U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sits down with the Wall Street Journal to discuss the information released within the IG report on FBI 2016 election surveillance against candidate Trump; and FISA exploitation for use therein.

The Democrats within the House of Representatives have decided to suspend House Impeachment Resolution [HR 660] without following their own rules that established a House Minority Hearing. Instead, House leadership have produced two partisan articles of impeachment for a full house vote.

Both articles are exceptionally weak; the Democrats are rushing to cut their losses:

♦Article One is “Abuse of power” – and structured on a false premise that President Trump “exercised the powers of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest.”

♦Article Two is “Obstruction of Congress” – and structured on a ridiculous premise that President Trump “engaged in unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry”, by challenging congressional subpoenas and seeking relief from the judicial branch.

Both articles are structurally deficient in the extreme. It will be interesting to see which House democrats could possibly vote for these articles, especially article two. There is a possibility some democrats will ignore Pelosi’s whip.

The weakness of the articles now actually appears to be a feature, not a flaw. The exercise of the “impeachment process” writ large was more of a political promise to the far-left constituents of the resistance movement itself. Structurally there is no strength to either article; they appear designed to fail in the Senate. Again, a feature not a flaw.

Nationally the democrat resistance voters are not too smart. What Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are delivering for them is an impeachment in name only. The downstream consequences for this incredibly partisan political effort could be a massive backlash amid independent voters and centrist democrats.

Traditionally, impeachment is constitutionally designed to remove an elected official from office. However, in this modern example the process has been intentionally corrupted to disparage the President, not to remove him.  In essence Pelosi has used the impeachment process as way to sooth the emotional needs of the far-left resistance.

.

Jumpin’ Ju-Ju bones, Jim Jordan eviscerated about eleventy insufferable articles of impeachment in a single rapid-fire round of questioning.   WATCH:

.

I can only imagine what Jimmy Jacket was like as a young ‘un:

You can git outta ma way, or we kin keep talkin’… yer call!

Amid the predictive discussions by those who have followed the three-year background of the potential DOJ & FBI FISA issues, there was one very specific aspect CTH was looking for:  Would the IG report redact the dates of the Carter Page FISA application and renewals?

We got that answer today, and that answer, unfortunately, is yes:

Ask yourself what is the national security value in hiding those dates?  Why does the DOJ need to hide them?   Unfortunately the answer highlights an institutional decision.

On its face the dates seem like an overly granular question; perhaps even a small detail that few would notice.  However, for CTH readers that little detail exposes so much.

In 2018 Main Justice made a very specific decision, a very specific lie, that once told would forever set them on a path – from which there is no return.  It was during a time between July and December 2018 that CTH realized the DOJ had handcuffed themselves to a cover story; and that cover story foretold future conduct.

When Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner requested a copy of the FISA application back in early spring 2017, the Jeff Sessions’ DOJ produced a copy for review, date stamped by the FISC on March 17th, 2017.  That copy was seeded with a false date of origination.  The reason for the false date was the FBI leak taskforce initiated by Sessions.  The false date was a leak trap.

Investigators provided the FISA application to SSCI Vice-Chairman Warner with a false date and then they looked to see if media reports of that FISA application would surface.  If reports started surfacing, any report that used the false date would be attributable to the application given to the SSCI.  The source of the leak would be identified.

That’s exactly what happened.

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

(Page FISA Application, Link)

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

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

(Wolfe Indictment Link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(link to document)

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

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

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

So, why was SSCI Security Director James Wolfe allowed to plea to a single count of lying to investigators?  Because of the ramifications of Wolfe’s leak being directed by Senator Warner.

The DOJ covered-up the fact that Wolfe leaked the classified FISA application, and from that moment forward the DOJ was forever compromised by that corrupt decision.

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

And it gets worse… because the corrupt small group appears to have leveraged what they knew about this DOJ coverup as recently as two months ago:

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

Facing a great deal of public pressure, when the DOJ released a public version of the Carter Page FISA application (July 21, 2018) they had to use the same copy sent to the SSCI on March 17th, 2017, or their leak trap would be exposed; and subsequently the Wolfe non-prosecution would be at risk of exposure.  The DOJ had to redact the dates because the leak trap FISA (dates) doesn’t match the original FISA application.

Once the DOJ made the March 17th, 2017, FISC copy the public copy they had to keep the dates redacted. Hence any further release of the FISA court needs to maintain that same date redacted standard.

Once the DOJ allowed James Wolfe to get away with leaking a highly classified FISA application, they committed themselves to always covering-up the fact the DOJ allowed James Wolfe to get away with leaking a classified FISA application.

Earlier this afternoon Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham held a press availability to discuss concerns with the Inspector General report.   Senator Graham outlines three key FBI moments (for him) within the IG report, that highlight demonstrable and intentional misconduct.

1. January 2017 the FBI contacted the Steele Dossier sub-source and was informed the dossier was remarkably unreliable, out of context, and full of “bar talk”.
2. January 2017 the FBI lied. Telling the FISA Court the sub-source validated the dossier as evidence in order to get a renewal; a claim they repeated in April.
3. June 2017 the CIA told FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them; and then Clinesmith changed that notification so he could submit the last renewal.

U.S. Attorney John Durham issued a statement contradicting a key and consequential  conclusion of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and reads in part:

…”last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agreewith some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

The reason for this conflict, and immediate rebuke by Durham, is stunningly clear on Page ii of the executive summary as highlighted below.  This is a very important element, and needs to be contemplated in its totality:

What inspector general Horowitz outlines in that key section is that: (A) he has reviewed everything, and talked to everyone (current and former) within the FBI; and (B) the ONLY evidence they FBI cited for the opening of Crossfire Hurricane is the singular conversation between George Papadopoulos and Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer and/or Downer’s asst. Erika Thompson.

That’s it.  Nothing else.

There is no other predicate evidence from the FBI investigative unit other than a singular conversation between Alexander Downer/Erika Thompson and George Papadopoulos.

Nothing before that July 26, 2016, contact by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer relaying a conversation with Downer on May 10th, 2016, is cited by the FBI as having anything to do with opening Crossfire Hurricane (started on July 31st).

That conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was George Papadopoulos relaying a rumor he heard from Joseph Mifsud is the totality of evidence used to initiate Crossfire Hurricane.

This investigative predicate is where Durham and Horowitz have a conflict.  Horowitz says the predicate was justified, Durham says not-so-much.

So the totality of the variables to create a conflict is very small.  Papadopoulos, Downer and Mifsud.

Durham says: “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened“.  This is important because the difference between the inspector general and the U.S. attorney is that John Durham has interviewed Downer and Mifsud, and Horowitz has not.

Therefore for Durham to state the predication was not justified, has to come from his contact with Ambassador Downer or Joseph Mifsud.

However, stay with me, Alexander Downer is not really a variable in this dynamic. Assuming Downer is honest, and there’s nothing indicating inconsistency in the public comments he has made about this contact.  Downer had a conversation on May 10th, weeks later he relayed what he felt was his best interpretation of that conversation on July 26th. There’s not a lot of variable in that sequence.

The variable in this small group dynamic is Joseph Mifsud, and the only variable within the Papadopoulos-Mifsud interplay is the background and purpose of Mifsud.

Horowitz has eliminated all predicate variables on his end by stating all FBI witnesses and all FBI documents agree the Downer contact with the FBI initiated the investigation.  The only variable on the Durham end is…. yep, the background and purpose of Joseph Mifsud.

If Durham is disputing the validity of “predication and how the FBI case was opened”, then it’s the predicate behind Joseph Mifsud driving the dispute. This almost guarantees that Mifsud was *NOT* the Russian operative that current FBI and Intelligence Officials have stated he was or is.

From Page 56 of the IG report:

We also asked those FBI officials involved in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane whether the FBI received any other information, such as from members of the USIC, that the FBI relied upon to predicate Crossfire Hurricane. All of them told us that there was no such information and that predication for the case was based solely on the FFG information.169

We also asked Comey and McCabe about then CIA Director John Brennan’s statements reported in several news articles that he provided to the FBI intelligence on Russian contacts with U.S. persons that predicated or prompted the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Comney told us that while Brennan shared intelligence on the overarching efforts by the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, Brennan did not provide any information that predicated or prompted the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.

McCabe said that he did not recall Brennan providing the FBI with information before the FBI’s decision to open an investigation about any U .S person potentially cooperating with Russia in the efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. Priestap and the Intel Section Chief also told us that Brennan did not provide the FBI any intelligence that predicated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. We did not find information in FBI or Department electronic communications, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating otherwise. [Page 59 IG Report pdf]

Chapter 3 of the IG report clearly outlines a presumption by all FBI officials that Joseph Mifsud was acting on behalf of the Russian government.  Again, Horowitz eliminates more variables.

The only thing remaining is the conflict between Durham and Horowitz on this predicate issue; and eliminating all other possibilities for the strength of the disagreement expressed by Durham only one reasonable aspect remains to reconcile the disparity:

Joseph Mifsud wasn’t an FBI operative (not in the CHS database); but also Joseph Mifsud was not a Russian operative (hence predicate issue).

Someone else was running Mifsud on behalf of the background effort.

My hunch is CIA asset Stefan Halper was running/instructing Mifsud, thereby creating plausible deniability for the CIA and John Brennan.  Whoever it was, Durham knows.

U.S. Attorney John Durham is currently doing a criminal investigation into how the intelligence community, CIA, ODNI and DOJ/FBI originated the investigation of candidate Donald Trump.  U.S. Attorney Durham does not agree with the conclusions presented by Inspector General Horowitz:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.

Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”(link)