While no-one has yet to see the actual Inspector General Mike Horowitz report outlining how the DOJ and FBI handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the media are beginning to shape the narrative.

In a summary of Bill Priestap’s testimony, via The Hill, the narrative begins by focusing on James Comey:  “Priestap “completely” backed up everything that Comey said, according to a source familiar with his testimony.”  The narrative construct gains clarity with a report from ABC highlight James Comey as “insubordinate”:

(Via ABC) The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has concluded that James Comey defied authority at times during his tenure as FBI director, according to sources familiar with a draft report on the matter.

One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word “insubordinate” to describe Comey’s behavior. Another source agreed with that characterization but could not confirm the use of the term.

In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s personal email server, the sources said.  (more)

Given the nature of the recent explanations as provided by the attorney for Andrew McCabe; and accepting the prior repeated assertions of FBI Director James Comey: “that was not my understanding”, we can begin to assemble the preferred narrative direction.

It would appear the media, and swamp proletariat, are attempting to cut off any potential damage to the Obama administration by placing a firewall atop James Comey.

Whereas Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was a rogue element manipulating his subordinate officials entirely on his own; while FBI Director James Comey was oblivious to the corrupt conduct undertaken by the officials in/around/under his authority, and insubordinate to the customary procedures, professional responsibilities and chain-of-command.

That appears to be the current advanced narrative.  Meanwhile we await the actual substance of the IG report into how the DOJ and FBI conducted the Clinton classified email investigation. .

Yesterday FBI Director of Counterintelligence E.W. “Bill” Priestap testified to a joint session of the House Judiciary and House Oversight committees.

The hearing was a matter of strong public interest.  Mr. Priestap was questioned for approximately seven hours.  However, journalist Olivia Beavers covering for The Hill dropped a detail that most, including myself, might find rather curious:

(The Hill) […] Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), however, said he felt that Priestap didn’t say anything that would indicate there was “political bias that motivated the Hillary Clinton email investigation.”

Priestap “completely” backed up everything that Comey said, according to a source familiar with his testimony.

Only three lawmakers — Jordan, Meadows and Krishnamoorthi — attended the hearing, which took place on the first day after a weeklong recess.

Priestap’s interview comes after the joint House investigation stalled for months after being first announced.  (more)

Yes, despite the hearing being a joint session of both the House Judiciary and House Oversight committees only three congressmen, two republicans and one democrat attended:  Jim Jordan (R), Mark Meadows (R), and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D).

Not only did only three congressional reps attend, but Chairman Trey Gowdy and Chairman Bob Goodlatte did not attend.

What does that tell you?

We have previously noted the disconnected interest when we discussed how few congressional reps were going to the DOJ and/or FBI offices to actually view documents.  Now we see one of the key and central figures in the DOJ and FBI conduct coming to Capitol Hill and only three Reps attend the hearing.

Could it be the vast majority, ie. UniParty, don’t want to know?

Disappointing.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) discusses FBI agent Peter Strzok’s involvement in the Clinton email probe and the Russia investigation; along with the anticipated DOJ-OIG report:

The backstory is important here.  Two days ago internet researcher Nick Falco discovered a potentially damning text dated December 28th 2015 within a previously released set of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages.  The original text was redacted in one section (Page #31); however, somehow further down the release (Page #159) the same text was not redacted.  It is presumed the FBI redacted the word “lures”, whereas the IG did not.

In one release (page #31) the word “lures” was redacted.  In the second release (page #159) it was NOT redacted.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Chairman Ron Johnson, released over 500 pages of documents and texts.  On page #159 (pdf here) the unredacted version of the following message appears:

(Link to pdf – page #159)

“You get all our oconus lures approved?”

“OCONUS” means Outside Continental U.S.  “LURES” in this context is ‘spies’; or as Chris Farrell discusses, likely double agents.  The messages were December 28th, 2015.

•Peter Strzok asking Lisa Page:  Did you get all our outside U.S. spies approved?
•Lisa Page responds: “No, it’s just implicated a much bigger policy issue. I’ll explain later. Might even be able to use it as a pretext for a call…”

The implication is this could have been the pre-planning for #Spygate. This is what Lou Dobbs and Chris Farrell are discussing; and apparently President Trump noticed:

(Link to Trump Tweet)

Here’s the full release of documents:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/371002694/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-rnGpaGY4OR6P8VD4nYT5

Wait, what?  We’ve obviously come a full 180° from the place where Democrats were proclaiming McCabe’s innocence; and we’ve entered the phase where McCabe is requesting criminal immunity in exchange for testimony about what he knows of the corrupt FBI operations in 2016 and 2017. [Worm Turning Speech Increases]

In a series of letters going back and forth between Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Michael Bromwich, the attorney for fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Bromwich is requesting criminal immunity in exchange for cooperation.

On May 31st, 2018, Chairman Grassley invited Andrew McCabe to testify [SEE HERE]; On June 4th Bromwich responded [SEE HERE]  Grassley is requesting emails McCabe said he sent to Comey about talking to the media.  According to McCabe, despite his false statements to FBI and INSD investigators (under oath), his conduct was with the full knowledge of FBI Director James Comey.  Grassley was asking for proof.  Bromwich responded by saying McCabe doesn’t have the emails, the current FBI does.

Here’s the response letter:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381103669/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-280q4Br4TU5TEN6TSNpw

.

Chairman Grassley followed up requesting a copy of the Non Disclosure Agreement signed by Andrew McCabe which blocks McCabe from producing the requested documents [SEE HERE] and Grassley also responds to the request for criminal immunity.

First, with respect to your testimony, the Committee’s understanding of various controversies at the FBI related to and following the 2016 election would be greatly aided by your testimony, not only at the upcoming hearing but in a more comprehensive private setting as well.

While I have not yet done so, I am willing to discuss with the Ranking Member your request that the Committee consider seeking a court order compelling you to testify under a grant of immunity. However, under 18 U.S. Code § 6005, seeking such an order requires a two-thirds vote of the Committee, and even if that were to occur, the Justice Department would then have a formal opportunity to delay any testimony and attempt to persuade the Committee not to proceed. Before even beginning to consider whether to initiate that process, the Committee would need to know a lot more about the anticipated scope, nature, and extent of your testimony. The Committee could then informally consult with the Department to solicit its views before deciding whether to proceed formally.  (read more)

McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich responds June 5th:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/381104242/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-XrQf0Ffn54gplHayscQz

.

According to CNN – Grassley has set the Judiciary hearing for next Monday, but it could be delayed, as the inspector general’s report — while a moving target — is still not public yet. Sources familiar with the report describe it as a massive undertaking, walking through the events leading up to the 2016 election over roughly 500 pages.

FBI Director of Counterintelligence E.W. “Bill” Priestap has been delivering testimony to a joint congressional committee for more than seven hours.

This is Bill Priestap’s first testimony to congress.  Previously all of Priestap’s statements have been made to FBI and INSD (Inspection Division) investigators.  This is also likely the first time many congressional members will have heard of the scale and scope of the abuse by the DOJ-NSD and FBI.

The joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee has been hearing testimony from Bill Priestap all day. A tweet from Chad Pergram notes: “Colleague Catherine Herridge rpts a mbrs familiar w/Hse closed-door i-view w/FBI espionage chief Bill Priestap has been cooperative. But says FBI Agent Strzok played an more central role than previously known in Clinton email/Russia investigations beyond Strzok/Page text messages.”

It appears there will be confirmation of prior research.  There was always a strong suspicion FBI Agent Peter Strzok was working around his boss Bill Priestap and reporting directly to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and to a lesser extent FBI chief legal counsel James Baker.  Activity in both the Clinton email and Russia investigations that was outside normal chain-of-command structure.

If this aspect of Priestap’s general testimony is confirmed it will solidify the construct of the small group and their closely-guarded, unscrupulous and political intentions.

Another interesting tweet from Chad Pergram surrounds four specifically democrat members of the congressional intelligence oversight:

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner are the four democrat members of the Intelligence Oversight “Gang-of-Eight” as an outcome of their committee and leadership positions….

… it would appear the Democrats on the Go8 recognize the risk of their attachment to the corrupt CIA, DNI, FBI and DOJ behavior in 2016.   The documents the DOJ and FBI have refused to give Chairman Devin Nunes are directly related to the intelligence briefings given by CIA Director John Brennan to the Gang-of-Eight in 2016.

Apparently the Democrats want to know if President Trump has been provided evidence of the actual truth of what transpired.   They don’t want to make more political statements until they can absorb just how much the President knows.

Angst They Much.

As previously discussed, FBI Director of Counterintelligence E.W. “Bill” Priestap, FBI Head of National Security Division, Michael Steinbach, and the former head of the FBI National Security Division, John Giacalone, are all scheduled to testify to congress this month.

The three FBI officials will be testifying to a joint congressional committee of the Judiciary and House Oversight members.  The joint committee was formed by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy.  The first testimony is tomorrow; and FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap will go first.   This will be Priestap’s first congressional testimony.  Unfortunately, the testimony will be behind closed doors.

FBI Asst. Director of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, is central to all of the activity that was happening in both the Clinton investigation and the Trump investigation. Bill Priestap was FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s immediate boss. However, as noted in the text messages Strzok often worked around Priestap at the behest of the person giving him political instructions – FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The timing of the testimony also speaks to the timing of the upcoming Inspector General report regarding the politicization of the DOJ and FBI surrounding the Clinton investigative outcomes.  Some of the most significant releases have come while President Trump is outside of Washington DC; and with the G7 on June 8th – 9th in Canada; it would seem likely the IG report is to be made public anytime over the next 72 hours.

Again, a note of caution.  Eight months ago -in advance of the sunlight now upon the FBI and DOJ- Trey Gowdy created the joint committee between Oversight and Judiciary.  There is increased reason to believe Trey Gowdy is compromised and working on a self-driven-agenda to defend the institutions currently under review.

Remember, Gowdy opened a ridiculous investigation on the White House doctor, but refused to participate in an investigation of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller.   Priorities.  Recently Gowdy has been very public with his defense of Mueller, the corrupt FBI apparatus and the DOJ where he was a former U.S. prosecutor.   Ergo, given his structured positioning – these closed door hearings might not generate the type of inquisitive and hard-lined questioning that many are hoping for.  Again, just a precaution on expectations.

Earlier today Lou Dobbs and John Solomon discussed tomorrow’s hearing.  [Prompted, just hit play]

.

Prior CTH article on Joint Committee Hearing.

Prior The Hill article on Joint Committee Hearing.

On January 27th, 2017, after over a year of covert surveillance on Trump campaign officials [via FISA searches, FISA(702) Title-1 surveilance, SIGNIT and HUMIT), the FBI first sat down to interview low level campaign aide George Papadopoulos. (likely FBI Special Agent Jennifer Zelski Edwards, and/or FBI Agent Peter Strzok, participated)

Six months later, July 27th, 2017 the FBI arrested George Papadopoulos at the airport and charged him with giving false information to FBI investigators during that interview. The very next day, July 28th, 2017, the DOJ filed a motion to seal with the DC federal court to hide the arrest. (FBI Agent Jennifer Zelski Edwards)

From evidence that surfaced AFTER the motion to seal was removed (October 5, 2017) we discover the charges, motions, pleadings, and case information (ASSEMBLED DOCKET HERE). This is now the reference point for a historic review, including the TRANSCRIPT of the October 30th guilty plea hearing. All needed references are within the DOCKET.

From the motion to seal, we discover Robert Mueller leveraged the July 27th, 2017, charges against George Papadopoulos to make him a cooperating witness for the special counsel. The July 28th, 2017, motion to seal was transparently intended to disguise the arrest of Papapdopoulos and his subsequent role as a “proactive cooperator”:

(Motion to Seal – Page 2, Point #3)

What is a “Proactive Cooperator”?  Let’s turn to another legal case where the terminology is clearly defined:

(DOJ-Eastern district of PA: U.S. -v- Jose Garcia)

What this means is that after his arrest July 27th, 2017, and before the arrest was unsealed in October 2017, George Papadopoulos was working on behalf of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to gain information against the targets of the DOJ investigation, Donald Trump officials.

For approximately two-plus months, August/September 2017, George Papadopoulos would have been targeting contact with former and current Trump campaign officials.  The purpose of that targeting would have included an effort by the Mueller Special Counsel to build a “conspiracy” charge against anyone associated with President Trump.  The agent running Papadopoulos appears to have been FBI Special Agent Jennifer Zelski Edward.

Remember, despite the media use of the term “collusion” is not a crime; “conspiracy” is. It seems obvious Mueller’s targeting of President Trump is centered around building a political impeachment case. [Not a criminal indictment case – which is unlikely]  The path to the impeachment would come from creating the appearance of a conspiracy.

It seems almost certain the objective of Mueller’s final investigative report will be to present a political case for impeachment to congress.  Democrats are looking for a reason, and many Republicans are looking for an excuse.  The aggregate UniParty goal is removal of the existential threat represented by President Trump.  Mueller’s anticipated report can predictably be forecast as a means to that end.

It does not look like Papadopoulos was able to generate any valuable information while he was working as an informant for the Special Counsel.  Apparently there was no forward value on using Papadopoulos any longer, and on May 23rd, 2018, Robert Mueller informed the court he was done with Papadopoulos, prepare to sentence him according to the earlier plea-deal and guidelines of his cooperation. [Read plea transcript here]

And now, about two-weeks after Mueller informed the court Papadopoulos exhausted his usefulness; and with the back-story of Papadopoulos’ activity in 2016 now gaining much more attention; the wife-not-wife/spy-not-spy of Papadopoulos, Ms. Simona Mangiante, begins a media tour to rehabilitate the image of her husband-not-husband/spy-not-spy.

I doubt anyone actually truly knows if they are married or not; or whether there’s some form of mutual benefit in the appearance therein etc.  And similarly I doubt anyone can ever be sure if they are spies or not.   Remember the single-most-consistent professional trait about professional liars – they lie; often, quite well.

Spies for corrupt U.S. DOJ, CIA and FBI intelligence officials in 2015 and 2016?  Spies for U.S. CIA and FBI agents (like Stefan Halper) on foreign assignment in 2016?  Spies for special counsel in 2017 and 2018?…. Who knows?…..

Sketchy. All of it.

The only thing certain is that Papadopoulos was: interviewed by the FBI January 27th, 2017; arrested July 27th 2017; hidden July 28th 2017; a cooperating informant thereafter; and recently in May 2018 scheduled for sentencing.

You can decide the rest.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared earlier today on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing aspects of Spygate etc.  WATCH:

.

As CTH shared over a week ago, the investigative focus has shifted toward a larger backstory within the CIA and professional counterintelligence actors, ie. spies. Within this line of inquiry it is dangerous to take current presentations and overlay them against their historic footprint. Inevitably the discussion leads to contradictions and forces the conversation into the world of mirrored halls filled with purposeful disinformation.

Intelligence professionals use words like “tradecraft” to explain the process of lying, manipulation and falsehood construction as a professional skill-set. It is almost impossible to identify the truth in current claims by those who are skilled in dark arts; especially when you accept they are likely holding motives and intentions that might be 180 degrees in the opposite direction from initial appearances.

There’s a blue-zillion ‘spy infiltration theories‘ floating around the internet in various granular forms. A few are solid and possible, but most appear based on abject nonsense and twisted logic.

The Inspector General report on the FBI and DOJ action in the Clinton investigation is due out this week. In my humble opinion it is best to wait and see what discoveries are within the fact-centric report, and the confirmed underlying evidence, before wandering out into the speculative land of mirrored rabbit holes.