Since Thursday night we’ve been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in one of the most recently released text messages.  We have discovered the context and the text is now damning.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte read this specific text message on Thursday night during an interview with Sean Hannity:

At first, the context behind the September 10th, 2016, message was elusive, however it is now clear.

On September 2nd, 2016, during the (pre-election) apex of the FBI providing the documents behind their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email, and the subsequent decision by FBI Director James Comey not to pursue criminal charges therein, the FBI released their investigative files:

September 2nd, 2016 FBI Press Release:

“Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI’s investigation into this matter.

We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI’s electronic FOIA library.” (link)

The FBI was under pressure to release their investigative documents.  On Sept 2nd, 2016 the release included the FBI investigative notes (FD-302’s) from the questions and answers during Hillary Clinton’s interview.  This investigative release was big news at the time.

The 302’s are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

Inside the September 2nd, 2016, FBI release were two files:

•One file was 47 pages (full pdf here) and includes a full summary of the Clinton email investigation.

•The second file is 11 pages (full pdf here) and is the actual FBI investigator notes during the Hillary Clinton interview.

This second file is the “FD-302” (embed at the bottom for reference).  This is the 302 file FBI Agent Peter Strzok is referencing in the text message to Lisa Page.  Remember, Peter Strzok was one of the FBI people who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton.

What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.

Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302’s would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those questions.   In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.

According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because there are “very INFLAMMATORY things” within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will “absolutely inflame” them.

Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:

…”I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves.”

“Jim” is likely James Baker, the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey.

“Trish” is likely Trisha Beth Anderson, Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI.  [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder, from Eric Holder’s law firm.]

“Dave” and “Mike” currently remain unknown.

So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton’s questions and answers.

Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold “inflammatory” Clinton investigation evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.

Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: “because they weren’t relevant to understanding the focus of the investigation”.  However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need to look at the wording of their public release which accompanied the material:

Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure. (link)

They felt obligated only to release information about “classified” or “improperly stored or transmitted” information.   That’s a rather disingenuous investigation.

There’s no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.

We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage.  There was no investigative intent to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.

If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,  the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However, the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld something, likely “inflammatory”, per FBI Agent Strzok.

FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.

Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold  information -derived from this interview- from congress and the American people.

REFERENCE and RESOURCES:

• FBI September 2nd, 2016, Press Release HERE
• FBI Investigative Outline released September 2nd, 2016, HERE
• FBI Investigators Notes (302’s) as Released Sept., 2nd, 2016, HERE
• Chairman Bob Goodlatte Interview Video – HERE
• September 2nd, 2016, CTH Article Discussing FBI Release HERE

File #1 of Document release – Investigation Summary:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860635/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-HWBLlhbfv51rhuuPdJ8r

File #2 – The Summary of Interview – The 302’s:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/322860731/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-u0DDwNVYNippWK8p67Xs

.

Below is the list of things Hillary Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview, as compiled by Lifezette in 2016:

• When she received security clearance
• Being briefed on how to handle classified material
• How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
• Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
• How to select a target for a drone strike
• How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
• The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
• Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
• Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
• Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
• Getting guidance from state on email policy
• Who had access to her Blackberry account
• The process for deleting her emails
• Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
• Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
• Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
• Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
• Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
• Using an iPad mini
• An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
• Jacob Sullivan using personal email
• State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
• Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
• Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
• Being read out of her clearance
• Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.

Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department “related to the retention of federal records or the handling of classified information.”

Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs – the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence – but could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information.  Additional discoveries from September 2016:

DISCOVERY ONE: Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive “A Few Weeks After The New York TimesDisclosed” The Private Server. Viser Tweet: “A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox was deleted.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TWO: Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not “Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels.” Seitz-Wald Tweet: “Clinton said she didn’t know what (c) mark meant, didn’t pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY THREE: “There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn’t Turn Over To The State Inspector General.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FOUR: As Secretary Of State Clinton “Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads” With Her Private Email.Viser Tweet: “Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY FIVE: Clinton’s Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: ‘FBI found 13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton’s 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn’t locate the devices” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SIX: “The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY SEVEN: Clinton’s Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky Tweet: “In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail address to help” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY EIGHT: Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought “She Didn’t Need Them Anymore.”Cilizza Tweet: ‘Clinton told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn’t need them anymore not to avoid FOIA”(Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY NINE: Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton’s iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: “The FBI found that someone was trying to hack into Hillary Clinton’s iCloud account. They were unsuccessful.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

DISCOVERY TEN: “Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

BONUS DISCOVERY: “The Phrase ‘Could Not Recall’ Or ‘Did Not Recall’ Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview Transcript.” (Twitter.com, 9/2/16)

We can only imagine what the FBI held back…

WASHINGTON – As part of their ongoing oversight efforts to ensure that the FBI’s law enforcement activities are free of improper political influence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday sent six letters seeking information and documents regarding Christopher Steele’s work on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary for America.

The letters seek information and documents relating to those political organizations’ knowledge of and involvement in Mr. Steele’s work and his reported interactions with the FBI while he was working on behalf of these political organizations.

The letters were sent to:

• The Democratic National Committee (DNC)
• Hillary for America (HFA)
• Former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
• Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile
• HFA Chair John Podesta
• HFA Chief Strategist Joel Benenson

An example of the requested information:

♦ For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all communications to, from, copying, or relating to: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser;4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer;5 Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones;6 Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; 7 Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John Brennan.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370089125/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-CP9xDiZ0CnvVZvDviOsN

.

It would appear that Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley is sending out advanced notice of who he is looking into as part of the Steele Dossier construct and how it was used by the DOJ/FBI.

Well, well, well…. that’s a shift in language.  Congressional Rep Matt Gaetz: “I believe there’s been a criminal conspiracy”…  This specific language elevates the current political dynamic toward an exponential level of risk for those within the “conspiracy”.

.

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured — They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (link)

Earlier today, prior to his speech in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump sat down for an interview with Joe Kernen to discuss the America-First economic policy.

With the latest information revealing that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page were specifically leaking to their media sources to shape the underlying story of their political efforts, everything presented by the recipients of those leaks should now be questioned.

Page and Strzok were the “sources” for stories written by Devlin Barrett of the Washington Post.

As such, obviously the network of Page and Strzok’s professional colleagues, would also be considered part of a grouping of people who would benefit from specific leaks intended to shape the stories.

One of those initial stories was a December 2nd, 2017,  WaPo outline describing Page and Strzok against the backdrop of the DOJ Inspector General Horowitz investigation.

The Washington Post presented the story of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok having an affair to the world.

That presentation became the underlying assumption for all reporting that followed (despite the lack of supporting evidence).  That WaPo story (narrative), “The affair” was written by Devlin Barrett, who we now know was in direct contact with Page and Strzok.

As with all new information, all assumptions –driven by that WaPo original story– should be carefully reconsidered.

As an example: were Peter Strzok and Lisa Page actually having an affair?  Or, was the “affair” simply an effective narrative, entirely constructed to describe the scope of their communication and cover-up a larger and far more looming truth, a bigger conspiracy?

Amid a vastly growing release of text messages, there’s nothing to indicate a relationship between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok based on anything except collaboration to politicize their jobs to the benefit of Hillary Clinton and against all her political  opposition.

For several years CTH has been pointing out how the larger U.S. intelligence community has a pattern of leaking specific information to specific outlets.

Information from Justice Department leaks and the Intelligence Community (writ large), generally appear in the Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, and -depending on content- the Wall Street Journal.  Information from State Department leaks generally flow to CNN, CBS and ABC.

Each of the initiating media reports of the leaks are then cited by their peer group: ‘media reports on media reports’. It is a pattern that has become transparently visible for those who follow politics and media.

Additionally, and perhaps more disturbingly, against the backdrop of officials within the FBI and DOJ having an agenda to protect their internal allies, it is also important to note that some leak efforts might actually be using the media to protect their team.

As an example, a Justice Department official may know one of their aligned colleagues might be scheduled for questioning by congressional oversight.  The insider, perhaps from a different sub-department within the DOJ, would have knowledge of the information provided to congress -and- desire to prepare their colleague by leaking the content of the information they have provided.

Recently, and specifically because of the explosive nature of the larger construct of the conspiracy within the Justice Department targeting of candidate Donald Trump, we noted the possibility of this happening. –SEE HERE– This stemmed from the original January 8th, 2018, Hill report of Page and Strzok as likely ‘leakers‘.

[…] What that individual series of text messages from Lisa Page highlights is how far she was willing to go to shape DOJ/FBI investigative action to the benefit of her favorite political candidate.

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were not only willing to manipulate their official investigative duty to the benefit of Hillary Clinton, but they were also willing to leak information to the media in an effort to shape the narrative around their investigative duties.

Both Page and Strzok are scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee *VERY* soon. Like, within a matter of days.

Given the revelation(s) within the text messaging today, and the evidence therein that proves the politicization of their offices, it is highly likely *NOW* they will plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions.

Which immediately makes me wonder about the motive behind whomever gave that text messaging information to John Solomon and Sara Carter.

Were those specific text messages, which clearly prove Lisa Page was leaking to the media, INTENTIONALLY given to Solomon and Carter because someone on “The Hill” was trying to warn Page about known evidence against her?

I don’t expect that Sara Carter would reveal her sourcing on this. However, I would WARN HER, *strongly* that there’s a serious possibility she is being used by her SOURCE to dilute damage against the “small group” co-conspirators.

