Another Carefully Timed National Security Council Leak? – John Bolton Book Manuscript Leaked to New York Times…

The timing, purpose and narrative engineering here are transparent in the extreme.

Tonight the New York Times (Schmidt and Haberman) write an article claiming to have exclusively gained portions of a transcript of a John Bolton book manuscript that was given to the White House National Security Council for pre-publication review.

Of course The Times attempts to frame the narrative around the need for John Bolton to testify in the Senate Impeachment Trial… all too transparent in motive. Timed to work around the House fraud; impeachment article construction without Judicial review for subpoenas; and timed to bolster House managers’ unconstitutional demand for Bolton as a Senate witness.  ADD: POTUS Responds:

However, setting aside the nothing-burger details of the book as leaked, the leak itself might now reconcile an earlier event.

Remember the issue a little more than a week ago when the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is said to be under a security-related investigation?

On Friday January 17th, 2020, the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is currently under a security investigation.

There are few details about why Peek was physically removed and is under a very serious investigation; however, some of Andrew Peek’s professional background details tell a story.  The connection to Gen. John Allen is a MASSIVE warning flare.

Andrew Peek, the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council, has been placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation tell Axios.

First the Daily Mail:

[…] Peek had been in the NSC role for just two months, after most recently working as a deputy assistant secretary of state with responsibility for Iran and Iraq.

[…] Peek had been expected to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland next week with Trump and other top aides. However, he is currently on leave pending a security-related investigation, people familiar with the situation told Axios.

[…] Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] Prior to joining the Trump administration, Peek served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer who worked under General John Allen in Afghanistan.

[…] He was also a national security adviser to Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, and Senator Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican.  (link)

From a Bloomberg article:

[…] Peek previously served as a deputy assistant secretary of State for Iraq and Iran, and he was seen as an ally of Robert O’Brien.

As we shared at the time:…

[…] Andrew Peek came from the State Department.  Because the appointment happened in the past two months, it would appear Andrew Peek was recommended by the Dept. of State and accepted for the NSC post by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.

Here’s how it looks:  Andrew Peek was a mole.  A resistance spy sent into the Trump administration as part of the allied deep state resistance effort.  Someone caught him attempting to access something, and here’s how CTH can tell (keep reading).

Suspicious Cat remains suspicious…

The message from Bolton’s publisher:

The House motive here, the forethought within the design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate.  The House plan was always to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.

The House crew intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.

Mark Meadows and Trey Gowdy Discuss Impeachment and FBI FISA Fraud…

Mark Meadows and Trey Gowdy appear on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss their perspectives on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.  Both Meadows and Gowdy point out the important aspect in HPSCI Chairman and Lead House Manager Adam Schiff constructing false information to continue an ongoing effort; that has never ceased since the original fraudulent claims around the Russia collusion conspiracy.

Mr. Gowdy notes the unusual 2020 narrative that running for office makes you immune from any federal investigative inquiry; and contrasts that position against 2016 where candidate Donald Trump was considered a viable target by the Obama administration.

Sunday Talks: Representative John Ratcliffe Discusses House Fraud Within Impeachment Articles…

Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the fraudulent construct of the House impeachment articles.  Ratcliffe highlights how the ‘whistle-blower’ (CIA Eric Ciaramella) and the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, have conflicting testimony in the House and that’s why Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff will not release those transcripts.  WATCH:

Sunday Talks: Senator Lankford Crushes George Stephanopoulos….

Senator James Lankford appears on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss his perspective around the ongoing senate trial of President Trump.

During the interview DNC operative Stephanopoulos attempts to retain an opposition false narrative and Senator Lankford just fillets the arguments with facts.  Stephanopoulos is visibly upset with his inability to upend Lankford.


*Posting late today because I’ve been deep in the weeds, assembling years of data, and solving a nagging question about Chris Steele’s primary sub-source [SEE HERE]. I’m now comfortable in predicting who that PSS is.  I will outline more on that soon.

Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- Chris Wallace…

Alan Dershowitz will present a constitutional argument against senate impeachment during arguments next week.  This weekend he appears on Fox News with Chris Wallace to discuss the impeachment trial so far.

Senator James Lankford and Senator Mike Braun Discuss Opening of Impeachment Defense…

Republican Senators James Lankford and Mike Braun appeared on Fox News with Judge Jeanine Pirro to discuss their impressions of the Senate impeachment trial, and the opening day of President Trump’s defense.

