Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:
• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy
Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!
Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.
And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!
Interesting claims. They certainly cannot afford countries to buck the trend if they are behind this Great Reset.
The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in any FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons, outside fourth amendment protections.
The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. However, in the case of the “missing” or “reconstructed” Woods file used to gain a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page, the overwhelming evidence shows there never was one. The Special Counsel manufactured the appearance of one ex post facto in 2018.
Here’s how we can tell:
♦ FIRST – Common Sense: Recent reports of the DOJ, FBI or NSD “losing” the Woods file are abjectly silly on their face. Given the specific importance of this specific case there’s no reasonable person who would believe such a critical file of underlying evidence would just go missing and have to be recreated by the Weissmann special counsel.
♦ SECOND – Precedent: In the March 30, 2020, memorandum written by the Office of Inspector General after review of 29 DOJ-NSD FISA applications, the IG noted the absence of Woods Files is not an uncommon occurrence. Factually within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA applications. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]
♦ THIRD – How Would They Get Away With That?: To answer that question it is important to remember the DOJ-National Security Division, the entity responsible for the legal assembly of FISA applications, did not have any oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG 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 NSD.
The DOJ-NSD could get away with the lack of legal requirements because there was no entity providing oversight to ensure the completeness of the legal requirements they were supposed to follow. Not coincidentally this is the exact division within the DOJ that weaponized FARA investigations as the justification for political surveillance. [That becomes important later when we get to Carter Page specifics]
♦ FOURTH – Trish Anderson Admission: The Deputy General Counsel for the FBI National Security & Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB), Trisha Beth Anderson, admitted during her testimony to congress that she never verified the existence of the Woods File, nor its content. Anderson stated she never even reviewed the FISA application for appropriate assembly because it came to her from an unusual top-down process.
In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application. (link)
Why did she do this? Trish Anderson disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]
Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.
But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”
Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)
Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).
“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.
When Trish Anderson signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ. Andrew Weissmann, formerly of the DOJ-NSD, was running the special counsel operation. Meanwhile FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI.
This was the third renewal where Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence to hide that Carter Page was working with, and was a source for, the CIA.
Again, Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson rubber-stamped the application because it came with pre-approval from above. Anderson never saw, nor questioned, any underlying documentation; or the absence thereof. The lack of supportive documentation, a Woods File, passed her review because the application had pre-approval by her supervisors.
♦ FIFTH – IG Horowitz Provides Cover for Institutional Issues: Within his December 2019, IG report on the four FISA applications, Inspector General Horowitz covers for the issue of missing supportive evidence by saying the customary procedure for the Woods File verification is not needed when the evidence involves a confidential human source (CHS):
This description is entirely consistent with the DOJ and FBI using the Chris Steele dossier as a replacement for the Woods File procedures. Under this sketchy justification Steele would be an FBI confidential human source (CHS). Ergo, the dossier served as the underpinning and the only requirement would be for the application to “accurately reflect what [Steele] told the FBI”. That’s how they pulled this off.
♦ SIXTH –Everyone knew it was BS – AGAIN FARA (Remember, FARA via DOJ-NSD had no oversight) this is part of the corrupt process: Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.
Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?
Carter Page joined the Trump campaign March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.
Not only is is incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.
Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.
♦ CONCLUSION: Taking all the above into proper context, when the office of inspector general announced on March 28, 2018, that he was going to review all four of the Carter Page FISA applications; no doubt the office of the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann; who was previously the DOJ-NSD FARA targeting coordinator; moved swiftly to create the appearance of a Woods File where none previously existed. That led to the Woods Procedure justification as stated by the IG.
There never was a Woods File. The FBI and DOJ relied upon the Chris Steele Dossier as the evidence to support the FISA application. Chris Steele was identified as a Confidential Human Source, and his dossier was qualified as a replacement for the Woods File.
Trey Gowdy appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest known information from the background of the John Durham probes into DOJ, FBI and CIA corrupt intent and activity in the “spygate”, Trump surveillance, saga.
Within the interview Gowdy notes he does not expect to see any legal consequences as an outcome of the John Durham investigation beyond the current pleading by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. While Gowdy can be an insufferable voice at times, on this issue and given the nature of the current political calendar, he would appear to be correct.
Gowdy asks the question about where everything started. In the earlier interview with Peter Strzok (CBS), the FBI justification (current narrative) was pointed back to George Papadopoulos and his thin gruel conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.
.
At this point the corrupt DC elements appear to have successfully ran out the clock for 2020; and that is very frustrating from the position of two-tiers of justice.
However, that said there is a possibility more focus on the special counsel operation could lead to some rather eye-opening information. The public needs to know how corrupt the special counsel investigation was; what their exact intents and purposes were; and there is ample evidence mounting.
It should be remembered that CBS interfered in the 2012 election by purposefully hiding an interview with President Obama where the former president denied terrorists were involved in the attack in Benghazi, a statement he denied in the 2012 debates. As a result the politics of CBS are very clear in the narratives they choose to advance.
That said, in a heavily edited interview with former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, CBS once again attempts to shape a defensive narrative to cloud the truth of the DOJ and FBI intents within the 2016 election. You’ll note this interview is actually very light on broadcasting the actual interview statements by Peter Strzok because: (a) Strzok has legal risk from any statement; and (b) the intent of this interview is shaping a defensive narrative. WATCH:
.
This interview is frustrating on many levels. First, because it shows how the absence of accountability by current DOJ officials has led to Strzok’s brazen ability to lie publicly. Strzok has no fear in his appearance and is shamefully blame-casting and pushing a justification that is completely devoid from truth.
Secondly, this interview is a direct result of AG Barr failing to aggressively hold these former FBI officials accountable for intentional wrongdoing and purposeful corruption. There is no excuse.
In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The central issue is separation of power.
The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds, and on February 28, 2020, a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position. The House of representatives could have appealed the decision; however, instead, the main lawfare activist, House counsel Doug Letter, took a different approach and sought to argue the case based around their right to enforce a subpoena.
Today a politically divided DC appeals court panel ruled the House can’t go to the judicial branch to enforce legislative subpoenas because there is no statute giving the legislative chamber the authority to force the executive branch to enforce an action against its own constitutional interests.
DC Via Politico – […] “The decision is likely to spark a renewed debate over the House’s power of “inherent contempt” — its long-dormant ability to fine or jail witnesses who refuse to comply with its oversight requests.
Though courts have acknowledged this power exists, it has been in disuse since World War II. The House has emphasized that resorting to such heavy-handed tactics would only worsen government dysfunction. Court proceedings are far more desirable — to the House and to society — House counsel Doug Letter has argued during the House’s legal battles.
The new ruling appears to leave in place one other option for enforcing House subpoenas: the threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. However that option does not seem viable in cases involving fights over demands for testimony or records from the executive branch, since the Justice Department has long taken the position that it will not prosecute in cases where an official or ex-official was complying with a presidential assertion of executive privilege. (more)
The permanent political coup, led by the primary Lawfare activists who have infected the DOJ and all bodies politic, continues… Everything is tenuous.
All of this judicial turmoil is a downstream result from electing Barack Obama to fundamentally transform America in 2008. Where we are today can be traced to the continuum that many warned about more than a decade ago.
I have a standing rule never to write about current events in a state of anger; forgive me for violating my own standard… this is infuriating (albeit not unexpected). The two-tiered judicial process to target a ‘transparently innocent’ man continues. [Links Below]
As anticipated, on the last day prior to DC Circuit Judge Griffith departure, the DC en banc panel has rejected the Flynn writ of mandamus and now sends the case back to Judge Emmet Sullivan for final disposition. One way of looking at this is the DC circuit attempting to save face for Judge Sullivan by granting him the ability to do the right thing.
Another way of looking at this is a judicial stall tactic allowing the case to drag on even further until after the election. [60-page ruling pdf here – also available here]
As expected the majority of the panel hung their argument on the fact that Judge Sullivan had not yet ruled prior to the request for the writ of mandamus; and as an outcome Sullivan should be allowed to reach final disposition. As noted: “we expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch“…
The unopposed motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn is now back in the court of presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan.
Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell ‘could’ appeal the full panel ruling to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts for an emergency stay (not likely) reinforcing the original ruling (mandamus enforcement); or Powell could wait and see whether Judge Sullivan returns to judicial norms and allows the dismissal of the case prior to seeking any higher intervention (more likely). The latter approach just extends the timeline further.
As CTH noted last week the timing of this was predictable with Judge Griffith exiting the court. Additionally: “the DC appeals court likely doesn’t want this decision being reviewed any further (SCOTUS). It would make sense for the DC panel to seek a face-saving exit for Sullivan that doesn’t put Flynn’s defense in a position to appeal to Supreme Court Justice Roberts for intervention.” This appears to be the path the DC Circuit has taken.
Another possible option, albeit rather stark -highly unlikely- and loaded with implications, would be for the DOJ to simply refuse further case engagement completely.
CTH noted several months ago if the DOJ just refused further participation in the case, it would put Judge Sullivan in a very odd position of holding hearings where no prosecution shows up. However, this case is so far outside the normal boundaries of judicial proceedings anything is possible.
Here’s the embed pdf of the ruling. Judge Griffith (extreme anti-Flynn activist) representing the opinion of the court. Judges Rao and Henderson (who originally agreed to the writ) writing the dissent.
No two cases highlight the two-tiered system of justice like the comparative behind National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.
In the Wolfe case corrupt elements of the judicial system allowed a transparently guilty man to escape accountability because it would have exposed massive multi-branch government corruption on an institutional scale that is almost unfathomable. Wolfe leaked top-secret classified documents at the request of members within the Senate Intelligence Committee. The DOJ then hides the wrong-doing.
In the Flynn case a transparently innocent man is framed by corrupt elements within the same institution, the FBI, by defining what the word “sanctions” means. A corrupt DOJ then transfers the corrupt intent into the judicial branch using a clear political agenda.
If Vladimir Putin was willing to help President Barack Obama seal the misbegotten Iranian nuclear deal, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),was not. His resistance made him a target, especially once he started advising candidate Donald Trump. As to who launched the disinformation campaign against Flynn, the jury is still out. Best evidence, however, suggests forces within the CIA working in tandem with its friends in the media.
The co-conspirators started publicly setting the trap with a February 2016 Reuters article teasingly titled, “Trump being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favors closer Russia ties.” https://reut.rs/2EwzoEL This was a bold gambit. As recently as July 2015 Obama was telling Tom Friedman of the New York Times, “We would have not achieved this [Iran nuclear] agreement had it not been for Russia’s willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal.” https://nyti.ms/3jaDTnz
Obama praised Putin a year after Putin annexed the Crimea. That invasion was so much water under the bridge for Obama but apparently not for Flynn. Just months later, it was considered newsworthy that Flynn would advise Trump to “work more closely with Russia to resolve global security issues.”
“Flynn raised eyebrows among some U.S. foreign policy veterans,” wrote Steve Holland and Mark Hosenball of Reuters, “when he was pictured sitting at the head table with Putin at a banquet in Moscow late last year celebrating Russia Today, an international broadcasting network funded by the Russian government.” The reporters’ “three sources,” all said to be “former foreign policy officials,” failed to mention that Flynn had been briefed by the DIA before the dinner and debriefed afterwards.
What made me suspicious about this article was the Mark Hosenball byline. Hosenball appears to have been carrying water for the intelligence community (IC) for at least twenty years, maybe twice that long. To say the least, he has a curious background.
Hosenball moved to England when he was 17 to attend school. After spending a year in England and three in Ireland, he moved back to England to become a reporter. This information comes from a 1977 British appeals court document explaining why the United Kingdom chose to deport the 25-year-old Hosenball “in the interests of national security.”
“The Secretary of State believes that Mr. Hosenball is a danger to this country. So much so that his presence here is unwelcome and he can no longer be permitted to stay,” reads the document. Reportedly, Hosenball was one of a group of people who were “trying to obtain information of a very sensitive character about our security arrangements.” The document does not identify on whose behalf Hosenball was allegedly spying, but it affirms the government’s decision to deport him nonetheless.
The American intelligence community did not appear troubled by Hosenball’s actions. As the New York Times reported at the time, “A United States Embassy spokesman said that he knew of no United States pressure on Britain to discipline Mr. Hosenball.” https://nyti.ms/3jeLgdO Nor did the deportation seem to hurt Hosenball’s career. By 1993, he was working for Newsweek. By 1997, he was using Newsweek to spread CIA disinformation.
In 2003, I met Hosenball at the Newsweek office. At the time, I was promoting First Strike, a book I co-authored with James Sanders on TWA Flight 800, the 747 that mysteriously exploded off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996.
In that pivotal election year, surely with a nod from the Clinton White House, the CIA quietly masterminded the disinformation campaign that followed TWA 800’s destruction. After sixteen months of behind-the-scenes chicanery, the CIA assured America that what the eyewitnesses actually saw was not a missile streaking toward the 747, but the fuselage of the burning, climbing 747 rocketing upwards some three-thousand-plus feet after its fuel tank had blown up spontaneously. As would happen again in 2016, the FBI publicly fronted for the CIA. In a presidential election year, the media, of course, played along.
At the time, no reporter endorsed the CIA’s fraudulent scenario more enthusiastically than did Hosenball. His Newsweek article on the subject began with a dig at “conspiracy theories” and went nowhere positive from there. https://bit.ly/3lk50OM CIA analysts had convinced Hosenball that “infrared images captured by spy satellites” proved its theory of the plane’s demise. This revelation came as news to the FBI. Its comprehensive summary issued just a week before Hosenball’s November 1997 article did not once mention the word “satellite.”
The NTSB’s final report made only vague mention of “infrared sensor information from a U.S. satellite” and that in reference to the CIA’s video recreation. The New York Times avoided the subject altogether. Yet here was Hosenball saying that the CIA had “spy satellites designed to monitor unfriendly foreign countries pointed at the Eastern Seaboard.”
This was bunk. If the satellites showed what Hosenball claimed, federal officials would not have needed the CIA’s trumped up zoom climb animation. Surely, too, the FBI and NTSB would have used the data to buttress their shaky, inconclusive summaries. In a letter to then congressman John Kasich two months after the press conference, the CIA quietly buried the subject: “No satellite imagery of the disaster exists.” This translates, “No satellite imagery exists that would help us make our case.”
Hosenball uncritically embraced the CIA video. Under his byline, Newsweek ran a fully affirmative, nine-frame, full-color recreation captioned with the unlikely boast, “CIA Photos.” For Hosenball, the video provided a necessary rebuttal to “speculation about a mystery missile.” As he told the story, “some” of the “244” FBI witnesses claimed to have seen a streak of light arcing across the sky. In reality, 258 of the 736 official FBI witnesses claimed to have seen a missile or missiles attacking the plane, several of whom were pilots.
Had Hosenball been sporting a CIA nametag he could not have done more to legitimize the agency’s crude rewrite of history. As it happens, his Newsweek writing partner at the time was Michael Isikoff. I met with both of them. Neither had any interest in seeing the information Sanders and I had gathered.
Oh, yes, that was the same Michael Isikoff who in September 2016 first revealed that intelligence officials were investigating Trump adviser Carter Page’s “private communications with senior Russian officials.” Christopher Steele was Isikoff’s direct source. A few weeks after the article’s publication in Yahoo News, the DOJ and the FBI packaged the Isikoff article along with the Steele dossier in their application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), specifically to monitor Carter Page.
Renegade Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi was the only journalist on his side of the barricades to say what should have been obvious to everyone in the media: “Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump.”
To check out Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama, or his previous book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-up, The Conspiracy, please see cashill.com.
CTH friend, researcher and producer John Spiropoulos helps connect the dots within the operation to cover-up corrupt activity by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Christopher Wray, Dana Boente and the entire special counsel group.
In this video John walks us through the internal evidence showing how the FBI intentionally hid the statements by Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source Igor Danchenko. The result…. a 34 month cover-up operation.
.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released the declassified documents on July 17th. [Thank You John Ratcliffe] The documents relate to how the intelligence apparatus conducted surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016; and ultimately the Trump administration after the inauguration.
The first document [Direct pdf here] is the Washington Field Office (WFO) FBI briefing summary of a three day interview with Chris Steele’s primary sub-source. The document is highly redacted, but we already know from the IG release what the total content of the briefing revealed. The first interview was conducted on January 12, 2017, during the transition period between administrations. The classification term “SIA” stands for Source Identifying Attribute.
♦ This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.
♦ The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.
♦ Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.
In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. (Senate Link)
The inspector general already reviewed this briefing material and explained the content in the IG report on FISA Abuse in December 2019. Here’s the nub of that full review:
The aspect of the primary sub-source deconstructing and undermining the underlying material within the Steele Dossier is critical because ultimately the dossier underpinned the FISA application.
When you recognize the FISA application itself was based on a fraudulent premise; and you recognize the intentional ignoring of the underlying evidence; then the motive behind the FISA becomes clear. The FISA against Carter Page was used as a justification for surveillance of Donald Trump that had been ongoing by Obama intelligence officials.
This context becomes stunningly more important when you look at how the FISA was used by the Mueller investigation to continue its weaponization throughout 2017 and even into 2018. Remember, in July of 2018 long after the source material was debunked, the special counsel office was still telling the FISA court the predication for the FISA application and renewals was valid.
Drive this point home.
This is a key to understanding the scope of how weaponized the Mueller team was.
In July of 2018 the special counsel resistance group was lying to the FISA court in order to protect the cornerstone document that permitted them to weaponize the intelligence apparatus.
This letter was written July 12, 2018. It is NOT accidental that only a week later, July 21st, the special counsel released the FISA application under the guise of FOIA fulfillment.
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The Mueller team running the DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application. The resistance unit running the DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.
On page #8 [Source Document Here] when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the special counsel group notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.
This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.
By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?
It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.
In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.
This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
♦ The FISA was also released in July 2018 in order to retain the false premise behind it. The copy that was released by the special counsel, through Rod Rosenstein, contained redacted dates because the special counsel needed to hide the fact the FBI (Washington Field Office) had actually used the FISA to catch a leaker of classified intelligence, James Wolfe.
Again, Wolfe’s story is the fulcrum…. tell that story and the House of Cards collapses like the Potemkin village it is. {GO DEEP}
The resistance lawyers in the Mueller team released the same initial FISA application (and first renewal) used to catch Wolfe; they had to release that specific March 17, 2017, copy. However, they had to redact the dates on the document they released because the dates were changed by SSA Brian Dugan to catch Wolfe.
The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA, an FBI investigative equity, went into Main Justice with the leak trap visible. When the special counsel released the FISA application to Rosenstein for public FOIA fulfillment they had to redact the dates or people would ask questions about why this specific version had different dates than the original.
The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA application is the only one to date that has been in the public sphere; including reviewed by OIG Michael Horowitz. That’s why when Horowitz originally released his FISA report, the OIG kept the dates redacted and only revealed them after the irrelevance of classification was pointed out.
The March 17th Wolfe copy of the first half of the full FISA application (original and first renewal), is the only copy that has ever been made public. If we were to ever see the modified and unredacted copy the FBI gave to Wolfe, the dates would not match with the actual dates of the application(s). The dates were used as part of the leak trace.
The Mueller team knew the explosive nature of the FBI investigation to catch the SSCI leaker. The Mueller team, with full control over Main Justice, was the group that buried FBI Supervisor Special Agent Brian Dugan’s explosive investigative findings.
Expose the conduct of this group and everything about the insurance policy falls into place:
Sidney Powell did an excellent job today representing the interests of her client Michael Flynn at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Every client should be so fortunate. Following the hearing, Ms. Powell appears with Lou Dobbs to discuss the overall issues.
The Great Lou Dobbs represents the voices of millions in this interview as he shares his own perspective of outrage at the ongoing case. Terrific interview:
Today the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held a full panel hearing to decide the outcome of the unopposed DOJ and defense motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 