Flynn Defense Files Supplement #2 Motion to Dismiss – Includes New Exculpatory DOJ Release…


Earlier today Sidney Powell filed a new supplemental brief (#2) [pdf here] in support of the unopposed motion to dismiss.  The supplement covers the defense position on the newly released information from USAO Jeff Jensen which includes: notes taken by Tash Guahar at a January 25, 2017 briefing; the FBI work product that was an outcome of that briefing; and later notes by acting DAG Dana Boente.

The notes and FBI briefing summary are also on pdf here and embedded below.  It’s a lot of granular information to consider – so it’s worth beginning with the filing by Sidney Powell to see how the evidence released pertains to the current status of the case.

On January 25, 2017, the day after Flynn was interviewed by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka (he’s the redacted name per his status under an ongoing protective order) the DOJ and FBI group assembled to discuss the Flynn interview and what steps they would take to frame Michael Flynn as part of their ongoing resistance operation.

Tashina Guahar from the DOJ-National Security Division was taking the notes.

Notes of then Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar, reveal a January 25, 2017, meeting of ten officials including FBI General Counsel James Baker, Bill Priestap, Agent Peter Strzok, and [redacted]; from the National Security Division of DOJ: Mary McCord, George ZT, and STU; from the Office of the Deputy AG: Tash, Scott [Schools], and [redacted].

Additionally, when reviewing the notes and FBI briefing summary it’s worth remembering the release only covers the information pertinent to Michael Flynn; hence the non-Flynn material is redacted (even though some of the non-Flynn material we previously found). [Thanks to Techno Fog for that reminder]

One of the key aspects to the notes taken by Tashina Guahar relates to the group discussion of their own leaking of information to the media, which they worried had now alerted the Trump administration to the nature of their intelligence surveillance.

The resistance group’s media leaks, intended to undermine the Trump administration, “changed the dynamic” by informing the White House that FBI agents were intercepting communication from White House officials.

“Media leaks – re intercepts” pertains to the group telling their allied resistance operatives in media about the Flynn calls.  The leak of the Flynn-Kislyak call was one of the more dominating narrative headlines at the time.  Yes, it’s quite a surprising admission to admit their own leaks pushed the “investigation in the open” which “changed the dynamic”.

First here’s the supplemental filing (#2) that outlines the Flynn defense position:

.

Here’s the attachment with three segments: (1) the Tashina Guahar notes; (2)  The typewritten FBI summary of the meeting; (3) the handwritten notes of Dana Boente.

The release is in that order.  Tash notes, FBI summary work product, then Boente notes.

.

The FBI summary of the briefing is an interesting, albeit troubling, dive into the mindset of a resistance group determined to make something unlawful out of ordinary contact between the incoming National Security Advisor and foreign officials.

The basic conflict, the fulcrum upon which they ended up deciding to move forward, surrounded the definition of the word “sanctions.”   Flynn never discussed ‘sanctions’, or ongoing punitive policy positions, in his call with Kislyak.  However, he did discuss not escalating tensions by reacting -beyond a reciprocal manner- to the expulsion of Russian officials; that is an entirely distinct difference between the “sanctions” imposed by the Obama administration.

In order to advance their “Flynn lied” narrative; the group merged the expulsion of the Russian officials into the ongoing “sanctions” against Russia.  In essence, they called the expulsions ‘sanctions’, and then set about saying Flynn lied when he said he never discussed those sanctions.   It was a strategic lawfare approach to parse words and meaning in order to advance their legal attack.

Four years of this bullshit over the word “sanctions.”  Think about it.

 

Flynn Case Update: DC Appeals Court Requests Flynn Response to Sullivan En Banc Petition…


The DC circuit court has requested a response from Michael Flynn’s counsel (and/or DOJ), by July 20th, regarding the petition filed by Judge Emmet Sullivan for a full panel en banc review of the mandamus order.  The prior mandamus order required Sullivan to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss the case. [pdf here]

Notably the court is not permitting a re-response from Sullivan (implying they have enough information) only a brief reply from Sidney Powell, and inviting a brief response from the DOJ as appropriate.  In the interim the writ of mandamus (Rao order) is stayed until the court decides whether to grant the en banc review.

In short: •Petition response (from Powell and/or DOJ) requested by July 20th. •No counter petition allowed. •Judge Rao mandamus order stayed. •Court *may* consider (vote on) en banc review pending petition response.

