House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler appears with for an interview by furrowed brow to discuss his upcoming use of former DOJ lawyers John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  as designated “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr this week.

Zelinsky and Elias are being brought in to testify about their recommendation(s) for a nine-year prison sentence for Roger Stone & AG Bill Barr reducing that recommendation.  The purpose of the Zelinsky/Elias move was specifically to get the AG to intervene.  It was all a set up from the start; purposeful Lawfare.  A resistance strategy, executed.

Within the interview Nadler outlines his hope that recently dismissed USAO Geoffrey Berman would join the crew of DOJ resistance members who would align against the current AG.  However, Nadler retreats from any position that would actually target Bill Barr for impeachment proceedings.  The reason is transparently obvious, Nadler recognizes any impeachment effort would serve as a mechanism for Barr to point out the gross level of corrupt political agendas within the former employees.  WATCH:

.

By using his committee to attack Bill Barr, chairman Nadler positions himself to impugn the Attorney General as a defensive strategy against any sunlight from the ongoing “outside” USAO investigations, which includes John Durham.   However, Nadler doesn’t want to provide a platform where Barr can use those attacks to trigger his releases.

AG Barr brought in five+ outside U.S. attorney’s to review all of the Mueller cases as an outcome of the FISA court order to conduct a sequestration review of any/all evidence that might have been used as an outcome of the fraudulently obtained Carter Page FISA warrant.

As CTH noted at the time…. “If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.”

There’s no direct evidence the recent DOJ moves are connected to the sequestration review, but with USAO John Durham looking deeply into the background of DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the effort to target candidate Trump, and later President Trump, there could be a possibility that several lanes are merging.

Obviously, AG Barr feels very confident to make the moves and subsequent recommendations to President Trump for replacements.

All of the exit moves and incoming replacements are coming to a head at the same time; early July. The current SDNY move is effective July 3rd, which is the same time that FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente is leaving his position.  Both Boente (FBI) and Jeffrey Berman (DOJ-SDNY) appear to be resigning by Bill Barr’s request; essentially being told to leave.

Other activity last week that may hold deeper connection:

♦On Monday June 15th, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦On Tuesday June 16th, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept effective “early July”. (LINK) Mr. Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦On Wednesday June 17th, the DOJ announced that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

♦And on Friday June 19th, Geoffrey Berman is removed and replaced at the SDNY office; and his exit is also timed for July 3rd. (LINK)

In addition to an identical exit time, one thing all of these departures have in common, including FBI legal counsel Dana Boente’s exit, is their connection to former AG Jeff Sessions (appointments) and DAG Rod Rosenstein (oversight); and ultimately each of these individuals is connected to the larger Robert Mueller special counsel activity.

Their previous work in the DOJ and FBI during the soft-coup insurance phase; which specifically involved the use of the special counsel appointment; in conjunction with the ongoing –and expanded– internal investigation by John Durham; which now includes seven or eight outside U.S. attorneys offices; just seems too coincidental.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the January FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.  This is a big shield that AG Barr is likely keeping in his back pocket until after Nadler launches his attack.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the fraudulent FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest carried by any prosecutor that used corrupt evidence.

How is AG Bill Barr ever going to bring the background DOJ material to the forefront?

How does the AG present material to the public when he knows the resistance agenda is going to be to frame him as being politically motivated?

AG Barr knows the motive of Nadler is to diffuse the damning material from the DOJ investigation by shouting that Bill Barr is doing the bidding of President Trump.

Traditional approaches will not work in this highly partisan era. Even the most stunning evidence of prior DOJ/FBI politicization and misconduct will be obfuscated by media around the Nadler narrative. Taking the initiative to hold a press conference, to release investigative findings, will not work.

AG Barr needs a mechanism to bring the material to the public square.

AG Barr needs the initiative to originate within the opposition; that’s where Chairman Nadler’s attacks become purposeful.

The Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested July 2017 renewal of the FISA warrant two months after the special counsel team was assembled.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of the renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Overlay USAO John Durham doing a deeper and more lengthy investigation that touches the edges of the underlying warrant, and, well, that’s quite a lot of review ongoing.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. The media ignore in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely well more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.

Imagine that?

(Washington Post Link) […] Shortly after the McCabe announcement on Friday, officials said that Barr had assigned Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review and “assist” prosecutors currently handling the case of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is still awaiting sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The outline IS HERE, and in the interests of my own time I’m going to be selfish and not re-re-duplicate it all again.  However, the bottom line is this: Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud was activated by compartmented Israeli intelligence allies of President Obama.

Walid Phares recently exposed and admitted he was targeted by the Mueller probe as the fifth [redacted] name in the August 2, 2017, authorizing the scope memo provided by former DAG Rod Rosenstein.

