to fewer judicial precedents. It would seem that the only way to eliminate this type of partisanship investigations would be to empower the Office of Inspector General to act independently of the Justice Department and that its powers should be that of the Roman Tribune. That means it should have the power to also investigate those in Congress.

Under the administration of Andrew Jackson, this power to investigate was coming into focus. During the controversy over the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, John Quincy Adams contended that an unlimited inquiry into the operations of the bank would be beyond the power of the House (8 Cong. Deb. 2160 (1832)). Then in 1836, the legislative power of investigation was challenged by the Jackson. A committee appointed by the House of Representatives “with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, . . .” (13 Cong. Deb. 1057–1067 (1836)) called upon the President and the heads of departments for lists of persons appointed without the consent of the Senate and the amounts paid to them. Jackson refused this attempt “to invade the just rights of the Executive Departments,” and the majority of the committee acquiesced in 1837 (H. R. Rep. No. 194, 24th Congress, 2d sess., 1, 12, 31 (1837)).

Then leading into the Civil War, Congress unleashed investigations and brought contempt proceedings against a witness who refused to testify in an investigation of John Brown’s raid upon the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. There was a debate in the Senate of the basis of this power which was protracted and cut sharply across sectional and party lines. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to imprison the contumacious witness (Cong. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess., 1100–1109 (1860)). It was this abuse of power which was then constrained by the Supreme Court in a narrow view of the power in Kilbourn v. Thompson.

Therefore, my legal opinion is that Congress is abusing its power and I agree with the Kilbourn decision that they are not free to investigate members of the opposing party for political gains. Empower the Office of Inspector General to do all investigations – PERIOD!!!!!!

May 15 2019

UArmstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Lawsing Events to Further Power


Re-Posted May 15, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi Martin,
I appreciate everything you do to clear away the mist and show what is truly happening in the world. You are one of the few voices of reason out there.

In New Zealand, since the mosque shootings in Christchurch, things have become very tense and this is due, in large part, to the way the government and police have responded and behaved since then. Ordinary New Zealanders, kiwis, who are among the most accepting and laid back people on earth, are becoming anxious and angry at the way they are being treated. This is highlighted in particular be the heavy-handed way the police are undertaking gun confiscation in the wake of recent law changes to control firearms.

How quickly a country can change. Is this the kind of pivot you foresee as we approach 2032? With governments and their law enforcement becoming more and more oppressive to the point where ordinary people will say enough!
P

ANSWER: Governments know there is a massive problem on the horizon. They let Bitcoin trade to familiarize people with cryptocurrency. There is an agenda to eliminate cash, and we may see that hit in Europe and Australia before anywhere else. The raids on gun collectors in New Zealand are the excuse for violent acts.

The US used 9/11 to further the power of government. All the constitutional rights we had and the generations who fought and died to preserve our freedom were usurped, not by an invading army, but by our own government. This is a standard operational tactic that is by no means new. Ben Franklin addressed this issue. The people are given the picture of an omnipotent, unslayable hydra of destruction unless they surrender their individual liberties in pursuit of safety.

Not surprisingly, the ultimate outcome of the attacks are a bigger and more powerful government. For example, Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York declared that “the era of a shrinking federal government is over” and proposed taking advantage of the attacks to create a “‘new’ New Deal” of government security. Schumer said, “For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to grow.”

In order to defeat terrorism, government power must be increased. Historical studies show that government tends to grow both in power and in size during any war. World Wars I and II and the Cold War provided tremendous opportunities for growth in government power and size. They can call virtually anything a threat to national security. That is the catch phrase to vanquish human rights.

The confiscation of our property and the elimination of our human rights always takes place rapidly. It is the demands of governments whenever they conjure up a good urgent crisis. It is rapid and fast. This is the trend into 2032. It is why I say my fear is what comes after Trump. They want a career politician who will see it as the government v the people. Trump is not one of them which is why they hate him so intensely.

 

May 15 2019

Where Are We in the Roman Timeline?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ancient History

Re-Posted May 15, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Martin, Compared to Roman timeline, what year would you say we are in 2019?

M

Maximinius-I

ANSWER: It is hard to say. My concern is what comes after Trump. We seem to be between the peak, which was during 180 AD and the dawn of Maximinus I (235-238 AD) who declared that all wealth simply belonged to the emperor in a communistic fashion. What took place, however, was the complete breakdown of society. Wealth was driven underground and money was hoarded causing VELOCITY to collapse as cash flow in circulation vanished and hoarding prevailed. We certainly have this post-2007 in the FATCA age where the money is the target and governments declare any money outside their borders is to be confiscated as money laundering. Hitler did the same thing which inspired the Swiss secrecy laws.

Maximinus’ confiscation of wealth caused the economy to implode as commerce ceased fostering an economic depression, which naturally reduced tax revenues. The same thing has taken place for economic growth, even with massive QE for the past 10 years, remains 20% at best below pre-FATCA levels. Maximinus did not stop with simply private wealth. Maximinus ordered the wealth of all temples to be confiscated as well. We have states arguing for the confiscation of 401Ks led by California. This is why the smart money is leaving California in a mass migration to the non-taxes states such as Texas and Florida.

Maximinus confiscated the ornaments of temples. Both Napoleon and Henry VIII followed that same path as did Hitler. Countless died in defense of their religious beliefs. Not even the gods were respected by Maximinus whose view was they never answered prayers because they did not exist. This is not something which is even off the table. The IMF threatened the Vatican to deny it access to the SWIFT system shutting down unless it also agreed to report the origin and destination of all movements of money.

We can see that the Democrats are demanding Trump’s tax returns. For what purpose? This is simply for personal use for the 2020 presidential election. What would this even have to do with Russia? There is no hope of returning back to the days when government functioned. It seems that we are cascading toward complete collapse. The danger after Trump is that we may move toward an authoritarian form of government.

May 15 2019

Devin Nunes Discusses Importance of Russia Narrative Origination….


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 14, 2019 by 

Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss why the origin of the Russia narrative is important.  The scale and scope of the fraudulent construct is now a strongly enmeshed narrative, toxic to the systems of cohesive government:

.

If you read the Weissmann/Mueller report carefully one aspect stands out strongly; the Mueller investigation was fully committed to The Steele Dossier. An inordinate amount of the report is focused on justifying their investigative validity and purpose in looking at the claims within the Steele Dossier.

Repeatedly, the investigative unit references their mandate based around the Steele Dossier, and the mid-summer 2016 origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation.

Why? Why was/is Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the Steele Dossier (Oct. ’16) so important to the principle intelligence apparatus, and the Mueller team (’17, ’18, ’19)?

I believe former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers has told us the answer. In early 2016 Rogers caught on to a massive and pre-existing weaponization of government surveillance and the use of collected NSA metadata for political spy operations. Everything, that comes AFTER March 2016 is one big blanket cover-up operation….. ALL OF IT.

The Russian election interference narrative; the use of Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, the London and Australian embassy personnel; Erika Thompson, Alexander Downer, U.S. DIA officials; everything around Crossfire Hurricane; and everything after to include the construct of the Steele Dossier; all of it was needed for the creation of an ‘after-the-fact‘ plausible justification to cover-up what Mike Rogers discovered in early 2016, AND the downstream unmasked records that existed in the Obama White House SCIF.

Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump. The intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. They already knew everything about the Trump campaign. The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a justification for pre-existing surveillance and spy operations.

That’s why the FBI, and later the Mueller team, are so strongly committed to, and defending, the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content.

On Pages #11 and #12 of the Weissmann/Mueller report, the special counsel team outlines the purpose and intent of the probe as delivered by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Within these pages Mueller outlines the August 2nd Scope Memo that has previously been hidden and remains redacted through today.

Read the highlighted portion carefully to understand the scope of the instructions. Note the careful wording “the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointmentto investigate allegations”… This means from Day #1 of the special counsel, the scope of the probe was always to investigate the claims within the Ohr/Steele Dossier:

The August 2nd Scope Memo additionally authorized the investigation of “certain other matters” specifically relating to Manafort (financial crimes), and Papadopolous and Flynn (FARA violations).

These paragraphs tell us a great deal about what originated the purpose of the FBI investigation and the continued purpose of the special counsel. Remember, the special counsel was a continuance of the FBI counterintelligence operation which officially began on July 31st, 2016. [The unofficial beginning was much earlier]

Understanding now that Mueller is saying from Day One he was investigating the Steele Dossier; here’s where we all need to question the assumptions.

Why is the Steele Dossier so important?

From the beginning most people have thought the Fusion-GPS objective was to dig up dirt on Trump for political exploitation. However, with all the recent information outlined there’s actually a more significant role for Fusion.

The overall intelligence apparatus of the U.S. government was already conducting political surveillance on their political opposition. The systems of the intelligence apparatus such as FISA-702(16)(17) databases searches were being exploited months (if not years) beforehand.

When NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers discovered the use of the database he shut down contractor access on April 18th, 2016.

When Fusion GPS was hired by the DNC and Clinton team; also in April of 2016 immediately following the shut-down of FBI contractor access; it now appears the purpose was to provide cover for government surveillance already taking place. Perhaps part of that motive was fear of what NSA Mike Rogers might do.

The Obama administration (U.S. government intelligence apparatus) needed an external source of information that could cover their domestic surveillance and spy operations. That’s why Fusion GPS was hired, and why emphasis was put on using European and Australian intelligence contacts to create the plausible process to continue surveillance that was always taking place.

This corrupt weaponizing of the U.S. intelligence apparatus is MUCH BIGGER than anyone currently absorbs. The Steele Dossier was an eventual part of the cover-story.

When Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were discussing the “insurance policy” in August 2016, they were not discussing insurance from the perspective of their success, ie. Clinton elected; they were discussing insurance from the position of: if they failed.

If Clinton was elected, great; everything continues as normal. However, if Clinton was not elected the weaponization of government needed a cover story, a plausible legitimate reason for why political surveillance/spying was taking place. This is the insurance policy need…. This is why they needed the Steele Dossier.

Regardless of anything happening to stop them, the intelligence community was conducting surveillance of their political opposition. To validate that surveillance the intelligence community needed a plausible FBI counterintelligence operation. That’s where John Brennan (CIA) comes in.

Brennan manufactured the plausible excuse for an FBI operation to begin through the use of “unofficial channels” via Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper and eventually Alexander Downer via an Australian intelligence asset Erika Thompson; who was working in London with U.S. intelligence assets Terrence Dudley and Greg Baker, ie. the “Papadopoulos operation”.

While the overseas operation was working to create plausible explanation and start Crossfire Hurricane, back in the U.S. Fusion-GPS was contracted to supplement the appearances for a domestic parallel track. Fusion ran operations for the Russian appearances inside the U.S., ex. Trump Tower meeting.

For their effort, Fusion was using previously extracted FISA-702(16)(17) results to create more supportive evidence and plausible material. That Fusion effort led to the Steele Dossier.

However, in a similar way the Brennan operation needed the Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer to cross from “unofficial” into “official” channels, the Steele Dossier needs a way to cross from “unofficial opposition research” into “official investigative product” status.

Enter the FISA warrant and Carter Page.

A FISA warrant that could be built upon the Steele Dossier was what they needed.

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

With the communication from Alexander Downer (foundation for the EC), in conjunction with the Steele Dossier (foundation for the Page FISA), the CIA and FBI now held a plausible -albeit fraudulently obtained- basis to explain/justify all of their 2015 and 2016 political spying and surveillance activity. This is their insurance policy.

If Hillary wins the election, everything just evaporates into the ether. However, if Hillary loses the election – the fraudulent investigative evidence now protects all of the players for their role in weaponized intelligence spying and surveillance operations.

Andrew Weissmann was/is one of the DOJ participants who is well aware of the status of the operations as they proceed. In 2016 and 2017 Weissmann is being briefed by DOJ official Bruce Ohr who is carrying messages from Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele into the FBI.

Fraudulent justifications.

Just like the Susan Rice justification Memo, fraudulent justifications are what’s behind those paragraphs in the Rosenstein scope memos as delivered to Weissmann and Mueller.

Fusion GPS was not hired to research Trump, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. The intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing surveillance and spy operations.

See the difference?

Fusion-GPS gave them the justification they needed with the Steele Dossier.

That’s why the Steele Dossier is so important in the scope memos. That’s why all of the corrupt players are so reliant and protective of the Dossier. If the dossier is removed, their collective justification diminishes.

.

Advertisements
May 15 2019

Trey Gowdy Discusses Barr, Durham, Steele Dossier and Brennan -vs- Comey…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 14, 2019 by 

Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News to discuss the current ‘investigative’ status and reports of Brennan -vs- Comey on the use of the Steele Dossier within the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA.

Gowdy is one of the few people, along with John Ratcliffe, who has seen the full and unredacted FISA application used against Carter Page.

.

Regarding the use of the Steele Dossier within the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment; as Gowdy notes there is a likelihood both Brennan and Comey are both correct. It goes back to a story from a couple of months ago [SEE HERE]

May 15 2019

State Dept. Warning Memo -Outlining Sketchy Steele Info- Was Delivered to Peter Strzok a Week Prior to FISA Submission…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 14, 2019 by 

The exit door begins to close.  According to the latest leak provided to John Solomon the State Department information -deconstructing Chris Steele- was presented to FBI Agent Peter Strzok a week before they used Steele’s sketchy dossier to prop up the FBI FISA application on Carter Page.

John Solomon – […] The officials declined to say what the FBI did with the information about Steele after it reached Strzok’s team, or what the email specifically revealed. A publicly disclosed version of the email has been heavily redacted in the name of national security.

While much remains to be answered, the email exchange means FBI supervisors knew Steele had contact with State and had reason to inquire what he was saying before they sought the warrant. If they had inquired, agents would have learned Steele had admitted to Kavalec he had been leaking to the news media, had a political deadline of Election Day to get his information public and had provided demonstrably false intelligence in one case, as I reported last week. (read more)

It’s almost guaranteed the reason Kavelec’s email to the FBI was redacted is specifically because Ms. Kavelec used her State Dept. portal to check on travel records and noted the “Michael Cohen in Prague” story was false.  Kavalec would have easy access to State Dept. travel records.

Chris Steele told Ms. Kavalec about Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to communicate/coordinate with the Russians.  Kavalec made note of the claim:

(Page #11, pdf link)

Michael Cohen has denied ever traveling to Prague.  Special Counsel Robert Mueller has supported Cohen on this issue; passport records show Cohen has never traveled to Prague. It appears Ms. Kavalec checked her State Dept. travel records and confirmed the same.

However, the CURRENT FBI wants to hide Ms. Kavalec’s warning/notification that Steele was delivering false information about Cohen traveling to Prague:

(Page #2, pdf source – Kavalec email)

So put it all together.  Chris Steele was producing the dossier for the FBI to use.  Steele told State Dept. official Kavalec about the same information in his dossier.  The State Dept. checked, and found out the information was false. The State Dept. warned the FBI.  However, the FBI ignored the warning; and a week later used the dossier in the application for a retroactive Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. Person Carter Page.

To cover themselves; and because the claim was so central to the purpose of the Steele Dossier; the FBI then redacted the State Dept. warning about Michael Cohen traveling to Prague in the public email from the State Department.

Worse yet, in the application itself the FBI said the information proving Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power came from the State Dept:

(Page #2 Carter Page FISA Application – pdf source)

The false claim about Cohen’s travel to Prague has been discussed here for well over a year. [January 2018]

So, the question is:  Why is the FBI so damned committed to this Steele Dossier?

That answer is simple.  In October 2016, they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant.  They needed the 2016 FISA warrant to cover-up for all of the unauthorized and illegal surveillance activity that was already underway throughout 2016.

The Russian election interference narrative; the use of Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, the London and Australian embassy personnel; Erika Thompson, Alexander Downer, U.S. DIA officials; everything around Crossfire Hurricane; and everything after to include the construct of the Steele Dossier; all of it was needed for the creation of an ‘after-the-fact‘  plausible justification to cover-up what Mike Rogers discovered in early 2016, AND the downstream unmasked records that existed in the Obama White House SCIF.

Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 to research Donald Trump.  The intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. They already knew everything about the Trump campaign.

The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a justification for pre-existing surveillance operations.  Fusion fulfilled that objective by contracting for the Steele Dossier.

That’s why the FBI, and later the Mueller team, were/are so strongly committed to, and defending, the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content.  Once they had the dossier in hand the FBI proceeded forward for an ex post facto FISA warrant.

The goal was retroactive surveillance authority. The FBI used the Carter Page FISA application. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the dossier in the system, and the FISA authority as justification.

May 15 2019

Investigating the Investigators – AG Barr Working with CIA and ODNI…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 14, 2019 by 

Against the backdrop of media reports surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham, and an investigation into potentially corrupt 2016 investigators, perhaps it’s worthwhile to pause, evaluate, reset the outlook and review the backstories.

There’s room for cautious optimism, but there’s also reason to temper expectations. First within the latest Fox News report, the following is noted:

Fox News – […] Durham, known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor, according to a source, will focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use and assignments of FBI informants, as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. Durham was asked to help Barr to “ensure that intelligence collection activities by the U.S. Government related to the Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign were lawful and appropriate.”

A source also told Fox News that Barr is working “collaboratively” on the investigation with FBI Director Chris Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and that Durham is also working directly with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is currently reviewing allegations of misconduct in issuance of FISA warrants, and the role of FBI informants during the early stages of the investigation. (read more)

If this report is correct; and if this review parameter is accurate as described; then Durham is ONLY looking at the gross intelligence activity prior to the 2016 election.

This is pertinent because it means Durham is NOT looking at the DOJ/FBI corrupt activity that surrounds the Mueller probe, Rod Rosenstein, corrupt current FBI agents/officials; corrupt investigative outcomes and cover-ups that occurred during 2017 and 2018 (James Wolfe etc.)…  Regardless of disposition, career DOJ and FBI employees (ie. Mueller’s staff of workers), will remain safe under this limited review.  Keep this in mind.

Recently Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a farewell address during the departure of DAG Rod Rosenstein.  Many people took the highly visible back-slapping internecine send-off to mean that Rosenstein was departing as an honorable soldier; and Barr’s praise of Rosenstein was evidence of his honorable character… Et cetera, Et cetera.

But what was the alternative?

Was it possible for U.S. Attorney General William Barr to publicly outline the years-long gross abuses and inherent corruption of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation in full public visibility?  Was it possible for him to verbally destroy the reputations of all participating members within both organizations over the past three years?  Of course not.

Think about the ramifications of brutal honesty.

If Barr was publicly and brutally honest, the political backlash would not only be nuclear in scale; but also our foreign adversaries would immediately pounce on a narrative of how this great constitutional republic was built upon lies and fraud.  The reputation of the United States law enforcement and intelligence community could likely never recover. From an intellectually honest position, clearly AG Barr had limited options.

That said, with the introduction of John H Durham, what the hell was U.S. Attorney John Huber (Utah) doing for the past two years?   Huber was previously assigned to assist Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz in November of 2017, so why is John Durham now assigned to OIG Horowitz seemingly to do the same thing?  The answer is not complex.

Originally Horowitz was assigned on January 12, 2017, to review issues related to the DOJ and FBI relating to improper conduct in advance of the 2016 election. [Read]  That original mandate led to two investigations/reports: (1) Leaks from the FBI (Andrew McCabe outlined); and (2) Overall DOJ/FBI investigative bias and political outcome. Mid-way through these investigations, November 2017,  is when Huber was assigned to assist. [Read]

In March 2018, while the two avenues of investigation were ongoing; at the request of AG Jeff Sessions; the OIG opened a third review: Potential FISA abuse [Read]  So in March 2018, Michael Horowiz has three investigations underway.

A month later, April 13, 2018, Horowitz releases the IG report on McCabe.  Now he’s down to two investigations again.  On June 14, 2018, Horowitz releases the IG report on DOJ and FBI misconduct/bias.  Now the only remaining investigation is the FISA review. This is when any visible activity by John Huber ends.  It makes sense Huber would end in/around June 2018, because Horowitz had an easily manageable, albeit important, singular review.

WASHINGTON DC – […] US Attorney John Huber in Utah is no longer involved on Russia issues. Huber had originally been tasked with looking at allegations of surveillance abuse by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but has been in a holding pattern as the inspector general completes his review of the surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

Huber’s review of other issues related to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation is nearing completion, the source said.

♦ A criminal referral on McCabe for leaking to media was sent to DC U.S. Attorney Jessica Liu in April 2018.  That criminal review looks like it was dropped approximately six months later; around the same time the criminal DOJ cover-up operation for SSCI leaker James Wolfe was executed in October of 2018.  Yes, I’m saying “criminal cover-up” carried out by the DOJ to protect the multiple institutions of government who would have been severely impacted.

Throughout 2018, simultaneous to the Mueller probe’s ongoing corrupt effort; career officials within the institutions of the DOJ and FBI are transparently working with an agenda to protect the interests of the institutions.  Career mid-tier officials and investigators (ref. 40 FBI agents for Mueller etc.) remain embedded despite the top tier firings and resignations.  [Again, reference DOJ/FBI Papadopoulos operation July 2018]

A month after Wolfe was protected by a plea deal; and a month after McCabe was seemingly protected; and the same month Rosenstein provided Mueller with (the second scope memo) authority to target Mike Flynn Jr…. the mid-term election was held.

The morning after the election, President Trump fired Jeff Sessions.

Mid-November 2018: Corrupt DOJ/FBI embeds remain in place.  Mid-November 2018: President Trump does not appoint Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General.

Within a week, November 14, 2018, the OLC issues guidance that Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff, now Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, can oversee the Mueller/Weissmann probe.

♦ Now, in order to bring U.S. Attorney John H Durham into the picture, go back to the October 2018 timeline again.  •DC Attorney Jessie Liu does not charging James Wolfe with leaking classified intelligence. •DC Attorney Jessie Liu (likely, very likely) drops the criminal referral of McCabe, again a leaking issue.  Later McCabe goes on book tour.

When and Where was the criminal referral of former FBI legal counsel James Baker sent?   October 3rd, 2018, lawyers for James Baker inform Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows that their client has been under investigation for leaking to media and the prosecutor is John Durham.

So the referral for James Baker, was sent outside DC and likely was done quite a while ago. Status? Unknown. [Baker was relieved of his FBI duties in December of 2017.] There is a distinct possibility, much like Andrew McCabe, the criminal review of James Baker was previously dropped.

Via Robert Litt […] Durham’s investigation had nothing to do with the Russia investigation or the Steele dossier. I have first-hand knowledge of this because, in my former capacity as general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I was interviewed by Durham as part of that investigation. I’m not at liberty to disclose what Durham was investigating, but it concerned events that occurred long before the 2016 election and were unrelated to Russia or the dossier. Others have reportedthat Durham has cleared Baker; I have no personal knowledge of that. (link)

While it would be false to say Durham has been investigating the origin of the Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, he obviously has been involved in the investigative perimeter of events.  So one can presume he has a solid frame of reference:

FOX NEWS – Durham, known as a “hard-charging, bulldog” prosecutor, according to a source, will focus on the period before Nov. 7, 2016—including the use and assignments of FBI informants, as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.

CNN – […] Barr is working in close collaboration with CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray, the source said.

[…] The source said Durham and Barr are doing a comprehensive review, and Durham is with working with the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, as well. (read more)

♦ Who was the CIA Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action over Europe, while John Brennan and Peter Strzok were running their European 2016 counterintelligence operations?….

That would be current CIA Director Gina Haspel.

Bottom line:  This Barr “investigation” could end up with accountability; or this Barr “investigation” could unearth so much institutional corruption and gross malfeasance that Barr will stand at a podium and duplicate recent events:

Time will tell.

May 14 2019

‘No Way Obama Was Not Told’ – Former Intel Officer Tony Shaffer on Spying on Trump Campaign


SUBSCRIBE 38K
With the Mueller report concluding there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, Attorney General William Barr says he will now personally look into the origins of the collusion investigation.
May 13 2019

President Trump Calls Out FBI Director Christopher Wray: “the director is protecting the coup gang”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 12, 2019 by 

This is good to see.  Finally President Trump indicates he is well aware of the intents and motives of FBI Director Christopher Wray covering for the illegal coup effort:

President Trump may have been aware of Chris Wray’s corrupt disposition prior to today; however, this is the first visible indication he understands the internecine organization of it.  Hopefully we can start the countdown clock to Wray’s exit.

Next up, Chris Wray’s #1 strategic hire, current FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente.

In 2015 the DOJ-OIG (office of inspector general) requested oversight of the DOJ National Security Division.  It was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the DOJ-NSD.

When John Carlin resigned as Asst. Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division in October 2016 he was replaced by Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Mary McCord.  After President Trump took office on January 20th, 2017, Sally Yates was Acting AG and Mary McCord was in charge of the DOJ-NSD.

Yates and McCord were the two Main Justice officials who then engaged with White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26th, 2017, regarding the General Flynn FBI interview conducted on January 24th.  The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline.

On January 30th, 2017, Sally Yates was fired for refusing to defend the Trump travel ban from extremist countries.  Yates was replaced on January 31st by the U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Dana Boente.

With his shift to Main Justice Dana Boente was Acting Attorney General, and Mary McCord was Asst. AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD.  Boente was in the Acting AG position from Jan 31st, 2017, until Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8th, 2017.

When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017.   [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division]

On March 2nd, 2017, Dana Boente was one of the small group who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election.  This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, which was later picked up by Robert Mueller.

The other attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.  [Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of drafting Clinton exoneration letter.]

The Main Justice group influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey now reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente.  [Technically, Boente is still EDVA U.S. Attorney and is only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG]  Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

Question:  If Dana Boente was appointed “Acting Attorney General” on January 31st, 2017 (he was), then why did Don McGahn need to draw up XO 13787 on March 31st, 2017… especially after confirmed AG Jeff Sessions was already in place Feb 9th?

The answer likely has to do with a sign-off needed for FISA.

See the issue?

How does somebody (unknown) advise White House Counsel Don McGahn to draw up an executive order so that Boente can sign a FISA…. without telling Don McGahn the reason why AG Sessions can’t sign off on the FISA?   See the issue now?

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

  • U.S. Attorney for EDVA
  • Acting Deputy AG.
  • Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

It is James Comey and Dana Boente who sign the April 2017 FISA renewal for Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation.  [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Somehow Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente’s personal and handwritten notes were mysteriously leaked to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

[Backstory Here]

On April 20th, 2017, Mary McCord announces her intent to resign from the DOJ National Security Division effective with the confirmation of Deputy AG nominee Rod Rosenstein.

On April 25th, 2017, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is confirmed.   Rosenstein now takes over the responsibilities held by Acting DAG Dana Boente; this includes the FBI counterintelligence probe.

On May 9th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey is fired.

On May 10th, 2017, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe opens a criminal ‘obstruction of justice investigation’ of President Trump to parallel/compliment the ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and administration.

On/Around May 11th, 2017, Mary McCord departs.  Dana Boente now becomes the Asst. Attorney General and head of the DOJ National Security Divison.  Simultaneously retaining role as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.

On May 16th, 2017, Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to meet President Trump. On May 17th, Rosenstein appoints the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. On May 18th, 2017, Scott Schools authorizes Robert Mueller:

And we’re off to the Trump-Russia-Collusion-Obstruction races…

With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. By now everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.]  All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.

Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible people who didn’t participate in one form or another.

Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire.  However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when he actually left the DOJ-NSD or the EDVA role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announces Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker).  As Mueller is using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators, Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.

As we recently discovered, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey.  Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed.  The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:

As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein.  There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false.  So Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.

Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office (March 4, 2019).  This field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.

The April 11th, 2019, recently released Julian Assange indictment stems from the EDVA.  From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The investigation took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney.  The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Why the delay?  Here’s where it gets interesting….

This FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017.  Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looks like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report is dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story.

The Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election.  This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.  There’s the motive to shut Assange down.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue.  The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently.   Almost all independent research into this DNC hack claim also challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers.

Dana Boente was part of the group who advised Sessions to recuse.  Boente later authorized the second renewal of the Title-one surveillance warrant and worked with James Comey.  Boente then leaked his Comey notes to the media, essentially to support Comey’s narrative about Trump; and participated from within the FBI as legal counsel to Chris Wray who told everyone in July 2018 there was no political bias in the FBI… but hey, everyone is going to bias training….. and pay no attention to the 40 “rank and file” FBI agents who were investigating an invisible Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy for two years.

Seriously?

There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch or Boente.  Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger community from the Trump disruption.

In the end it all comes back to the same series of questions. Who was recommending to President Trump that he retain and promote DOJ and FBI officials who were part of the anti-Trump Russia collusion-conspiracy program?

Someone who knew the system but would still be vulnerable to peer influence.  Someone who would take counsel and advice on who was needed and where. Someone in a position of influence with President Trump.  Someone who could steer these placements from a position of advisement close to the President. [It sounds like Don McGahn]

Appointing Rod Rosenstein as DAG was one of those key placements.

Appointing DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu was another.

♦From Rosenstein we get: Mueller, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente.

♦Meanwhile Jessie Liu quashed cases against: Awan bros, James Wolfe, Greg Craig and quite possibly Andrew McCabe.

Chris Wray and Dana Boente then began providing cover…

FUBAR

 

May 13 2019

Ratcliffe: James Comey “under investigation for violations of the espionage act”?…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on May 12, 2019 by 

If this were anyone except Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe, it would be easier to ignore…. but it’s not.  John Ratcliffe is a very tempered and deliberate voice; he has a strong reputation in DC and doesn’t speak in riddles, hype, or disingenuous terms.

During an interview with Maria Bartiromo discussing the recent comments by former FBI Director James Comey, Ratcliffe replied [Must Watch at 04:10 ]:

[@04:10] “Gosh, y’ know, as I listen to that, Jim Comey is proud and wouldn’t change a thing? Really?  He’s proud that he put Peter Strzok in charge of investigating Donald Trump? The same Peter Strzok who, while he was investigating Donald Trump, promised to “f*ck” him and to “stop” him?  He’s proud of his hand-picked deputy director, Andrew McCabe who lied under oath; lied to the inspector general, and has been criminally referred for that?

And we know Jim’s proud of himself, but the inspector general found him insubordinate, and many of us believe that he either is or should beunder investigation for violating the espionage act; for recording his conversations with President Trump in the oval office, and then intentionally leaking classified information to start this investigation”…

Note: “is, or should be”.  So there’s a possibility of “is”.

Remember, Ratcliffe is one of only a handful of people who saw, and continues to see, all of the highly classified intelligence documents (fully unredacted) currently under consideration for declassification by President Trump.  Ratcliffe was also strongly considered for the U.S. Attorney General position.  This is a deliberate man.

Setting an optimistic tone, Representative John Ratcliffe expresses an unusual amount of confidence in U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr.

(IG Report on Andrew McCabe Leaking to Media)