Never Relent – Why Did The DOJ Release SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s Text Messages on February 9, 2018?…


Everything is disconnected until somebody connects it.

On February 9, 2018, the DOJ released a batch of captured text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and the lawyer for Christopher Steele, Adam Waldman.

At the time the texts were released the media narrative surrounded the top-line story that Senator Warner was having back channel discussions to communicate with the author of the now famous Trump dossier, Chris Steele. However, no-one seemed to wonder why these messages were captured, and even more curiously why they were released.

Immediately following the release, SSCI member Marco Rubio, the current acting chairman of the same committee, rushed to defend the covert communication of Vice-Chair Warner.  According to Rubio the vice-chair did previously inform the committee of his intent to contact Steele.  The media quickly used Rubio’s defense to dismiss the controversy.  Nothing to see here… nothing to see here… and that was that.

Except it wasn’t.

Not even close.

While the issue may have quickly been downplayed by a water-carrying media, the looming question sat in the corner of the room like an unattended 800lb gorilla.

Why were Senator Warner’s text messages even captured in the first place?

Who captured them?

… and then, lastly, if there really was no ‘there‘ there, and everything was appropriate; and given the nature of this being sold as merely private nothing-burger communication valid for the purposes of SSCI investigative inquiry; well, then why were they released?

The answers to those questions took a long time to solve, but they are solved; and while it is prudent to withhold some of the granular aspects behind the puzzle solving, you deserve to know the answers.

The FBI captured the text messages when Senator Mark Warner was under investigation.

[The content of the Mark Warner text messages is a whole ‘nuther kettle-o-fish, which is not pertinent to our understanding of this specific aspect: what was going on at the time.]

To begin lets just focus on a sequence of events and then fill in the back-story.

First, the mysterious Mark Warner texts were released on February 9, 2018.

Exactly, four days later there was something else released from the DOJ that directly ties to the Warner capture.

On February 13, 2018, the DOJ sent a letter to journalist Ms. Ali Watkins, now working at the New York Times, providing a statutory notification that the content of her electronic communication, emails and cell phone records -including text messages and images- were captured as part of an ongoing FBI investigation. [Source Link]

That FBI investigation surrounded leaks from within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).  Notice the date for the search warrant February 1, 2017, to July 31, 2017. Notice also this is the same time-frame of Senator Warner’s text message capture.

The SSCI leaks were eventually tracked to Security Director James Wolfe who was leaking classified intelligence to journalist Ali Watkins and others.  Wolfe leaked the FISA application to Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.

What we discover from the DOJ indictment of Security Director Wolfe, which was unsealed on June 8, 2018, is that the grand jury was seated on May 3rd.

This timeline means prior to May, 2018,  the FBI investigators transferred their investigative files over to Main Justice.

From there DOJ lawyers would initiate grand jury proceedings based on that evidence.

The transfer of the investigative file included the intercepted Wolfe text messages, the intercepted incoming messages from Ms. Watkins phones; and the investigative file also included the Mark Warner text messages.

That’s the how and why the Warner texts were captured.

But why were the Senator Warner messages released?

The answer to that question goes back to the same reason the DOJ released the Carter Page FISA application in July 21, 2018.  The special counsel crew initiated the Warner release through Rod Rosenstein (same as the FISA application, different auspices).  Rosenstein then transferred the Warner texts to the House intel committee; and they were made public.

There was not classification issue.  Any release was going to be a public release. The resistance priority was diluting any damage from the discovery of their capture; and it worked, no-one stopped to question the foundational issue: why were they captured?

The text messages were released and Ms. Ali Watkins was simultaneously notified because the special counsel resistance unit inside Main Justice became aware of the evidence.  It was not until the FBI evidence was transferred from FBI to DOJ when the resistance unit could do anything about it.

Remember, the special counsel was protecting and defending the FISA application.  The FISA was released under the guise of FOIA fulfillment (NYT and Judicial Watch); the Warner texts were released under the guise of fulfillment to congress; both releases purposeful and strategic.

The FBI finalized most of their investigation of the Wolfe leak, which included information related to Mark Warner’s involvement, and sent the evidence to main justice in/around February. 

February of 2018 is when the Mueller special counsel resistance unit started informing their outside allies how to prepare.  The Warner text release was preemptive, and it was done before the grand jury was seated in May 2018 to hear and see that evidence.

The resistance unit within Mueller’s special counsel was essentially notifying their allies what to prepare for; how to prepare for it; and simultaneously dilute the severely damaging information that was discovered and prop up the narrative behind the FISA.