Rod Rosenstein recently admitted he signed the scope memo as it was presented to him by the special counsel team without asking any questions about it.  Whatever the Mueller team asked for, Rosenstein granted without any interference. That was his testimony.

If you go back to the original assembly of candidate Trump’s 2016 foreign policy advisors, the recent releases now show that all five key team members were targeted by President Obama through the use of the intelligence apparatus; due to an overarching need by the former administration to retain previous foreign policy outcomes; including the Iran deal.

• Paul Manafort = Ukraine/Russia
• Carter Page = Russia/Ukraine
• Michael Flynn = Turkey/Iran
• Walid Phares = Egypt/Iran
• George Papadopolous = Israel/Iran

Take that broad overview and apply it to all the current information about what took place and everything reconciles.  This Big Picture approach does not conflict with reporting by Lee Smith, John Solomon and other solid researchers of the Obama foreign policy motive; instead it frames their individual assemblies as absolutely correct.

When the Obama-era U.S. intelligence apparatus proactively activated; and that includes pre-emptive action by CIA Director John Brennan; the potential for Trump foreign policy conflict triggered the deployment of intelligence units that were both foreign & domestic.

Fusion GPS and Chris Steele enhanced the fraudulent CIA and FBI investigations of Manafort, Flynn and Page.  Notice George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Steele Dossier.  Why?  Because that was outside his lane of responsibility.

All of the Trump foreign policy people were sub-divided research targets.  Each target was assessed and investigated based on their footprint of interest.  Allied intelligence interests were activated to assist the Obama-era intelligence actors.

However, because Russia is technically not a U.S. allied intelligence interest, the Russians couldn’t play a similar role as other nations; hence, Fusion/Steele were needed. But for George Papadopoulos, the Obama apparatus had an intelligence community they could lean on to assist.  That’s where Israel comes into the picture.

Compartmented Israeli intelligence units; those Israeli elements that were/are anti-Benjamin Netanyahu; activated an operation on behalf of President Obama’s U.S. intelligence needs.  It was that Israeli operation that targeted Papadopoulos.

Once you accept that cornerstone, then everything in the background story of George Papadopoulos makes sense.  Everything factually reconciles.

~ READ DETAILS HERE ~

• Joseph Mifsud – Israel
• Christian Cantor – Israel
• Erika Thompson – conduit
• Alexander Downer – source
• Charles Tawil – Israel
• Mueller scope – Israel

If my analysis is accurate then the redacted portion on Walid Phares would state:

•Allegations that Walid Phares

º Committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Egypt;

ETC.

This compartmented targeting explains why Israeli asset Charles Tawil was activated to give the $10,000 cash to George Papadopolous in July 2017 shortly before the Mueller team asked for the expanded scope memo (as above) on August 2nd.

#1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.

[A “laundering” charge applies if the money is illegally obtained. The FARA violation would be the *illegal* aspect making the treasury charges heavier. Note: the use of the airport baggage-check avoids the need for a search warrant (the agents didn’t have one).]

Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (special counsel 951/FARA expert) were  conducting an entrapment scheme that would have ended up with three violations of law: (1) Treasury violation; (2) FARA violation; (3) Money laundering…. All they needed was Papadopoulos to carry the undeclared cash into the U.S.

The key aspect is the FARA violation.  As we have seen in the EDVA case against Flynn’s partner Bijan Rafiekian, the DOJ-NSD bizarre interpretation of FARA laws create a violation from any unregistered purposeful business contact with a foreign entity.

What Weissmann wanted for Papadopoulos was to create the same FARA scenario that previously trapped Manafort, Flynn and Rafiekian.  They intercepted Papadopoulos in Washington DC because it was the customs port of entry.  Papadopoulos was ticketed to Chicago with a transfer flight at Dulles.

However, because Papadopoulos suspected something, and left the money in Greece with his lawyers, upon arrival at the DC airport the sting operation collapsed in reverse.

No money means no treasury violation, no laundering and no evidence of the consultancy agreement; which would have been repurposed in the DOJ filing to mean lobbying for Israel via Mr. Tawil (FARA 951 violation) and Tawil would have become a confidential informant and witness (though Tawil would likely never be used to testi-lie because the special counsel would force a plea).

That operational collapse is why the FBI agents were “scrambling” at the airport and why they had no pre-existing criminal complaint.  The DOJ couldn’t get a warrant because they couldn’t tell a judge their suspect was traveling with $10k from Israel because the judge would ask how they knew that.

The entrapment’s success was contingent upon the cash as a pre-existing condition; and arriving at a Federal airport means they didn’t need a search warrant.

Note how even if Papadopoulos didn’t have the full $10k, the DOJ-NSD would only have lost the treasury violation…. they could still have used any substantial amount of money to charge the FARA part of the business arrangement by questioning Papadopoulos about where he gained the cash from.  [Full Backstory Here]

All of that was done while trying to block this: