The FISA Court ‘Title-One’ Application, Re-authorizations, and The “Clinton-Steele Dossier”…

The tangled web of corruption, deception and manipulation within the DOJ National Security Division (Lynch, Yates, Carlin, Ohr) and FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, Page and Baker), continues to pose issues of complexity when trying to outline the story.  Best advice is to ignore voices who position themselves too far ahead of known evidence. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation.

Unlike some, we will not get ahead of the primary focus. For over a year CTH has focused on the demonstrable and provable foundation of the fraud; because the foundation brings down the entire apparatus.

Following that investigative path we have found ourselves paralleling a strategic plan as outlined by actions of congressional officials (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz), and the Trump intelligence community [Mike Rogers (NSA), Dan Coats (ODNI), Chris Wray (FBI) and Rod Rosenstein (DOJ)].

Four Corners of the demonstrable justice dept. conspiracy:

  1. Exonerate Clinton
  2. Investigate/execute, IC surveillance of Trump.
  3. Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump.
  4. The Insurance Policy.

Following the exoneration of Hillary Clinton, the next phase, the “Trump Operation”, was the need for the DOJ/FBI “small group” to have access to surveillance of Hillary Clinton’s political opposition, Donald Trump.  This was the U.S. government conducting political opposition research through a weaponized intelligence apparatus (DOJ and FBI).

Within the context of #2 and #3 you’ll note the entry and exit timeline of people connected to the same task is identical.  Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion-GPS, enters the timeline at the same time Nellie Ohr is hired by Fusion-GPS (May 2016).  Both Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr exit the activity timeline at the same time as the FBI gets FISA Court “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page, October 21st, 2016.

Everything after October 21st, 2016, when the FBI has “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page and the Trump Campaign, is part of the “insurance policy”.   The Title 1 surveillance authority gave the “small group” the tools needed to execute #4, which included the 2017 “Russian Narrative” and the appointment of SC Robert Mueller.

That’s the rough outline.  Within the rough outline there are sub-chapters of how it all took place. How it all came together:  The ‘dossier’ is a sub-chapter.  The FISA warrant is a sub-chapter. Establishing Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a sub-chapter. Etc.

♦Nellie Ohr was needed because she was a go-between from Team Clinton (Fusion GPS) to her husband Bruce Ohr inside the DOJ.  Nellie Ohr relayed information into the DOJ and she extracted information from the DOJ that was passed back to Fusion-GPS and by extension Christopher Steele.

Nellie Ohr was a communication transfer hub.

♦Christopher Steele was needed because:

A) the Clinton Team (Fusion GPS) needed to wash their opposition research and have it come out as “Intelligence Product”; and B) the DOJ and FBI needed to present intelligence product to further their insurance policy goal.

The Clinton ‘opposition research’, turned ‘intelligence product’, was carried by Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, the FBI and DOJ and was leaked to the media, as needed, to script the Russian narrative.  Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (ODNI) could enhance the IC product as needed [See: ‘Russian Election’ – Joint Analysis Report].

One of their collaborative IC constructs was the Clinton-Steele Dossier.  The FBI and DOJ used the Clinton-Steele Dossier, and leaks from those assembling the Clinton-Steele Dossier, as validation for an October 21st Title I FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page.

Three corners of the conspiracy construct relied upon the FISA “Title I” surveillance:

#2) Investigate, execute, IC surveillance of Trump; #3) Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump; and #4) The Insurance Policy;

All three of those corners relied on the FISA surveillance warrant being granted.

Another example post-election use of the FISA surveillance was how the Intelligence Community positioned the story of Carter Page in April of 2017 to gain the Special Counsel appointment, ie. the Mueller investigation (another false construct.)

Expose the fraudulent construct of the “FISA Title I” surveillance and the tenuously sketchy narrative built upon it collapses.  So, what is the weakest part of the FISA Title I construct?  Answer: The Clinton-Steele dossier.

Expose the fraud behind the FISA “Title I” application and the entire scheme is revealed. Investigators expose the FISA application to disinfecting sunlight by going through the ‘Dossier’ it is built upon.

That’s why Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Chairman Bob Goodlatte are focused on exposing the Dossier (Grassley), and FISA application (Nunes and Goodlatte); each complements the other.

Here’s a related interview with Devin Nunes and Hugh Hewitt [ AUDIO HERE ]

(Transcript) […]   Hugh Hewitt: All right, now the Carter Page surveillance that was authorized by the FISA warrant that has got a glaring omission in it, a material omission that I’ve written about for the Washington Post, have you seen any of the work product or summaries that resulted as a result of that FISA warrant?

Devin Nunes: Yes, we have seen, so our investigators and Trey Gowdy, and now two other members, John Ratcliffe from Texas and Bob Goodlatte. They have, they have went through and seen all of that.

Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?

Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.

Hewitt: Were there any other warrants issued at that time that are in the category of the Carter Page warrant that raise your eyebrows about appropriateness?

Nunes: Not that I’m aware of.

Hewitt: Now the Chief Justice appoints the FISA judges. Have you had a chance to chat with him or any of the FISA judges about what went on at the FISA Court with regard to the Page application?

Nunes: This is something that we grappled with, that we’ve been grappling with all through this investigation. We decided that we wanted to complete the FISA abuse portion before we approached the courts. Our next step with the courts is to make them aware, if they’re not aware already, that this happened by watching the news, so we will be sending a letter to the court. There is a, there’s a debate now into whether just send it to the Supreme Court or to send it to the FISA Court, and here’s why. And Hugh, you’d be a good guy to actually get your opinion on this. If, somehow, this case ends up at the Supreme Court, somehow, some way, by sending a letter to Roberts, do you conflict the Court?

Hewitt: The answer to that is no.

Nunes: Okay.

Hewitt: They will not issue an advisory opinion. And since he appoints the judges and is the leader of Article III, I would think you would invite him to come and talk with the committee. ¹You can’t compel him to come, obviously, but since he appoints the FISA judges, perhaps he would accept your invitation to a closed session. Would you welcome such an appearance by the Chief Justice before a closed session to discuss the FISA process?

[¹That’s nonsense. If the House can impeach a SCOTUS Justice; the House of Representatives can most certainly compel one to testify.]

Nunes: So this is something that we have, like I said, we have thought a lot about this. And the answer is we don’t know the correct way to proceed because of the separation of powers issue. So as you know, you know, we have, I’m not aware of, I’m aware of members of Congress going to the Supreme Court and having coffee with the judges, just to shoot the bull. I’m aware of, you know, dinners where congressmen have been with Supreme Court justices. But I’m not aware of any time where a judge has, for lack of a better term, testified before the Congress.

Hewitt:  It is perfectly appropriate to invite, though you ¹cannot compel the Chief Justice. And since he appoints the FISA judges, I doubt any of them would appear without his previous appearance and his warrant to do so. But I would encourage you to do that, because I would like to see if the Chief Justice would inform you of their reactions. I believe they are not going to be amused by this footnote. I believe it’s a material omission.

Nunes: Yeah.

Hewitt: I had one former federal judge tell me that it is, it is proof, it is probative evidence of a government intent to deceive the court that they did not disclose the origin of the Steele dossier, but instead disguised it as political manufactured.

Nunes: Yeah, and I think you have a very good point, and that was our read of it, also, in that you know, so in the application, there’s, you know, you would think you would go to great lengths to say where you got this from. And then it’s almost like you had to go out of your way to put the footnote in at the end in order to disguise it so that you’ve basically said oh, no, I did say this, when the reality is you really didn’t, right?

Hewitt: Yeah.

Nunes: And what would be interesting to see, and I don’t know, I’m sure it doesn’t exist, but if you had the changes as the FISA application made its way through the process of being developed before it was submitted to the court, and when that was put in and how the wording was changed.  (continue reading)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, propaganda, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to The FISA Court ‘Title-One’ Application, Re-authorizations, and The “Clinton-Steele Dossier”…

  1. excellent explanation….keep our eyes on the mark

    Like

  2. lettruthspeak says:

    Someone brought up an important point about all the “retirements” coming from both the House and Senate, particularly with republicans, and why this is happening. I think it is the next phase of the District of Criminals to try and put a halt to all this investigating. That is why it is extremely important, for the current leadership, to bring out as much truth and factual evidence as possible. Just imagine what will happen if Nutsy Pukelosi and Chuckie Schmuckie regain the reins in the House and Senate. Dangerous times ahead unless enough criminality is exposed before the elections in November.

    Liked by 1 person

    • KBR says:

      Dangerous times ahead unless WE get out the vote.

      If you stay focused online to what Congress is currently doing…and not paying attention to what Congress will be after November…you are letting the current investigations be a SQUIRREL!-to you.

      If you can watch all that is happening in Current Congressional Investigations…

      While still focusing & working as hard to get the vote in primaries and in November in STATE elections as you did in the POTUS election…you are a patriot and the current investigations are not-SQUIRREL!-distracting you from what you MUST be doing for the sake of later this very year.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Bud Klatsch says:

    Amazing that we all now see our vaunted constitutional legal system as an enemy of America. This must be like living in Stalinist Soviet Union. Thanks a lot obama and your colleagues.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. As I understand it, Flynn was not told he was about to be interviewed by the FBI, and he did not have legal counsel. He lied, and he shouldn’t have. He paid a high price.
    If the surveillance on Flynn was illegally obtained through the FISA Court, then the honorable thing for Chief Justice Roberts to do is to publicly state that and publicly recommend POTUS grant Flynn a pardon.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lunagirl says:

      Maybe he lied. Or was that just another 302 that was altered? Hopefully he will withdraw his plea and they will have to drop the charges altogether. Mueller must think this is a possibility (or more generally that 4th Amendment problems are going to end the Russia investigation) or he wouldn’t have filed a motion to delay sentencing “pending the status” of the special counsel. That’s literally the only statement/reason given for the requested delay of sentencing. The questionable status of special counsel.

      Forcing Mueller to drop the charges would be so much better than a pardon. The press might even have to report it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Chewbarkah says:

        Mueller might be hedging to see what develops from the OIG and Congress. But a less optimistic take on the sentencing delay, would be that Mueller wants to keep his boot on Flynn’s neck until he finishes interviewing everyone on Earth, in case something turns up requiring Flynn’s “cooperation”. Once Flynn is sentenced, Mueller’s leverage diminishes.

        Liked by 2 people

    • ladypenquin says:

      Not a pardon, but dismissal of the charges against General Flynn. Based on the fruit of the poisoned tree and the already destroyed credibility of Peter Strzok, the Court cannot ascertain that there was even a “lie” in that meeting. The crime itself is called into question, so there isn’t a punishment to be pardoned.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Someone posted here a day or so ago that Flynn’s attorneys are applying for a dismissal of the charges, as well as his plea deal. There is no legal basis for the charge now.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. OpenMind says:

    So RR still having a job at this point is confusing. It is clear that he signed the extension of the Page warrant and that his testimony before congress appears dubious. Could it be that he renewed the warrant at the direction of Sessions and now Wray becasue there is a cooperating witness involved (Ohr, perhaps)? RR did mention the IG on several occasions during his testimony. Was RR renewing the warrant to allow the IG to continue to monitor the bad players?

    Like

    • As Sharyl said, the warrant was renewed three times under PDJT’s administration. Our VSG knows what he is doing, IMO, so I will wait and see.

      Like

      • Jim in TN says:

        I am not so sure about the three times statement. The first renewal was in January and depends on the date of renewal. Either way, the application and the first renewal were signed by Yates and Comey.

        Yates was fired around 1/30/17. And Rosenstein was sworn in on 4/26/17.
        So the second renewal in April was most likely signed by Boentes as acting AG, and Comey who was fired in May.

        Mueller was also appointed in May. The third renewal was in July. So it was signed by Rosenstein and by McCabe.

        At best, hostiles signed the first two and at least one hostile signed the next two.

        So the one Rosey signed, did he do it as a hostile? Did he do it for Muelly?

        Or do any of these bums actually read the entire thing? I suspect it is just checking to see that i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. ‘If it looks like my trusted underlings did their work, then I don’t have to do it for them. After all, I am a busy person.’

        Like

  6. Hoosier treeper says:

    pedogate is next, both parties.Thats why many are retiring.IMO

    Like

  7. And why is it that Sean Hannity can work overtime exposing all of this every night without threat of his job or Fox News platform? The ONLY time he was threatened was over Seth Rich. The Clinton-Steele Dossier collapses utterly if Seth Rich was the DNC leaker. The wrong doers are processing a Limited Hang Out. They can’t stop the unraveling of this conspiracy but, they can try to cut their losses. Seth Rich is the back stop to further unraveling.

    Like

  8. B Woodward says:

    Someone please explain this to me. Here is a quote from the transcript that Sundance included above. Why did Nunes answer that the Carter Page FISA warrant was not used for surveillance on Trump’s campaign or transition team?

    Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?

    Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.

    Like

    • malmino says:

      This topic was discussed earlier in this thread.

      Like

      • B Woodward says:

        Thanks. I was wondering if it had anything to do with the date of that interview. Forgive me for not reading all the comments on the previous page(s) this time.

        Like

    • TomF says:

      “Why did Nunes answer that the Carter Page FISA warrant was not used for surveillance on Trump’s campaign or transition team?
      Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?
      Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.”
      **********************************
      Here’s your answer: Surveillance was used but intelligence was not obtained.
      In other words…..it was a dry hole.
      But it was used to spy on the President and his team.

      Liked by 1 person

      • abdiesus says:

        But Hewitt specifically asked about *surveillance”, not just “intelligence”. How could Nunes answer no to that question when clearly, as you say, Surveillance was used? It’s an “or” question.

        Like

  9. Doppler says:

    As to your Four Corners, i’d Like to suggest the possibility of an additional motive of “projection” onto her opponent of being secretly in league with the Russians. The Uranium One transaction netted the Clinton Foundation some $135M in donations from both Russian buyers and Canadian sellers, per NYT and Clinton Cash, with Clinton insiders the Podesta Group leading the lobbying effort for the Russians. Justice was one of the CFIUS departments that had to sign off on that transaction, and did so, without sharing with other department’s that the Russian company’s Uranium transportation affiliate was under investigation for bribery and kickbacks, for which both Americans and Russians were later indicted. Strangely, witnesses in that investigation were put under gag orders not to discuss their evidence with anyone, including Congress.

    In individual psychology, a subject might project some flaw of his own into others, as part of his own denial or self-deception. But I think it works to for deceiving others, as well.

    I’m reminded of SOS Alexander Haig leaking David Stockman’s secret first draft budget, including massive cuts to DOS facilities in foreign countries, to leading papers in European capitals, the same night it was circulated to the cabinet, using all diplomatic secret rush channels to get it there, then summoning Stockman to his office to berate him for having allowed the leaks to happen before the cabinet could meet to discuss it, even scolding that he was “shocked, SHOCKED” at young Stockman’s incompetence for letting it happen.

    That explains why the Russia Trump fixation never goes away, despite, so far, no evidence whatsoever. In the non-critical public’s mind, Russia is clearly Trump’s problem, and efforts to re-raise Uranium One are quickly dismissed as having been “debunked.” “Easier for we to debunk, than for thee,” sayeth the Estalishment.

    Oh, and the office from which David Laufman resigned yesterday is also the office responsible for investigations of such foreign investments.

    Like

  10. D. Manny says:

    The Grassley memo informs us that the ONLY reason why Carter Page was designated as a Russian spy is solely because of the Steele dossier: https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/nyysdmrcw69bnjl/images/4-e21c4e1e13.jpg
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Here are all the problems with that….
    1. The Steele dossier states that Paul Manafort is the master spy and that Carter Page is his lackey. So then why wasn’t Manafort slapped with the Russian spy tag rather than Page?
    2. I can’t find any evidence that Carter Page was ever arrested for anything, but Paul Manafort has had FBI crawling all over him from day one.
    3. Carter Page doesn’t even have a lawyer to represent him in the spy issue.
    4. If you read the Grassley memo, it states that the reason why Comey put so much faith in Steele’s word is based on their past relationship…….
    So Comey takes the word of a spy over that of a former employee? Did something happen in their past relationship to make Comey doubt Page’s word? If so, why didn’t Comey put that as one of the reasons?
    But it goes even further than that. Steele never actually talked to any information. Steele just took the word of somebody else who talked with the informant, so in effect, Comey chose to take the word of somebody he didn’t even know, has never met, over the word of someone he worked closely with for years?

    Like

  11. Theodore says:

    Interesting read/angle on the “Steele” dossier:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/373778.php

    Like

  12. libertysc2016 says:

    Sundance – I am a bit surprised by part of the Hewitt – Nunes discussion. In particular, the excerpt below suggests that the Page FISA warrant did not yield surveillance on any member of the Trump’s team. If the Page warrant did not allow for surveillance of Trump World, it seems like less of a thing.

    Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?
    Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.

    Like

    • libertysc2016 says:

      Disregard my post – addressed above.

      Liked by 1 person

      • abdiesus says:

        do you mean addressed by TomF above? I don’t understand TomF’s reply. Hewitt’s question was an “or” question that included the possibility of Surveillance. So either there was Surveillance or there was not. Even TomF agrees there surveillance, so how could Nunes answer no?

        Like

    • abdiesus says:

      That doesn’t make sense, however perhaps Nunes is simply playing by the book as to what is already “known/proven”. Certainly the Congressional oversight will eventually gain access, through one means or another, to the truth of the matter.

      Like

  13. Jacopo says:

    Idle speculation: what if Page is not an FBI asset, but rather CIA counterintelligence agent. If there is a deep state cabal, they couldn’t count on an oddball like Page to blunder into Russia to make conspicuous overtures to Russian officials unless he they were actually running him. The insurance policy could have easily fallen apart if Page is the reckless goof he eagerly portrays himself to be. If he is a NOC, the deep state can veil his purpose under the shroud of sources and methods nondisclosure. If I’m Russia, I let Page in to facilitate a U.S. own goal. Why interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake. They must have known what he was. This scenario is consistent with the fact Page wasn’t arrested by either the US or Russia. Also would make a great le Carre novel: The Little Drummer Boy.

    Like

    • jacopo says:

      I would also add that the supposed 2013 warrant authorizing surveillance on Page would be part of his cover as a NOC targeting Russian security: “Ivan, I think the FBI is on to me. Can you help me?,” he says as he bugs Ivan’s apartment or feeds him bogus intel.

      Like

  14. Pam says:

    Like

  15. John Brennan said he did not see the Steele dossier until December. That is not correct. In May 2017 Business Insider reported that “Brennan told Gowdy he didn’t know who commissioned the Steele dossier, but he asserted that it was “not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment”. How could he say that if he hadn’t seen it first?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/john-brennan-russia-trump-collusion-testimony-2017-5

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Mueller is the last member of the cabal with formal and autonomous power and the ability to grab the news cycle. Without him, its Clinton grand juries and Congressional hearings as far as the eye can see. Rosenstein and Wray are closely watched lame ducks. Part of Mueller’s mandate is to insist he still has work to do, at least until the midterm elections when a Dem Congress would alter the investigation dynamics. Speed is of the essence.

    Like

    • FSD’s comment makes sense in that it supports my personal fear that Mueller is evil and will be the undoing of our President. Rosenstein, who can rein in Mueller, is my number 2 person to despise.

      Like

  17. MikeN says:

    > If the House can impeach a SCOTUS Justice; the House of Representatives can most certainly compel one to testify.

    The one does not follow from the other.
    For example, if the House can impeach a President, the House can most certainly compel one to sign a bill.

    Like

  18. MikeN says:

    Focus on the dates in the dossier. It is not a single dossier, but a collection of memos(“COMPANY REPORT”). Before getting the warrant on Oct 21, Steele issued a series of them to give more evidence to the warrant. Separate source confirming Carter Page meeting. Michael Cohen is a key player. Met in Prague with Russians.

    Like

  19. phoenixRising says:

    Like

  20. FRanz Dorn says:

    I love these comments in this thread!
    Why isn’t Carter Page represented? Surely conservative lawyers would provide pro bono work? Does he trust no one?

    Sheryl Atkisson made the point that the Title One Warrant on Page made it possible to spy on all of Trump’s Team. I, too, don’t understand Nunez’s remark.

    I read some where that Flynn’s son was overjoyed by the Nunez Memo. Does Flynn have a legal defense fund to support a Motion to overturn plea/charges? Emmitt Sullivan is the perfect Judge to get into Mueller’s backfield.

    I also think that Trump needs get access to court to raise his challenges to the Mueller Probe -. but, the standing problem. He should refuse to meet with Mueller?. Would Mueller then subpoena Trump before the Grand Jury? That would give Trump a point of entry to the court. Mueller may back down and not subpoena Trump if Trump refuses to voluntarily appear.
    in an interview to pre.
    vent Trump from access to the court,
    I would love to hear more discussion on the detail as to how the poisonous tree doctrine would work in this case.

    And when are the recovered (lost) Page/ Struck texts going to be released?. They may undermine Mueller. Why didn’t Mueller go to Congress and report the Page /Struck issue in August.? What did Mueller know?

    Like

  21. whirlwinder says:

    Lets get Bill Priestap’s take on all of this, under oath. Seems he set the whole thing in motion from the FBI.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

w

Connecting to %s