Ultimately they succeeded.  The resistance unit was able to block the biggest story of political corruption in recent history.

The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an intelligence community gang of eight oversight member, instructed the SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Top Secret Carter Page FISA application on March 17, 2017.  {Go Deep}

When Ali Watkins was notified of the search warrant in February 2018, she was then working for the New York Times.

Ms. Watkins gained the job at the New York Times by possessing the top secret FISA application.  Text messages between Watkins and Wolfe contain Wolfe noting his important role in advancing Ms. Watkin’s career.

The New York Times received and began exploiting the FISA application in March 2017 while simultaneously writing articles that President Trump, nor any member of his campaign, was never under surveillance.  They lied.

After receiving the leak the Times then sent a FOIA request for a legal copy of the FISA application which they already possessed unlawfully.  This was an attempt to diffuse their illegal possession of the same, albeit unredacted, document.

Everything is disconnected, until someone connects it.

Adam Waldman (left), Oleg Deripaska (right)

 

Supreme Court Blocks and Punts on Trump Financial Records Cases…


Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

We anticipated this ruling in the Trump -v- Mazars case because it was clear the efforts of the House were fishing expeditions.  Despite initiating an impeachment effort in order to bolster their attempt; and then attempting to backdoor the congressional subpoenas under the guise of the impeachment effort; the Supreme Court rejected that approach.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] Having found both sides’ proposed tests wanting, Roberts outlined a middle ground for the lower courts in these cases, as well as other courts going forward, to follow. Courts, Roberts instructed, should “perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the ‘unique position’ of the President.”

Among other things, courts should consider whether the president’s papers are really necessary (because the information cannot be obtained elsewhere); whether the subpoena is as limited in scope as it can be while still serving Congress’ purpose; what evidence Congress has offered to “establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose”; and what burdens a subpoena imposes on the president. Because the lower courts did not adequately consider these “special concerns,” Roberts explained, the cases will now return to those courts for additional proceedings. (more)

Trump -v- Vance (Manhattan case) decision:

.

Trump -v- Mazars (legislative case) decision:

.

 

Former Acting DNI Richard Grenell Discusses Unmasking During Transition Period…


Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell discusses the period during the presidential transition period where President Obama’s white house team was coordinating intelligence efforts to research and unmask incoming officials.

President Trump and President Lopez-Obrador Sign Joint Statement – Press Conference – 3:30pm ET Livestream…


U.S. President Trump and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador will be holding a joint press conference prior to signing a joint declaration celebrating the initiation of USMCA in the Rose Garden. Anticipated start time 3:30pm ET

UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much, everyone. It’s a nice hot day, to put it mildly — (laughter) — so we’ll make this quick. But it’s all very positive — that, I can say.

And it’s my tremendous pleasure to welcome everyone to the White House with my good friend, President López Obrador of Mexico. We’ve had a very outstanding relationship.

Mr. President, we’re truly moved that you chose to make your first foreign visit since taking office — very successfully taking office, I might add — to be with us at the White House.

The relationship between the United States and Mexico has never been closer than it is right now. And as the President said a little while ago, people were betting against that. They were actually betting against that. But it’s never been stronger, never been closer. We’re doing a tremendous job together.

We’re cherished friends, partners, and neighbors. Our cooperation is founded on mutual trust and mutual respect between the two of us and between our two countries. And we honor the great dignity of both nations.

With this visit, President López Obrador and I have the opportunity to strengthen the bond we afford since his impressive election victory more than two years ago — a victory the Vice President and Ivanka joined in celebrating at the swearing-in. That was a very exciting day for them.
Each of us was elected on the pledge to fight corruption, return power to the people, and put the interests of our countries first. And I do that and you do that, Mr. President.

The tradition of great respect between Mexican and American Presidents goes back to the early days of both of our nations. And, in particular, it includes President Abraham Lincoln and President Benito Juárez, who each held one another in very, very high esteem. They were great friends and they did great things together. And we are grateful that, this morning, President López Obrador laid a wreath at the memorials that stand to each of these leaders, right here in our nation’s capital. That was a very beautiful, beautiful ceremony.

Our countries are linked by trade and travel, by history and culture, by faith and family. The United States is home to 36 million incredible Mexican American citizens. Mexican Americans uplift our communities, and they strengthen our churches and enrich every feature of national life. They are hardworking, incredible people. They are also great business men and women, and make up a big percentage of our small-business owners — and very successful. They’re very, very successful. They’re like you: They’re tough negotiators and great business people, Mr. President.

Working alongside President López Obrador, we’re taking this relationship to new heights and building a powerful economic and security partnership. Together, we have addressed many of the most complex issues facing our two countries that really went unresolved for many years — and, frankly, far too long. It should have been resolved long before I got here. But we’re achieving great strides and remarkable breakthroughs in strengthening our relationship for decades to come.

With everything that we have accomplished, the potential for the future of the United States and Mexico is unlimited. Far, far greater situation, really, for both countries than anyone thought possible.

Today we celebrate the historic victory we achieved together just days ago when NAFTA was officially terminated — one of the worst trade deals in history — and replaced with a brand-new, beautiful USMCA.

We want to thank Canada, also. I spoke with and will be speaking to the Prime Minister in a little while.

While NAFTA slashed wages and eliminated jobs, the USMCA includes groundbreaking labor protections for workers in both nations. This landmark agreement will bring countless jobs from overseas, back to North America, and our countries will be very big beneficiaries. We are already seeing the fruits because it started. It’s the largest, fairest, and most advanced trade deal ever reached by any country, and it will bring enormous prosperity to both American and Mexican workers and Canada. We want to thank everybody. We’ll have a separate day with Canada. They’re coming down at the appropriate time. But we want to congratulate Canada and the people of Canada, the Prime Minister.

But this has been a tremendous achievement. It’s actually the largest trade deal ever made. And we made a big one with China too, but this is the largest trade deal ever made.

Our two governments are also in close cooperation to stop the illicit cross-border flow of drugs and guns, cash, and contraband, and very importantly, stopping human trafficking.

We’re forging critical partnerships across the Western Hemisphere to combat the cartels and the smugglers and to ensure safe, humane, and lawful migration. And we’ve been helped greatly by Mexico on creating record numbers, in a positive sense, on our southern border. It’s been really, very, very tight and done a great job.

And I want to thank the Secretary, who’s here. We have a — Chad, you’re here someplace. Where is Chad? What a good job you’re doing, Chad. Great job. We’re proud of you. And you’ve worked very closely with Mexico. I know you were just telling me what a great help they’ve been, right? Thank you very much, Chad.

We’ve also worked closely in the battle against the coronavirus, together saving countless — thousands of lives. It’s been my honor to help Mexico procure 600 ventilators, and it’s going to be a higher number than that. They needed them very badly, and we were able to make them. We’re making thousands a week, and we’re helping a lot of countries. But one of the first, and maybe the first that I spoke to, was Mexico. We have a lot of them in Mexico saving a lot of lives. And, Mr. President, we’re in this fight together, and we’re doing very well.

Just a couple of things on that: I’m proud to further announce that the U.S. is, by far, number one in testing — number one in the world in testing — and that the mortality rate is the lowest, or just about the lowest of any nation anywhere in the world.

And we’re safely reopening our country, and very importantly, we’re safely reopening our schools. We want the schools to be open and going in the fall. And most of them, I think, are looking at it that way. It’s very important. We’re finding out that learning by computer is not as good as learning in the classroom or learning on the campus. And I think you’re finding that too. We want to learn in the classroom. So, our schools — we want them open in the fall.

Following President López Obrador’s remarks, we’ll sign a joint declaration committing ourselves to a shared future of prosperity, security, and harmony. This is truly a proud moment in history for both of our nations, Mexico and the United States.

With this signing, we pledge the close and continued friendship between the United States and Mexico, and we accelerate our progress toward an even greater tomorrow — and that’s what’s happening: a greater, maybe even a far greater tomorrow — with a prospering region, a flourishing hemisphere, and two sovereign nations thriving, growing, and excelling side by side, working together — and that’s what we’ve been doing.

Mr. President, we look forward to hosting you for a beautiful dinner later on this evening with some of your friends from Mexico and some of our great friends from the U.S. And it’s an honor to have you with us.

And, please, we’d love to have you say a few words. Thank you. Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT LÓPEZ OBRADOR: (As interpreted.) Friends, ladies and gentlemen, I truly celebrate this meeting with you, President Trump.

My visit, to a great extent, has to do with the importance right now, in these times of world economic crisis, the importance of the entry into effect of the Mexico-U.S.-Canada Agreement, to make by Spanish acronym, “USMCA.” Having been able to close this deal constitutes a great accomplishment benefitting all three nations and our peoples.

As it is well known, North America is one of the most important economic regions of the planet. However, our region is inexplicably a region of trade deficits. We export to the rest of the world about $3.6 trillion, but we import about $4.2 trillion. That is, we have a deficit of $611 billion, which is translated into capital flight, less opportunities for companies and businesses, and job source losses.

This new agreement seeks to reverse this imbalance through greater integration of our economies and improvements in the functioning of productive chains to recover the economic presence that North America has lost in the last five decades. Suffice it to say that, in 1970, the region constituted 40.4 percent of the world GDP. And now, this share in the global economy has gone down to 27.8 percent.

That’s why this agreement is a great option to produce, create jobs, and foster trade without having to go so far away from our homes, cities, states, and nations. In other words, import volumes of our country’s imports to the rest of the world may be produced in North America at a lower transportation cost with reliable suppliers — reliable vis-à-vis the companies, of course — and the utilization of regional labor force…

Of course, it’s not a matter of closing our countries to the world. It’s a matter of taking advantage of all the advantages that we have because we’re neighbors, as well as the enforcement of a good policy of cooperation for development.

This agreement allows us to attract investments from other places of the hemisphere, bringing those investments to our countries, provided we comply, we honor the principles of reducing merchandises with high regional content, and also trying to have salary and labor conditions that are fair conditions for our workers of the exporting or importing countries of consumption goods.

It’s also important to point out that this agreement signifies the integration of all three countries, because we’re all contributing with productive capacity, markets, technology, experience, expertise, highly skilled labor force, and we end up complementing each other. For instance, Mexico has something which is extremely valuable to make this economic integration effective and to boost this integration — economic and commercial integration — in the region. I’m talking about this very young, creative, and responsible labor force.

Let us not forget that the participation of workers in productive processes is just as important as the role of businesses and companies. It really would be not good for us to have capital and technology if we don’t have good workers that are outstanding workers because of their imagination, their talent, and their mystique when they do their work.

On the other hand, with this type of agreement — and respecting our sovereign states — instead of distancing ourselves, we are deciding, we’re opting to walk together towards the future. We want to privilege understanding. That’s why we’re united. And we’re setting aside differences, or we are solving those differences through a dialogue and mutual respect.

Certainly, in the history of our relations, we’ve had perhaps moments in which our minds have not been together. And there are — there have been problems that are not yet forgotten. However, we’ve been able to establish explicit agreements of cooperation and coexistence. For instance, in the ‘40s of last century, during the Second World War, Mexico helped meet the needs of the United States in terms of the raw materials needed by the United States, and it gave its support with the labor of migrant workers that were known as the braceros.

Since then, and until now, we’ve been consolidating our economic-commercial trade relationship, as well as our very — very peculiar coexistence, cohabitation, sometimes as distant neighbors and other times as very affectionate and close friends.

And it is also a well-known history of geopolitics, this neighborhood we have and economic circumstances of both of our nations have promoted, in a very natural manner, a process of migration of Mexican men and women coming here to the United States. And here we’ve been able to create a community of about 38 million people, including the children of Mexican parents. It is a community of good, working people — good people, working people who have come here to make a living in a very honest fashion. And they have so much contributed to the development of this great nation.

Furthermore, in Mexico, more than in any other country of the world, we have in our society a million and a half of U.S. citizens. They live there, and they’re part of our society. So we’re not just united by geographic proximity; we have economic commercial, social, cultural, and ties of friendship, President Trump.

As in the best times of our political relationship, during my mandate as President of Mexico, is that of remembering this insults and things like that from — against me. We have received from you, President Trump, understanding and respect. People — some people thought that our ideological differences would inevitably lead to confrontations. Fortunately, this has not been the case. And I believe that, towards the future, there will be no motive or need to break our very good political relationship or the friendship between our two administrations.

The best president Mexico has ever had, Benito Juárez García, as you have mentioned, had a good understanding with the great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that this great, historic leader of the United States, who was the promoter of the abolition of slavery, never recognized Emperor Maximilian imposed in Mexico through the intervention of the powerful French army.

It is no coincidence that Juárez lamented Lincoln’s murder in the United States, saying, I quote, “I have deeply felt this disgrace because Lincoln, who was constantly working in such a determined manner for the complete freedom of its fellow men, was worthy of a better fortune or luck.” End of quote.

