Brilliant Strategery – DOJ and FBI Demand Access To Nunes Memo While Making Wrong Assumptions….

Stunning development.

But Things Are Not What They Seem !

You’ve likely begun to hear about this letter from DOJ to Devin Nunes.  Please read it and evaluate.  Important Tip:  Notice the DOJ/FBI are referencing the Nunes Memo from a perspective of they know what the underlying documents are:

Notice all the inherent assumptions within the letter?

As a reminder, always question the assumptions.

♦Assumption #1 – The DOJ is presenting this letter to Devin Nunes from the position that the Nunes Memo is underpinned by documentary evidence they have provided. The DOJ provided FISA documents and FBI investigative documents, and they are assuming that’s the underlying material.

♦Assumption #2 – The DOJ is presenting this letter, and it is being interpreted by almost everyone, including Adam Schiff and media, to center around the Nunes Memo being written about, or including, FISA documents.

There is nothing to indicate either of those assumptions are correct.  In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that nothing about those assumptions are correct.

Secondly, how can ranking member Adam Schiff write a rebuttal memo to the Nunes memo, without any knowledge of the underlying evidence behind Nunes claims?

Again, more assumptions are needed.  ie. Schiff has to guess at the underlying evidence based on what he can read from the Nunes memo.  If he does that, he’s going to screw himself.

Here’s what is going on:

Think about the Nunes memo for a moment.

What exactly is “The Nunes Memo”?  From all indications it is an outline written by senior intelligence committee staff, with major input from Devin Nunes describing evidence, people and events who conspired back in 2016 and 2017.  In essence it is a summary of facts, that Chairman Nunes knows to exist.

No-one actually knows what the underlying supportive material is, because no-one, other than Devin Nunes, has actually seen the full material.  Therefore people are ‘jumping to conclusions’ based on their own inherent reference points.

People are *assuming* the memo is heavily written around FISA-702 issues and documents (FISA application, Steele Dossier, wiretaps, surveillance, intercepts etc.), but no-one actually knows what is behind the memo, other than Devin Nunes.

Now, as I go forward with this you’ll be lost unless you have a full understanding of the March 2017 outline about “The Nunes Paradox” – SEE HERERemember, the issue on March 22nd, 2017 was:

[…]  Our research indicates that Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of the President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.

The intelligence product would be delivered to that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI.  It would be removed from that SCIF system after his review. No systems are connected.

Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”. So the product itself was likely a product for the President, that was not part of the ongoing FBI counter-intel product.

Again, this is why it seems likely it was part of a PDB – unless it was a separate product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intel on something Trump.]


Couldn’t Adam Schiff (another gang of eight member) go look at the same intelligence as Nunes did?

Yes. However, purely from the standpoint of politics: why would he?

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it.  If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes. (read moreCritical to understand)

Back in March and April 2017, it was more valuable, politically, for ranking member Adam Schiff never to go look at the same information compiled by ODNI Dan Coats for Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to see.

Absent of knowledge of the underlying evidence, Adam Schiff could say anything he wanted about Nunes and work to isolate him.  Simultaneously, because the information was highly classified, Nunes could never explain it or defend himself.  Thus Nunes was stuck in the compartmented intelligence box; that’s The Nunes Paradox.

Sneaky Schiff used this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”.  It worked.

However, all the way through to today no-one except Devin Nunes (and maybe DNI Dan Coats) has any idea what Nunes actually witnessed in March 2017.  However, we have an idea from his statements.

It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.  It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information, Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns.

After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.


1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

Again, this is why the intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research -that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product, apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]

Additionally, there is further evidence that surfaced a week after Nunes expressed his March 22nd, 2017 concerns.  April 4th, 2017 Susan Rice appears:

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared April 4th, 2017, on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell.  This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘,  to the push-back that was an outcome of Evelyn Farkas earlier statements on the same network.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer.  Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine.  MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice.  Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas)  The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “top strategic communications aide”, Ben Rhodes, and “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

In the interview, Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”, “NSA” ‘ODNI’ etc….

So under Obama’s watch the list of recipients was massive and included Asst. Secretaries of national security departments like the DOJ-National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (Bill Priestap).  Massive numbers of administration officials including the DOJ and FBI had access to the PDB.

See where this is going?


See how that works?


Susan Rice is admitting to “unmasking” names within intelligence reports to give her context for how they pertain to the overall briefing material.   That briefing material is the PDB. That PDB goes to dozens of political people and political entities, including the DOJ and FBI units investigating candidate Donald Trump.

This is the widespread distribution of intelligence information that former Asst. Deputy of Defense, Evelyn Farkas was discussing.  Now, go back to Farkas’s March 2nd, 2017  MSNBC statement for additional context:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]


That right there is the story.  With dozens of people with access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of the intelligence report names gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, perhaps did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes, as outlined by Evelyn Farkas who was ultimately one of the recipients of the unmasked intelligence.

Additionally, that same material went directly to the people in the DOJ-NSD and FBI Counterintelligence who were conducting the “Trump Operation”.

The DOJ and FBI officials could comply with FISA-702 “minimization rules” (hiding of U.S. person’s names etc.) knowing full well that the unmasking could be done by the recipient of the FISA-702 source material, which would then be relayed back to the DOJ and FBI officials; the “small group”.

If you know how concentric circle political safety is constructed, you will notice that Susan Rice was then hugging the security of the Presidency. To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama – back in March 2017 this was a safe play on her part.

Reverse the safety.   No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama.  They had no choice.

Back to the interview and note how when shifting from rehearsed talking point (script) to cognitive explanation of Rices’ point , the noun shifts from “U.S. Person” to “U.S. Official”:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

It’s subtle (like a Freudian slip), but Rice accidentally outlines her filter, her psychological trigger, for when to request the unmasking.  She’s looking for the politics behind the intelligence.  She’s looking for “U.S. Officials” in masked intelligence reports.

Mrs. Rice then follows up with a “hypothetical example” that is ridiculous as she describes.  The example provided (a sketchy dude in mom’s basement) would NEVER reach the level of PDB; it would be pre-filtered, researched and reviewed for value.  The PDB NEVER contains such banal information as Rice describes.

The interview goes much further.  There is a lot of news in this interview.  There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB.  Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community, those assembling the information, to be very specific:  James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers), and she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review:


Summary:  In addition to the FISA702 material, and the material given by the current DOJ and FBI to Devin Nunes, this PDB material is part of the underlying information which backstops the Nunes Memo.

Devin Nunes, Admiral Mike Rogers and ODNI Dan Coats know exactly what Nunes has seen and where all of the underlying evidence is located.  No-one else does, including Adam Schiff.

Now do you see how Nunes brilliantly reversed the Paradox?

With help from a few friends:

Hi Adam,



This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, media bias, President Trump, propaganda, Spying, Susan Rice, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

727 Responses to Brilliant Strategery – DOJ and FBI Demand Access To Nunes Memo While Making Wrong Assumptions….

  1. scott467 says:

    “Sneaky Schiff used this boxed-in position, knowing Nunes could not defend himself, to demand Nunes step aside from the House Intelligence “Russia investigation”. It worked.”


    It only ‘worked’ because the Republicans LET it work.

    It would never have worked on the Democrats in a thousand years. They could care less about apparent conflicts of interest, or ethics problems, real or imagined. It simply doesn’t matter, because they don’t care.

    Look at Mueller. He has more conflicts of interest and ethical conflicts than you can count on both hands. Some with Rosenstein. Same with McCabe. Same with anyone on the Demonrat side you can name, they’re ALL conflicted and ethically corrupt, and they could care less.

    So the only reason it EVER ‘works’ on the Republicans is because they LET IT WORK.

    What would have happened if Nunes told Schiff to go take a flying leap, and stayed in charge of the investigation?

    NOTHING. Nothing would have happened at all. Schiff would have squawked like a chicken, and walked away, because there’s nothing he could do about it, unless Nunes cares what Schiff thinks.

    That’s how the demonrats get away with everything, because they don’t care how it looks, they don’t care what anybody thinks, they just do it.


  2. jmclever says:

    The letter to Nunes is basically the same type of letter that an abuser whose long term victim has finally had enough, left him, and filled for divorce with a good lawyer behind her would write. It’s the sweet part of the sweet-mean cycle that narcissistic abusers use to keep their targets off balance and consequently unable to correctly process the information from their own senses and experiences and trapped in the abuse. It’s design is to get the victim to doubt her own judgement.

    IMHO this is actually the feeble attempt by FBI to regain the abusive power and control that they realize they have just lost.


  3. Former lurker says:

    “Please don’t release the memo to the deplorables with the torches and pitchforks, keep it in the hands of the ruling class who know how to play the game so nothing really happens, or at least the IG so we have more time to scheme up a way out of this crap sandwich”.

    Seems clear enough to me.

    Liked by 18 people

    • Bruno says:

      Seems to me, you neglected to mention the GCHQ surveillance of Trump also ended up in the PDB..Assuming Obama also skirted around US intel community to spy on Trump/campaign.

      Liked by 4 people

      • SouthCentralPA says:

        “GCHQ surveillance” in and of itself doesn’t mean a whole lot. As Richard Marcinko has pointed out in passing here and there, ECHELON means that whatever is forbidden to, say, the NSA is done by the GCHQ or CSIS and vice versa, There’s a lot less of that sort of thing since the Patriot Act, but the contacts and channels doubtlessly still exist.


  4. scott467 says:

    “To take Rice down amid all of this unmasking, means to take down President Obama… ”


    Upon careful reflection, I’m perfectly okay with that.

    I’m at ease with that idea.

    I see no downside, at all.

    Liked by 34 people

    • David Munday says:

      I think the Left’s attitude to this whole thing is: “Well of course they were trying to keep Trump from being president – DUH!”

      You can’t use reason and expect irrational people to get it. We’re the only people who care about this story.
      In the media it’s all about “Mueller Closing In”.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Ldave says:

        That’s the Clinton pattern. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman “. Changed to “Even presidents have private lives”. The hard left will shift from denial to justification.

        Liked by 9 people

        • TheLastDemocrat says:

          This is exactly what I observed us Democrats doing across the years with voter fraud.
          We would paint Republicans as racist, and classist, when wanting to point out voter problems.

          We claimed for years, “there is no voter fraud; that is just racist race-baiting. No cases have been proven.”

          Then, we advanced to “Sure there is an instance of voter fraud here and there. But it is not coordinated, and it is sometimes a Republican and sometimes a Democrat. And, it is often a provisional ballot, from someone not found on the voter rolls, where the votes only get counted if the race was close.”

          I remember seeing this shift very clearly.

          Liked by 8 people

      • Doc Moore says:

        You are absolutely, unquestionably correct. I just offered a so-called liberal, a very close friend of mine, a link to this site and others where news of importance is being shared, discussed and revealed. I have often told him that his exclusive trust in CNN, NBC and ABC are misguided. He flat refused to even consider the possibility that there may be some truth to read about. He does not believe that 95% of media coverage of Trump is negative. He does NOT want to learn a damn thing. He wants the MSM lies and brainless diversions to keep him warm and content. I am over 70 years old. I have never seen such a blind and energized devotion to lies and ignorance. Is there a word in our language for this?

        Liked by 5 people

      • A simple explanation here would be that the DOJ was desperately fighting a holding action to slow down (or ideally prevent) the release of the Nunes memo. The goal of this is to give Mueller enough time to bring the President up on some phony obstruction charges…

        A more serious question is WHY a Trump nominee and AG Sessions’ protege Stephen Boyd (who served as communications director for Jeff Sessions when Sessions was U.S. Senator) is acting on behalf, or at least what seems to be in the best interest of, the conspirators at the DOJ and FBI? Was or is Jeff Sessions a part of the Deep State operation? It doesn’t make much sense because he was the first sitting U.S. Senator to endorse Donald Trump… Is the Sessions’ DOJ running its own operation (involving the Grand Jury indictments) and they are genuinely concerned that the important evidence could prematurely be made public (giving advance notice to the liberal media)?

        Let me know what you think. Thanks


        • Boilerman says:

          Mueller ( who has cut a deal with tump ) being a liberal and neck deep in uranium one, has to be out front with his report. Only way the msm and all us citizens will truely believe trumps inascene when Mueller clears him.( The reason sessions stepped aside) Rosenstein also cut a deal with trump to pick Mueller to lead the case, due to the dirt rod r. Has accumulated in his past. Mueller’s report when it comes out will be devastating to the liberals, then rosenstien and mueller walk away. Tump by doing these is playing the liberals against them selfs, because they can’t question a liberal Mueller report.


    • lftpm says:

      You may be signaling that you are 2x raaysust. /sarc


  5. scott467 says:

    “Reverse the safety. No-one in ideological media or allies in congress were going to allow President Obama to be taken down; ergo, everyone will protect Susan Rice and by extension President Obama. They had no choice.”


    They had a choice, if they weren’t [porcelain] throne sniffers.

    Liked by 8 people

  6. trialbytruth says:

    Do you read before commenting.


  7. rsanchez1990 says:

    Some people are gonna have so much egg on their faces…

    Liked by 3 people

  8. evergreen says:

    Two questions:
    1. How does the media get an inside scoop on what’s inside the report? It’s highly classified. They don’t. Ergo, “media reports” is a bogus basis on which to base this “concern”. Flatly reject this line of reasoning and everything therefrom. That’s the giveaway that it’s crap.

    2. What do you think DoJ does to the person who, having seen the report, reveals the contents by not speaking guardedly during an interview? Prosecute? The nation waits because people are keeping their secrets. The DOJ is aching because the secrets are secure. Classified means something NOW, doesn’t it?

    See what Hillary got away with?….so far…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nick says:

      It’s amazing, reading that letter from DOJ to Nunes there is so much duplicity in it. On the one hand they are pleading ignorance to the whole thing, (paraphrasing) if we did something wrong we would like to know about it so we can correct it. On the other hand they are kind of brazenly saying that this information is sensitive (i hesitate to use classified because I’m not sure) so you can’t release it to the people.

      It’s almost like when you get home from school before your parents and go to get your report card out of the mailbox before them, only to discover your older sibling already snagged it and they hold it over your head. Frankly, it’s kind of pathetic, it’s like a small child that know they did wrong bargaining with their parents for a get out of jail free card.