Those who have followed CTH closely will note my historic suspicions toward a strong likelihood that Sean Hannity’s favorite journalists are being handled by DC control agents who know how manipulate media people. (link)

This does not mean that all media are doing the bidding of the corrupt officials knowingly. Some might be relaying information thinking they are just breaking exclusive news, without actually considering they are helping corrupt insiders to get dangerous information to their ideological allies in a scheme to assist them. [Not everyone has the benefit of HAM radios]

However, for the reassessment of all Devlin Barrett’s narrative engineering (reporting), we can be certain he is more than a willing ally to the corrupt group of FBI and DOJ insiders.

How do we know this?

Well, one of the brutally obvious stories was national security journalist Devlin Barrett writing a story specifically using “sources” to explain the context of the Page/Strzok message about untraceable phones:

(Twitter Link and WaPo Story Link)

By Devlin Barrett – Two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from a spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to people familiar with the matter.

The two officials, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page and senior counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, are the subjects of an internal investigation that has roiled the FBI and emboldened its Republican critics who have accused the bureau of political bias. Had Page and Strzok used personal phones instead, people close to case say, it’s unlikely their text messages would have come to the FBI’s attention.

The texts, a trove of which were released by the Justice Department this week, have raised questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russian officials to interfere with the presidential election. Page and Strzok, who have declined to comment, were involved in both.  (read more)

In this example, and thinking about the approach of a willing media journalist helping his FBI and DOJ allies, there’s a really odd dynamic to use the subject of the article as the likely source of information on the subject of the article.

“According to people familiar with the matter”, is likely to be Peter Strzok and Lisa Page themselves.

That’s perhaps the most obvious example of narrative engineering ever.  Again, “sources say” now appears to be reporter Devlin Barrett writing an article based on direct information from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were the subjects of the story.

Obviously they would have a vested legal interest in shaping/spinning that story in a very specific direction, and it appears Devlin Barrett was more than willing to assist.

Knowing that DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok were key sources for Barrett’s stories at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all assumptions based on this reporting should be questioned.

Again, President Trump was prescient when he tweeted:

There has been a great deal of speculation about FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page leaking to media in their efforts to shape stories conducive to their pro-Clinton/anti-Trump efforts. Prior reporting showed the strong possibility Page and Strzok were leaking to the Wall Street Journal.

“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.

“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?” (link)

Some new information today, and some additional research, and we can not only confirm the prior suspicions outlined by John Solomon (The Hill) – but we also discover the actual Wall Street Journal reporter they were leaking to.

Yesterday Senator Chuck Grassley released a series of text messages between Page and Strzok (full pdf here). Within the release there is a portion of messaging where Lisa Page is identified on the phone with “Devlin” (see page #5 – screen grab below):

[Peter Strzok is ‘INBOX’ and Lisa Page is “OUTBOX’]

It now appears the “Devlin” in question is former Wall Street Journal National Security reporter Devlin Barrett, currently with The Washington Post.

Here’s why? On October 28th, 2016 (as above), at the exact time the re-opening of the Clinton investigation hit the media news-cycle, Page and Strzok were texting.  From the released messaging we see at 5:19pm Lisa Page is on the phone with “Devlin”:

♦Page: 5:19pm “Still on the phone with Devlin. Mike’s phone is ON FIRE.”

♥Strzok: 5:29pm “You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there’s news on.”

♦Page: 5:30pm “He knows. He just got handed a note.”

♥Strzok: 5:33pm “Ha. He asking about it now?”

♦Page: 5:34pm “Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now.”

At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:

Apparently the “per sources” reference is FBI Attorney Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok leaking to Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett.

Looking back upon the released text messages, and comparing them to reporting by Devlin Barrett, another specific article jumps out.

On October 23rd, 2016, Devlin Barrett reported on a scoop:

“Scoop: McAuliffe PAC gave $467,500 to campaign of wife of senior FBI official who oversaw Clinton email probe” (link)

(Tweet Link) and (Story Link)

This October 23rd, 2016, “scoop” aligns with the internal text messaging discussion between Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page who were discussing James Comey’s chief-of-staff James Rybicki recommending that FBI Asst. Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe should be recused from the Hillary Clinton investigation.

From the messaging the recusal was discussed mid-through-late October 2016:

00:52am …”if it’s a matter similar to those we’ve been talking about lately”…

It looks like the sourcing for the exclusive report by Devlin Barrett, on the controversy of Andrew McCabe and his financial connections to Clinton/McAuliffe, was again Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; key people within the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

A third likely connection related to the relationship between Strzok, Page and Devlin Barrett comes after Barrett leaves the Wall Street Journal and begins working for The Washington Post.

Barrett’s use of Page and Strzok on this story is actually quite odd because the story is about Page and Strzok.

On December 15th, 2017, after the revelations behind the Mueller investigation having to remove Agent Strzok and Attorney Page as a result of the Inspector General outlining their extreme political bias, the couples text messages were immediately part of the story.

One of the Barrett Washington Post stories was about those messages between the couple communicating via phones “that can’t be traced”.

National security journalist Devlin Barrett wrote a story specifically using “sources” to explain the context of the Page/Strzok message about phones was to hide the affair:

(Twitter Link and WaPo Story Link)

By Devlin Barrett – Two senior FBI officials who texted each other about President Trump and Hillary Clinton relied on work phones to try to hide their romance from a spouse and made the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s private email server their cover story for being in such close contact, according to people familiar with the matter.

The two officials, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page and senior counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, are the subjects of an internal investigation that has roiled the FBI and emboldened its Republican critics who have accused the bureau of political bias. Had Page and Strzok used personal phones instead, people close to case say, it’s unlikely their text messages would have come to the FBI’s attention.

The texts, a trove of which were released by the Justice Department this week, have raised questions about the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russian officials to interfere with the presidential election. Page and Strzok, who have declined to comment, were involved in both.  (read more)

In this example there’s a really odd dynamic about using the subject of the article as a source of information on the subject of the article.  “According to people familiar with the matter”, is likely to be Peter Strzok and Lisa Page themselves.

That’s perhaps the weirdest example of journalistic ethical juxtaposition in the past few months.   Again, “sources say” now appears to be reporter Devlin Barrett writing an article based on direct information from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok who were the subjects of the story.  Obviously they would have a vested legal interest in shaping/spinning that story in a very specific direction.

Knowing that DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok were key sources for Barrett’s stories at the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, you can go through all of his old articles at both publications and clearly identify stories were Strzok and Page  were leaking to him.

Lastly, knowing Strzok and Page were key DOJ/FBI investigators on: #1) the Hillary Clinton investigation; #2) the Trump/Russia Counterintelligence Investigation; and, #3) the Robert Mueller investigation; and knowing they were leaking to the media to shape the outcomes of their own investigative narrative in each example; it makes you wonder who else within the DOJ and FBI team was also leaking to the media.

Then again, FBI Director James Comey was doing the same thing.

It seems to be a strange way to run a department that depends on integrity.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370009743/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-iNJAqLswhZHrfFuNQfXk

.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte is a key figure in the overall investigation and reform effort needed within the U.S. Justice System because the House Judicial Committee holds primary oversight over the U.S. Department of Justice.

By statutory construct the DOJ and FBI are directly and primarily accountable to Chairman Bob Goodlatte and the House Judicial Committee, on all matters.  This primary oversight structure is why Chairman Goodlatte and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz are working so closely during the ongoing justice department investigation.

Chairman Goodlatte appears on Sean Hannity television show to discuss one of the more concerning and troubling recent revelations about the FBI; and their investigative bias within the Hillary Clinton investigation and subsequent surveillance on her political opponent Donald trump.

It is interesting this text sequence from FBI agent Peter Strzok happens on the same day (September 10th, 2016) that Hillary Clinton made her infamous “Basket of Deplorables” remark. –SEE HERE–

We leaned on Treeper  DaveNYviii ‘s exceptional research here as a summary guide.  [THREAD HERE]

♦The FD-302 is an FBI form that is used to document interviews/interrogations. It details questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview.

♦The FD-1023 is an FBI form that is uses to document meetings between FBI and sources. It does not necessarily discuss what was said. It is also called a CHS Report. (Confidential Human Source).

The 1023 gives extensive detail about the informant and what is to be asked, as well as ‘by whom’ and ‘where’ and ‘when’.  However, it does not give the informants answers or details of the meeting. That is where the 302 comes in.  The 302 reveals the content of interview, as well as identifies all participants.

The investigative 302’s and 1023’s would identify people involved on both sides; the informants (sources) and the DOJ/FBI personnel in contact with the sources. This is a critical part of the investigative material needed to understand what was taking place during the FBI investigation.

Remember the investigative batting order:  Nunes first (Intelligence Community), Grassley 2nd (FBI and Steele Dossier), Goodlatte 3rd (DOJ via OIG), and IG Horowitz is clean-up with his year-long investigative evidence.  Each committee chair has a specific role to play in the investigative outline and breaking down all of the inherent issues.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, releases a new batch of text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI Attorney Lisa Page (full pdf).

In the text exchange Peter Strzok is ‘INBOX’ and Lisa Page is ‘OUTBOX’

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370009743/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-iNJAqLswhZHrfFuNQfXk

.

Additionally, Chuck Grassley sends a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray (full pdf) with questions about the substance surrounding the Text Messages.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370009680/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-ATGhBTuHjbPvhlu2GbHW