The same thing happened with the splendid relationship that Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had with our patriot president, General Lázaro Cárdenas. The same situation took place. And after the oil expropriation, in a letter, General Cárdenas recognized the good understanding — the good bilateral understanding as follows: He said, “My administration believes that the attitude of the United States of America, in the case of the oil company expropriation, reasserts once more the sovereignty of the peoples of this continent that with so much efforts have been maintaining the situation and the position of his Excellency, Mr. President Roosevelt.” End of quote.

So with all proportions and all the circumstances, with different circumstances, history tells us that it is possible to understand each other without arrogance or extremisms.

Now that I have decided to come to this meeting with you, President Trump, we had a good debate in my country on the convenience of this trip. I decided to come because, as I have already expressed, it is very important for us to be launching this new agreement.

But I also wanted to be here to thank people of the United States, its government, and thank you, President Trump for being increasingly respectful with our Mexican fellow men.

And to you, President Trump, I want to thank you for your understanding and the help you’ve given us in issues related to trade, commerce, oil, as well as your personal support for the acquisition of medical equipment that we needed urgently to treat our patients of COVID-19.

But what I mainly appreciate is that you have never sought to impose anything on us violating our sovereignty. Instead of the Monroe Doctrine, you have followed, in our case, the wise advice of the lustrous and prudent President George Washington who said, quote, “Nations should not take advantage of the unfortunate condition of other peoples.” End of quote.

You have not tried to treat us as a colony; on the contrary, you have honored our condition as an independent nation. That’s why I’m here to express to the people of the United States that their President has behaved with us with kindness and respect. You have treated us just as what we are: a country and a dignified people; a free, democratic, and sovereign people.

Long live the friendship of our two nations. Long live the United States of America. Long live Canada. Long live our America. Long live Mexico. Long live Mexico. Viva México. (Applause.)

(The joint declaration is signed.)

END 4:10 P.M. EDT

WH Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream – Alternate Livestream

.

.

.

Why Did The DOJ Declassify and Release the FISA Application on July 21, 2018?….


On July 21, 2018, amid the apex of all things Trump-Russia being carefully narrated by the special counsel team, why did the DOJ release the Top Secret Classified Intelligence document known as the Carter Page FISA application?

At the time it happened everyone was so consumed with the content of the release, almost no-one stopped to ask that question.  Except, well, me.

Put yourself back into that 2018 time-frame: the Trump-Russia collusion hoax was being pushed hard; the Nunes memo -vs- the Schiff memo was being argued and the media was writing furiously about leaks from anonymous sources “with knowledge of the investigation” etc.  Congress was being blocked from all their document requests and their bucket lists for declassification.  Rod Rosenstein was refusing to testify to the House Intel Committee led by Devin Nunes.  The DOJ was blocking documents related to surveillance of President Trump.  The media was saying there was no surveillance of Trump.  Congress was desperate to break the stonewalling and asked President Trump to declassify a list of documents they provided.  Rod Rosenstein threatened Trump that if he declassified documents it would be adding to a potential obstruction investigation and claim. Etc. Etc.

Hell, despite his recusal from these matters, AG Sessions was getting major heat over the blockage from DOJ… the battle was intense.  Sessions announced an Illinois USAO John Laush to try and mediate the issues.  Laush was a major fail.

Then, amid all of that stonewalling, blocking, redacting of documents, failure to unredact, and refusal to declassify…. suddenly, all of a sudden, presto, here’s the most top secret classified document release ever.

To fulfill a FOIA request by Judicial Watch and the New York Times.

A FOIA request?

Seriously?

Considering all of the documents that would have been the easiest NOT to release because it is a top secret classified intelligence product; and considering the denial of that FOIA request would have easily withstood all judicial challenge because of the nature of its content; all of a sudden… hey, here you go. Here it is.

It just never made sense.

I have finally found the answer to that question; and while I must hold back on some details, we are at a point where you too should know.

First, an admission that I was wrong.

I always thought Robert Mueller was a false front, a semi-cogent face for a team of 17 lawyers that moved-in to take over Main Justice.  I was not wrong about Mueller, he was exactly that: a hand selected name to give credibility to a team assembly, and a man who would acquiesce to the smart, familiar and legal minds that were really running the resistance operation.

Where I was wrong, was thinking Rosenstein was a countermeasure to those who took control over Main Justice.

He was not.

Rod Rosenstein was doing exactly the same as Mueller, acquiescing to every request, instruction and demand by the seventeen legal squatters who took over Main Justice.

As Rod Rosenstein recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he never once questioned the special counsel about any request, demand or instruction; and he never once challenged their motives for the requests they made.

As Deputy AG, and with AG Sessions recused, Rod Rosenstein should have been on top of the special counsel; but he wasn’t.  He intentionally wasn’t.

The entire time the special counsel was operating, seventeen assembled members of the Trump resistance, were running the show inside the U.S. Department of Justice.  They controlled everything.

AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled; he saw nothing, and he had no input into anything.  That was the first step in the resistance operation.

The second step was to instruct Rosenstein that every request made by the team was part of their investigation; regardless of how it might seem disconnected, it was all part of their investigative process.  That’s how they steamrolled Rosenstein into sitting in a corner and waiting for documents to sign; authorities to grant (scope memos etc.); indictments to approve; and requests to be fulfilled.

Seventeen members of the special counsel were running Main Justice.  Seventeen members of the resistance, with input guidance and assistance from Lawfare, were running Main Justice.  That’s the paradigm shift needed to baseline everything.

When the FISA application was released in July 2018, it was released by the special counsel team.  Technically Rosenstein released it; however, unofficially it was released by the demand of the resistance operators under the auspices that it was part of their investigative technique; part of the ongoing operation.

Except that wasn’t the real motive.

The real motive for releasing the FISA application, under the auspices of granting a FOIA request, was because the resistance already knew the New York Times had obtained it illegally.

In fact The New York Times had the FISA application since March 17, 2017, when SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, operating under instructions from SSCI resistance coordinator, Mark Warner, took pictures of each page of the FISA application and sent them to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

Ms. Watkins then shared the FISA with fellow resistance allies at the Washington Post and New York Times.   To cover her tracks Ms. Watkins did not immediately write about the FISA application, and I suspect the editors at Buzzfeed may not have known.

In exchange for her pre-planned role, The New York Times then hired Watkins; and, under the legal tutelage of the NYT, Watkins based her reporting on the Trump-Russia narrative from there.

However, in March 2017 what Watkins, Wolfe, media and Mark Warner did not immediately know, was that the FBI was conducting a leak investigation; a genuine leak investigation, and the SSCI was suspected.

The FISA application picked up by James Wolfe and delivered to the SSCI contained a leak tracer, a trap.  When the tracer showed up in media reports, the FBI knew where it leaked from – the SSCI.

[Note the FBI interception dates – The Wolfe leak was March 17, 2017]

Unfortunately, what the FBI did not know – was that SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner was the inside resistance operative giving Wolfe the instructions on how to proceed.

In May 2017, the FBI informed Vice-Chair Warner and Chairman Richard Burr that someone in the SSCI leaked the FISA application.   In essence FBI investigators just told the culprit they were investigating a leak he created.  Think about the ramifications.

As part of the overall investigation to locate the specific leaker, all of the SSCI was subject to review and quiet investigation.  As the FBI worked through a process of elimination, that’s when the FBI discovered the Mark Warner text messages to Adam Waldman, the lawyer for Chris Steele.   Not coincidentally the Warner text messages end in May 2017; exactly when he was first notified by the FBI about the specifics of the leak hunt.

What also started in May 2017?…..  The special counsel.

One important aspect to the coordinated demand and incessant drumbeat by the media for a special counsel, was a need to control the outcome of the FBI leak investigation.

Total control.  This was all connected.

The resistance took over Main Justice with the appointment of the special counsel; and one of their priorities was to stop anyone from: (a) finding out the FISA application had leaked; (b) block anyone from finding out how it was leaked; (c) block any independent FBI activity surrounding the leak.

Remember, in this period of 2017 the media side of the resistance operation were denying Trump was under any surveillance.  They were denying anyone in/around the Trump campaign was under surveillance.  However, they were also reporting on the investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative from the investigative perspective, while using and exploiting the information they had in the March 17th leak of the FISA.

March 17th was less than two months after President Trump was inaugurated.   The FISA was leaked even before it was renewed in April (Boente/Comey), and renewed again by the instructions of the special counsel team on June 29th.

When the New York Times sent a FOIA for the FISA application, they did so as a necessary legal cover because they already illegally possessed it.  [Keep in mind, the copy they had was not redacted at all.]

When the Trump-Russia narrative was at it’s apex in July 2018; and with a need to deploy all weapons against the upcoming mid-term election; and when the resistance group  needed to provide legal cover for the New York Times; the FISA application was released by the resistance unit running Main Justice.

It was released as cover for the New York Times (and others) who were already reporting on it; and it allowed the NYT, and others, to fully weaponize the fictitious aspect of the narrative about the FBI genuinely being concerned about Trump colluding with Russia.

The July 2018 release itself was not a clean copy of the FISA application; but rather the DOJ team re-released the March 17, 2017, release and then added the final two renewals to the total release.  In 2018 the DOJ resistance group had to re-release the portion of the FISA application that was previously leaked in March 2017 (or else any reporting containing the leak tracer would not be covered/justified).

So who do you think released the Mark Warner text messages for the same purpose?

BINGO.  Yup, the same resistance group.   It was all an effort to cloud, cover and control.

Key takeaway.  The seventeen members of the special counsel were intentionally brought into Main Justice to organize the resistance.   The DOJ was running the resistance operation.  AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled and clueless; and DAG Rosenstein was just approving anything put in front of him because it was sold as part of the investigative process.

Regardless of the FBI investigation, the DOJ resistance operation held ultimate control.

Some in the FBI were not happy… not happy at all…. but not in a position to do anything about Main Justice patting them on the head and telling them to run along now.

Oh, there’s so much more…. this is just an appetizer.

The SSCI

The Gang of Eight

The DOJ

The ICIG

Why did Warner/Burr, the SSCI and the DOJ resistance need ICIG Michael Atkinson?

…..Control, in the event a whistle-blower tried poking his head up.

 

Flynn Case Update: DOJ Provides Defense With Handwritten Notes from Tashina Guahar Meeting January 25th – And Dana Boente Notes Which Explain the Reason He Was Retired…


Today the DOJ has released additional exculpatory information to the Flynn defense team surrounding hand-written notes taken by Tashina Guahar and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The 1/25/17 meeting takes place the day after two FBI agents interview Flynn at the White House.  There’s also an internal document from the DOJ dated 1/30/17, and notes by former DOJ AAG -who later became FBI counsel- Dana Boente.

[NOTE: Keep in mind the last day for Jody Hunt, Noel Francisco and Dana Boente was last Friday, July 3rd. Coincidental timing?]

The notes and internal document are filed under seal per Judge Sullivan’s prior order. However, with previous filings the documents were made public the following day; so we might see the content tomorrow.

Tashina Guahar and Dana Boente were part of the small group inside Main Justice who convinced AG Jeff Sessions to recuse.   But you don’t need to wait for the court to release the March 30, 2017, Boente notes, because we already have them.

When the special counsel team was stirring the pot for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, they leaked the Boente notes to their allied resistance member, Rachael Maddow.   Those notes form the basis/justification for Boente signing the second renewal of the FISA warrant against Carter Page (April 2017).   James Comey called Dana Boente because he needed the FISA extended and could not call Jeff Sessions.

Comey enlisted Boente into the operation against President Trump.  Ultimately these notes form the basis for why the DOJ demanded Boente leave his position in May.  This is why Boente was removed {Go Deep}.

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 January 25th meeting notes [released today] likely document Tashina Guahar and Peter Strzok preparing Sally Yates and Mary McCord for that confrontation with Don McGhan.  The Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was the headline they were driving..

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, almost guaranteed to be  leaked by the special counsel team (Aaron Zelby and Andrew Weissmann, 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.

I can almost guarantee you Boente was removed by AG Barr specifically because of his role in this FISA fraud……  He willingly signed-on to the objective of James Comey and Andrew McCabe.  Boente knew he was targeting the White House and President Trump.

[More on Boente Here]

Senator Chuck Grassley Ponders Lack of Durham Response Prior to 2020 Election…


U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley implied this morning that USAO John Durham may not provide evidence of the already well-documented effort to remove President Trump from office until after the November election:

Senator Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020

Senator Grassley is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Grassley was elected in 1981 and has held office for almost 40 years.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Attorney General William Barr said in May that Durham, who is investigating misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials, will likely not conduct a criminal inquiry into former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

“I have a general idea of how Mr. Durham’s investigation is going. … There’s a difference between an abuse of power and a federal crime. Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” Barr said during a press conference. “Now, as to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”

Barr told Fox News in June that he expects there to be “developments” in Durham’s investigation into the Russia investigation this summer even as he hinted that it would continue through the November election. (more)

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – 1:00pm ET Livestream


White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany holds press conference with the press pool in the Brady room.  Anticipated start time 1:00pm ET

WH Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream – Fox News Livestream – Alternate

.

.

.