      P.S. I’ve been a silent follower of this story for a couple of months now and I just have to say that SD is miles ahead of any of the other news sites, pundits, or political brains with websites, blogs, etc. Also, comments from readers are so insightful and logic driven that I can’t stop myself from checking in quite frequently to catch up on the latest. Awesome job everybody!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sean Supsky says:

        Indeed, SD is miles ahead because he doesn’t have an agenda. The truth is his calling and so that what he puts out, whether it is harmful or helpful.


      • AloftWalt says:

        So, we’re hearing from both the Executive and Legislative branches regarding this FISA issue. Why haven’t we heard a peep from the Judiciary, especially if the dossier is a complete fraud? I would think that they would have something to say about a fraudulently obtained warrant or are they somehow complicit in the fraud?

        Has SD given any insight on this?


  9. daizeez says:

    Wait, didn’t Adam Schiff view what Nunes seen in March, about a week or so later? I seem to remember him on every show crying about Nunes visiting the WH and not informing him before he spoke to the press. After seeing it he went silent. I thought he was pulling the same thing now making sure he doesn’t view the Nunes memo and make the same mistake he did then.

    Liked by 4 people

    • beach lover says:

      That is what I remembered also! I’m glad someone else pointed that out. I don’t know how that fits in with the story, but who knows if schiffforbrains even understood what he was reading. He may have just gone to make it look like he was not going to be outdone by Nunes. OTH.. he may have warned those at the FBI to expedite the plan to blame Russia.

      Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      Read the other comments in the thread. This topic has been discussed before. (I’m not chiding you btw, just directing you and anyone who sees your comment to other areas of the comments section where it’s being discussed.)


      • daizeez says:

        You are right, I see the comments now. What can I say….It was 1am and I had just finished reading the article. I did search a few pages of comments but evidently not far down enough.


  10. “Hi Adam”

    That line made me LOL! 😀 😀 😀

    I mean you gotta love Adam Schiff having an opinion about something he hasn’t even read, but to be fair, old habits do die hard… he’s been doing the same thing with the Constitution! 😉

    Liked by 9 people

  11. scott467 says:

    Susan Rice: “I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have and never would.”


    Google that sentence, and beyond the inherent butchery of the English language, you’ll find all kinds of grammatical discussion about that double-negative Ghetto-speak.

    “I leaked nothing to nobody” either means “I dindoonuffin”, or it’s a ‘clever’ parsing (called ‘translanguaging’ between American Standard English and Black English, believe it or not, lol!) way for Rice to say and imply the negative (she did nothing wrong) while preserving the technical ability to later claim that she admitted she did something if necessary, since she used a double-negative.

    In which case “I leaked nothing to nobody” means “I leaked something to somebody”, ergo she didn’t lie, you just didn’t understand what she said.

    These people are snakes.

    They don’t speak with a forked tongue, they speak with a trident tongue.

    Liked by 14 people

  12. All of this reminds me of the notorious “Lopez Report” which for years was claimed to be evidence of a CIA plot to frame Lee Oswald for JFK’s assassination by sending an imposter to the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico City at the end of September 1963 – without ever having been released to the public. Both the Warren Commission in 1963-64 and the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 investigated this possibility and flatly rejected it.

    In fact, the House Committee commissioned the nearly 400 page report (named after its authors, Edwin Lopez and Dan Hardway), which was finally made public in 1996, to investigate Oswald’s Mexico City trip and follow up on unanswered questions remaining after the Warren Report
    and the 1978 HSCA.

    The Lopez Report ultimately concluded only that there was a mere “possibility” someone impersonating Oswald may have been in Mexico City at one time or another. For seventeen
    years, Lopez himself made a cottage industry out of claiming there actually was an imposter, until his own report was finally made public. Before that, Lopez was able to duck and dodge the report’s conclusions using its “classified” status as a shield.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. fred5678 says:

    Immortal words to be haunted by:

    “That’s why you had the leaking”

    Liked by 5 people

  14. navysquid says:

    As someone who’s been there, done that…and still…Sundance lays it out nicely. I would add, however, without going into specific clearance material…What Nunes MAY have seen was the raw reporting delivered to him via the SCIF of NSA material that shocked him.

    Do not get caught up in the PDB, per se, as it may be the “Read Book” because typically what Intel Analysts do “each morning” as Rice was stating is they work through the night (prior to all the Head Shop) coming in at 7am (or whenever their mtg is going to be) and the analysts scour their sources whether it is HUMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, OSINT, etc and pull the MOST pertinent information (not intelligence) out, make some slight changes, corrections, adjustments, and MAY very likely provide some analysis on each or any report and place it in the Read Book. Looking over a Read Book over time can then paint a picture of what is happening in a region, city, or on a specific policy related matter. This Read Book can be OR NOT be different from the PDB. The PDB is seen by more people than what is believed even during Bush, Clinton, etc…

    There are separate intelligence or raw, unanalyzed reports (which is NOT intelligence as it is raw reporting) that MAY cross POTUS desk that very few see but these reports are very limited. ALMOST, but not all reporting, in the Read Book is seen by his Advisers who have TS/SCI clearances and have been “read on” to other sensitive programs. This is due to the fact they need to be able to “advise” him on various courses of action. As Sundance rightly pointed out, Obama blew up the “circle of trust” while in office and allowed a plethora of people to view it. I might add many in his Admin who had NO military or generational experience in the world and hence why the world was so jacked up because of these so called “advisers”.

    If you asked me (and you didn’t – smile) I believe Obama, and Hillary for that matter, had a disdain for the rules of the IC and did NOT care one iota about clearances and law because they both believe they are above it…and that is dangerous for our country. Pres Trump is restoring the rule of law.

    Liked by 16 people

    • Guy-Blanc Déploré says:

      Very interesting info, thanks for this.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Texas Fossil says:

      One of Sundances best explanations. He has made many. Databases are very powerful tools, powerful tools in the wrong hands can do huge damage. Obama thought he invented this. Maxine Watters said so. (sarcasm)

      Now used in reverse, Obama himself is exposed. I’ve read he lawyered up already. His own arrogance is a liability in the long term. Others have observed, the number of political officials and congresscritters who have announced retirement recently is surprising. Some are smart enough to see the blowback coming.

      When a system is widely used and secuity lax, it cries for major restructuring and purging. We are probably there now.

      Structured data lends itself to huge misuse. I have no doubt the NSA are the top in the world in their field. Their product was used to do great harm to the US under Obama. From, To and About queries evidently were tools that many of Obama’s minions used for the wrong reasons.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Tegan says:

      navys….thoughtful comments…adding to our knowledge…thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • moe grimm says:

      Some here may remember that these “filtered”, re vs raw intel reports is what Mike Flynn had a big problem with and intended to change. More he was the one who drew 0bama’s ire when he went public that info he knew left Tampa USOC (aka McDill AFB) that was massaged to make it appear 0bama and his minions like this shrike Evelyn Farkas, and others, would see as would of course 0bama. And more. That’s why they went after the female intel operative that Flynn rigorously defended. She went on to bring a law suit that included sexual harassment, but I lost track of what the disposition was or where she isnow.


  15. olderwiser21 says:

    Yeah, mine, too. I am going to bed.:(

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Joshua says:

    While reading the comments, I’m thinking:

    If “conservatives” are confused about who’s on whose side, knowing Trump/Sessions are in charge, maybe Schiff et al. are themselves wondering, “WTF is going on?”.

    The letter does kinda read like a cunning Head Fake, i must admit – which would be brilliant, as Mr. Sundance suggests. At worst it should sew confusion. Either way, I’m optimistic about more unforced errors like the Anti-Memo Memo.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. sammyhains says:

    So, if I understand this correctly, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd just invited Devin Nunes to provide new evidence to the Inspector General of the FBI to investigate.

    He also provided the basis for releasing the underlying intel behind the memo to the full House at a later point down the road.

    This evidence is likely from the ODNI, so it is not something the FBI has, but directly implicates current and past senior officials in the FBI and DOJ.

    Notice who DIDN’T send this letter?
    The guy who you would expect to send it, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein…

    Liked by 8 people

  18. Esperanza says:

    What I love is that without the muh Russia stuff, we’d never have known about this. Poetic justice darling. Nemesis is a coming.

    Liked by 5 people

  19. But Schiff DID see the dox… Unless there’s something in the syntax I’m glossing over here…

    — April 26, 2017 The Daily Caller “EXCLUSIVE: Only 2 House Dems Have Examined Those Susan Rice ‘Unmasking’ Docs” —

    “White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II invited Schiff March 30 to examine the documents at the NSC. The next day the congressman traveled to examine the files at the NSC offices on the White House grounds.”


    • Sylvia Avery says:

      We’re not sure that what Schiff looked at was the same. Nunes saw docs in the WH SCIF that apparently only DNI Coates and NSA Admiral Rogers know what they were.

      Schiff looked at documents at the NSC? Which ones? Don’t know.


      • Lburg says:


        FTA: “Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said he viewed materials at the White House with his staff director that were presented as “precisely the same materials” given to Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) last week.”

        Even with this we don’t know whether or not they actually were “precisely the same materials”. They may have contained one or two small differences set carefully on the rat trap.

        Liked by 3 people

        • navysquid says:

          I highly, highly doubt that Nunes would at this or that time allow a serial leaker (Schiff) to view the most explosive documents Nunes is building his case on. Schiff. frankly, needs his clearance REVOKED.

          I don’t know what it is with these wussies in the “gov’t security dept” that do not pull their high level clearances for basic and routine violations. Any one of us in the IC would be reading OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) in the front coffee lounge for violating what Schiff, HRC, Obama, et al have done.

          Liked by 3 people

  20. JAS says:

    Love it SD! You are right over the exact coordinates!! I’ve always said it “Susan Rice”.

    Liked by 6 people

  21. LittleOne says:

    With the scope of 30 or so O people seeing what Rice / Farcus were talking about, how come none of this leaked out?


  22. Bob Thoms says:

    Why did Boyd sign the letter and not Sessions?


  23. Linus_in_W.PA. says:

    So, I thought that Stephen Boyd was one of the good guys.

    What’s the nuance of his letter then?


  24. Pelicansview says:

    Anything Adam Schiff saw, white rat that he is, has already been relayed to the permanent state small groupers at DOJ. Ergo, the letter from the Deputy AG portends that there is something they fear they may have missed. There can be no gaps in DOJ’s narrative when they “highly recommend” the president object to the IC memo’s release based on “national security” concerns.

    Meanwhile, Mueller is now moving at light speed to level any charge against POTUS that will transmute complaints the white hats have into “conspiracy theories designed to protect the president.”


    • 4harrisonblog says:

      @ Pelicansview, Meanwhile, Mueller is now moving at light speed to level any charge against POTUS that will transmute complaints the white hats have into “conspiracy theories designed to protect the president.”
      A clue to the time frame, is the two to three weeks President Trump gave to talk with Muller. President Trump is in control as to when or if he will meet with Muller.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Pat Frederick says:

    my head is still spinning from trying to absorb all the players and all the plotting, but did Sundance mention that some times these letters are a form of open communications between , oh i forget, parties (for lack of a better word). so who is communicating with whom? (beyond the surface of the document) and what are they trying to relay? (I get the on the surface stuff) or am i starting to see shadows in every corner? and trying to find clues in the toast crumbs?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Gary D. Meyer says:

    According to press reports, Schiff has seen the “Nunes” documents.


  27. Bob Thoms says:

    Two days ago I was convinced that the Nunes Memo was a summary of the April 2017 99-page re-dacted court report on FISA abuses, with the names, dates, places filled in………… I am not certain of that…..

    Sundance is saying the Nunes Memo is wholly independent of the FISA court report?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bob Thoms says:

      Or the Nunes Memo independently confirms the FISA court abuse findings; with more substance and in un-readacted form?

      All of it is “above my pay grade”…………….


      • ladypenquin says:

        At the time, Nunes, and I think this is what Sundance confirms in his article, is that Nunes (March 2017) said it had nothing to do with Russia or FISA. That’s a significant statement.


    • beach lover says:

      Could it not be a combination of both? Afterall, there are many who have now read not only the memo, but also the underlying documents the memo is based on and they are replying to media questions all things FISA. Maybe Im missing something here, but Nunes may be summarizing ( in the memo) what the DOJ/FBI has done re dossier and pre-election, but hidden in the documents is the real story of NSA abuses by the entire O administration??? I also remember that it names names. That could catch the attention of most who dont pay very much attention. Imagine if someone in congress finds out they have been watched by O the last 8 years?


    • Firefly says:

      I’m puzzling abut all this too. In looking over the 99 Page report in the appendix was a letter signed by Andrew Weissman, who worked for Rosenstein, saying they would implement all the recommendations. Sounds like the PTrump violations show the doj and fbi did not change their ways. Nunes mentied that in that first press release – that it was reminiscent of the surveillance on congress.


  28. joshua says:

    Obama clearly planted banana trees all around the White House and Democrat congressional offices.


  29. When will the OIG release his study results? I always thought Sundance had pegged the completion date around January 15. Will the President make the call on when to release the report?


    • ladypenquin says:

      Initial release of some documents was scheduled for January, IG’s actual report is scheduled for early March.


    • lftpm says:

      I’ve read that Mueller may have the power to subpoena Trump to testify before a grand jury–with no legal representation per GJ traditional rules.

      Any legal eagles out there with GJ experience?

      If this is the case, then DJT needs to order the DOJ OIG to send him everything the OIG has thus far compiled, and then let his legal team analyze the information. Maybe even declassify the info for public review. DJT has every right to predicate GJ show-up-date to his team’s review of all pertinent facts.

      Number Two: Trump said he was supportive of a sworn-testimoney interview. So, he should invite Mueller to a sit down interview.

      He says, “Bob, meet my federal prosecutors.. They are going to interview you under oath. If you lie, you are going to prison for perjury. I have every confidence you are going to tell the truth. We’re going to hook you up to a lie detector.”

      M: “This is outrageous! I’m leaving!”

      DJT: “Sitdown Bob. We have cameras on. Are you pleading the Fifth, refusing to testify which may incriminate you?”

      M: “No! I am just refusing to submit to this travesty!”

      DJT: “Bob, I could refuse to submit to the travesty of your claiming I must submit to interrogation, here or before the Grand Jury, but you would spin it into I was obstructing justice. Right?

      “Here’s the thing Bob, I am the Executive, defined in Article II of the Constitution. You are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Rod Rosenstein is, by Constitutional doctrine, my subordinate. You were appointed by him, making you my subordinate..

      “If Congress had passed a bill, with Presidential signature making Congress the namer of a Special Counsel, that would be fine But Congress did not do this, and Congress would not have made you Special Counsel.

      “Your commission happened because James Comey lied, and Rod Rosenstein made a bad decision to be moved by Comey’s lies..

      “Bob, my DOJ attorneys are going to ask you questions, probing but fair, about your investigative role in developing false charges against Dr.Steven Hatfill, and Senator Ted Stevens. Then they are going to ask you about Fast and Furious, and why your FBI did not stop gun transfers to Mexican cartels. Then they are going to ask you about why you didn’t investigate Lois Lerner’s illegal actions to prevent conservative groups from getting federally-statutorily-prscribed tax-exempt status. Then they are going to ask you about Uranium One’s purchase of 20% of America’s uranium supply by Russia, and why your FBI didn’t stop it.

      “It’s okay, Bob, we are videotaping this, so if you get prosecuted, you can use the tapes in your defense. But, if you want to walk away, you have to plead the Fifth against self-incrimination, and you can leave. Otherwise, you agree to stay, and answer questions under oath and with a lie detector. You do not have the power to walk off in a huff, anyone than you would give me the power to walk off in a huff from a Grand jury subpoena.

      “It’s your choice Bob, sit down and give testimony under oath and with a lie detector, under video recording. If you tell the truth, you have absolutely nothing to fear. Or plead the Fifth, if you feel that truthful testimony may incriminate you and send you to prison. The choice is yours.”

      M: “I’m just not going to say anything. Stuff it.”

      DJT: “Okay Bob. You had a chance to tell the truth, to explain your history of fraudulent prosecutions, and failure to investigate crimes against the United States of America, and its people.

      “You’re Fired!”


      • dagnyshrug says:

        I’ve read that a sitting president can not be indicted. He/she must first be impeached and removed from office. The purpose of a grand jury is to indict (potentially), so convening one now would be premature. Mueller could compel Trump’s testimony in an impeachment proceeding, but we’re not there yet, thank goodness!

        IIRC the reasoning behind this goes to the president being unable to fully discharge his duties during a grand jury proceeding and/or trial, and whether he would be forced to declare himself temporarily incapacitated therefore relinquishing control to the VP for the duration.


  30. navysquid says:

    My take is that is tied into much of what Q Anon has been speaking to (we are in different fields) re: FBI – DOJ at highest levels planning for the soft coup once they realized HRC had not won the presidency because as Sundance has said TRILLIONS are at stake and they cannot just allow an 8 years of Pres Trump. Why? He is not one of “us”. The Deep State players never really panicked about the majority of the R’s because they knew “how the game is played” as well. They ARE in on the game as well to line their pockets.

    There are so many things in motion right now within the IC as some do not know who’s on who’s team as people scurry around from meeting to meeting and talking with sources. Is this person really on your/our side? Or is he running counter-intel on you to find out what you know?? These next couple of weeks are going to be revealing on a yuuuge scale. Country needs to be ready for it and find our resolve. Patriots!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Michaela says:

      Navy, it sounds like a game on the TV show Survivor. Not meaning to make light of this at all. But this is crazy. Who can you trust? Who is real? America NEEDS to know. I have been following for over a year (I lost count) I don’t post much. It is complicated. I feel very paranoid!


  31. bfgreek says:

    Can anyone speculate on whether Christopher Wrey is a white hat or black hat? It seems he’s found his place among the sewer rats at FBI, but maybe I’m misinterpreting. If so, what went into the President’s decision to appoint this guy in the first place? Just wondering…


  32. moray watson says:

    That DOJ letter brings to mind HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey pleading for its survival. Why would those responsible for DOJ/FBI oversight look for approval from the very institutions that have caused their overseers to mistrust them?

    Liked by 1 person

    • lftpm says:

      If the memo is released and it’s bogus, the FBI/DOJ will be easily able to disprove it. If its findings are true, then the FBI/DOJ/MSM will have their work cut out for them to “discredit” it.

      Methinks that with tens of millions of American workers getting bigger take-home checks, with increasing numbers of employers giving $1000 bonuses, and increasing lower-workers’ wage amounts, any 2018 Republican candidate saying, “I’m with Him, I’m For You–MAGA” will have a very good chance of winning election.

      Let the games begin, fill and turn on the popcorn popper.


  33. L. Gee says:

    Maybe I missed this after reading the article and all the comments, but is it possible that this memo is also providing a way for Nunes to confirm the validity of the 4-page memo that all the House Repubs read? After all, it was just a few days ago that the Dems were discounting this very memo (in spite of the fact that they hadn’t even read it) by claiming that it was the Republican’s take on original documents. The implication, of course, was that the memo was therefore too biased to be taken seriously.

    One way around that would be to have an outsider (OIG) read it and attest to its veracity.

    I’m probably way off base, but that’s what occurred to me as I was reading this thread. Also, I apologize if I’m repeating what’s already been stated; sometimes I can be really dense!


  34. MfM says:

    Something that has been in the back of my mind. What if Nunes knew what he was looking for and the dates of the PDB’s or other items that were important? He could go in with a request for a wide range of dates and only spend time on some specific areas.

    Someone else coming in could be faced with thousands of pages, when only 2 or 10 were relevant. The info would be like looking for a needle in a haystack without a magnet.


  35. jeans2nd says:

    Joe Biden once again proves to be a gold mine, imo.
    Listen to Good Ol’ Joe at the CFR 23 Jan 2018, 28:44 to 34:45.

    Some of us, including me, may be more convinced that, as you said, the PDB was the basis for the unmasking, etc.

    29:50 “Immediately after the PDB”

    32:06 “We learned more immediately after the election was over”

    32:26 “We saw no evidence of actually going into the voter rolls, going into the voting itself”

    33:49 “Had we known what we knew three weeks later we may have done something more”

    What went on after others left the room after the PDB briefing Joe?

    Joe says the Gang of 12 was initially briefed. Gang of 12? Missing something here, need more info re: Gang of 12, pls.

    Joe continually laments the fact that he cannot obtain any info re: foreign affairs from the Trump Admin. Dummy never considers that is by design. The leaks have been plugged, and Black Hat Hunting has intensified, imo.

    Listening to this 6 min clip may give one a diff view of Mitch McConnell. The old coot really does seem to have Obama’s number after all. Burned once twice shy?

    In other parts of this forum, Good Ol’ Joe details how the Obama Admin used financial and personal blackmail to threaten the Ukrainian government, and cause a Ukrainian official to be fired.
    Where else and on whom was this tactic also used Joe?

    This forum is part of an entire rollout by the CFR, w/their journal Foreign Affairs, the new CFR Special Report 80 “Containing Russia” by Blackwill and Gordon,
    and a forum called “Digital Discord The View From Russia”
    that declares war on Russia – yes. really, the CFR has unilaterally declared war – that will be reserved for another time as it is def o/t.

    Suffice to say, the CFR intends to effect total regime change in Russia, bamn. And that is not just my opinion (yes, have read .pdf, listened to vids and audio zzzzzzz) – Part 1 of 4
    Parts 2-4 found on RSS feed
    these ppl are truly evil, not mentally deranged, evil


    • lftpm says:

      Joe is so discombobulated. Methinks he either had somebody else tie his half-Windsor, or he’s wearing a clip-on. And somebody else ties his shoes. He’s just not smart enough to do these things himself.


  36. Che Pup says:

    Clearly, Assistant AG Stephen E Boyd is well overdue to be taken out the back and given a good horse whipping. What an egregious little turd to write such a reply.You can hear the smarmy, bitchy little beta male tone in his writing.

    Seriously these ass hat ‘public servants’ have lost all perspective. They’ve come to believe their own BS that they truly are above oversight. Of course McCabe and Comey’s corrupt ineffectual management is to blame.

    Hence they are all overdue a good horse whipping just to remind them who is the boss and who’s dime they rely on .


  37. 4sure says:

    My takeaway from Boyd’s letter re. the third paragraph on page one is that he is saying the DOJ has committed no wrong doing and is not aware of any such thing therefore is not investigating anyone in the DOJ or FBI for any wrongdoing concerning anything having to do w/this whole conspiracy against Trump.

    That is pretty disheartening.


  38. Wildbill2u says:

    How long did the FBI and DOJ slow walk requests for documents from Congress? What’s good for the goose, eh?


  39. roy1982blog says:

    Didn’t “big eyes” Schift state on one of the Sunday shows that “the American People will not understand this information?” That its “too complicated for the average citizen to understand?”


  40. beach lover says:


    Peter J. Hasson

    The most underrated fact about the drama surrounding the FBI agents’ text messages is that they were discovered in an inspector general investigation launched at the behest of *Democrats* in Congress who thought the FBI was biased against Clinton

    8:50 PM – Jan 24, 2018
    129 129 Replies 1,738 1,738 Retweets 3,543 3,543 likes

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Harried and Hopeless says:

    ‘Currently not aware of any wrongdoing’…are they not aware of the April 2017 FISA court ruling demonstrating oodles of wrongdoing by the fbi and doj? This is intolerable.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. TexasRanger says:

    In The News……

    Susan Rice is Married to ABC News Executive Producer Ian Cameron

    All in the family.!

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Kelvin O'Neal says:

    New to the Last Refuge. Currently studying Analytical writing. Seems I have a long way to go. Now a big fan of Sundance. What an insightful article.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. ron Milam says:

    Adam Schiff did go see what Nunes saw. Adam Schiff: Content of White House documents don’t justify Nunes ……white-house…nunes…/2619076
    Mar 31, 2017 – Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he didn’t see anything at the White House on Friday that changes his mind about committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ decision to deviate from “normal review procedures.” In a statement, the California Democrat said he and his …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s