Senator Braun (Indiana) noted he previously kept close tabs on the details in the House and felt the impeachment managers offered nothing new.  Both Lankford and Braun felt the two-hour defense opening session was strong enough to deconstruct three days of fabricated and manipulated evidence from the House.


After three solid years of ridiculous accusations, false claims and lies about President Trump… yeah, it’s good to see the White House fight back.

Attorney Michael Purpura Highlights House Manager Adam Schiff Lying…

Within the House impeachment construction, one of the most egregious examples of fabricating evidence was when the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, completely made-up a version of the Trump-Zelensky phone call and read it into the congressional record as if it were factually true.

During opening statements today by the Trump defense team, attorney Mike Purpura highlighted that ridiculous moment for the Senate to review.  WATCH:

Here’s the real transcript:

Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…

Several days ago we anticipated a potentially important point we hoped would start the impeachment defense for President Donald Trump.   Today, attorney Patrick Philbin delivered.  The issue is a critical constitutional component that needed emphasis, and it is good to see pundits finally starting to realize the significance.

White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.


Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.

The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate.  The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.

The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.

Chad Pergram


Schumer: If you’re a Republican, and you think that the case was that was made today was strong, then why not have witnesses and documents?

326 people are talking about this
CTH noted the structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.


BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.


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

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

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

Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and their Lawfare staff’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

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

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

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been 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, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raised the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

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

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority. That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

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

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist. The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

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

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

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

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

They did exactly that.

Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord is currently working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.

National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate). Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….

…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.

Day Five – Senate Impeachment Trial, Defense Begins – 10:00am Livestream…

There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

The Senate Trial continues today on day five at 10:00am ET. Today is the first day of the Trump defense and will only be three hours long by request/agreement with the Senate.

RSBN Livestream –  Fox10 Livestream – Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream





DOJ/FBI Quietly Request Deadline Extension from FISA Court – Deadline Moved to February 5th…

A quiet (oral) request from the DOJ/FBI is noted in a late Friday release from FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg. [LINK]

The previous deadline was January 28th.  As noted the FISC has granted a one week  extension until February 5th.   [Some Possible Ramifications Outlined Here]

This is a hot mess.  Remember, IG Horowitz said he only found evidence of a FISA warrant against Carter Page, no other Trump campaign or Trump administration official was investigated using a FISA application. That statement is a little more important now.

As I go back through my notes seeing if I can identify the downstream consequences impacted by a rather stunning sequestration effort, I find myself wondering if the HJC case(s) for 6(e) material and Don McGahn testimony might even be part of the pull-back material as a derivative of the special counsel probe’ use of the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant.  After all, there had to be an investigative reason for Mueller to want the renewal on June 29, 2017, long after Carter Page was gone from the Trump orbit.

Remember, the special counsel team used some form of pre-existing warrant authority to capture all of the Trump transition team emails and communication from the GSA, and then lied about it to the Trump White House. Perhaps National Security Letters (NSL’s).

The DOJ/FBI previously agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all four FISA warrants issued against Carter Page. Meaning, all material, in any court proceeding or subsequent secondary warrant on another target, application, filing, motion, prosecution or downstream use of the information gathered and obtained.

The DOJ and FBI stated they will now assemble all materials, from any location, that stemmed from the Carter Page FISA warrants.  In essence, the FBI will now look and retrieve any evidence that stemmed as an outcome of the Carter Page FISA warrant. Some of this material *may* (perhaps likely) will be in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.

[ie. a proverbial search for the fruit of a poisonous tree. Where is it?]

Once the sequestration has taken place, the DOJ will then be able to determine to the court what collateral impacts they have identified.

Worth noting in the second paragraph of the original order: “pending further review of the OIG report and the outcome of any investigations or litigation.” This was a statement made by the DOJ in response to the FISC. It is possible the ongoing investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham is part of this encompassing statement.

The second page of the order by Judge Boasberg is essentially him relaying the law surrounding FISA applications; warning the DOJ that false material submissions -which the DOJ has just admitted- are illegal; and Boasberg wanting to know answers to the same questions many of us have.

Essentially, Judge Boasberg is asking: what did the FBI do with the Title-1 surveillance warrant they received from the court? What material did they collect? Was that material then used in other proceedings and: “disseminated to DOJ prosecutors and other persons outside the FBI”?

The presiding fisa judge also wants to know what the DOJ is doing. Explain what “further review of the OIG report” means? Inform the court what “related investigations and litigation” pertains to, etc.  The DOJ/FBI now have until February 5th to respond: