Attorney General Jeff Sessions Confirms Prior Appointment of “DOJ Prosecutor” to Parallel IG Horowitz, NOT a Special Counsel…

There has been a great deal of consternation, directed toward AG Jeff Sessions surrounding the ongoing FISA abuse scandal and the larger issues of unlawful DOJ and FBI conduct in their political investigation of candidate Donald Trump.  It is a matter of great division amid people who follow the details.

That said, AG Jeff Sessions revealed tonight in an interview with Shannon Bream, that he previously appointed a DOJ official to investigate the issues delivered by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (House Judiciary), prior to receiving the request for a Special Counsel from Chairman Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy.  WATCH:


Transcript @00:15 (emphasis mine) “Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations. I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation.

Also I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process, we’re not afraid to look at that. The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong; but he has almost 500 employers, employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors; and they are looking at the FISA process. We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that. And I’ll consider their request.”

Well, there you have it.  There is already an appointed person, likely a prosecutor, from “outside of Washington”, in place prior to the recent request for a Special Counsel by Goodlatte and Gowdy.   That was exactly what an objective analysis of the events previously outlined – and we previously noted.

Attorney Jeff Sessions is noting the existence of an outside prosecutor who has been in place for quite a while, exactly as we thought.  All the evidence of this was/is clear if you follow the granular details closely.   Here’s how we figure it out; and also the reason why no-one in Washington DC -including congress and the president- was previously aware.

…”to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee sent to us” – HERE is an Example.  And here is a response:

♦#1) The DOJ Inspector General (Michael Horowitz) has an obligation to notify his superiors when he/she discovers illegal activity, or conduct that is likely unlawful, while conducting an internal investigation.  The IG cannot sit on knowledge or evidence of likely criminal conduct, just because he/she is conducting an investigation.  This is the same reason why IG Horowitz had to inform Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July of 2017 of the potentially unlawful conduct of members on his team (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok).

♦#2) The same people under investigation within the IG purview (FBI and DOJ officials) are transparently cooperating with the Inspector General.  That cooperation, in combination with a likelihood of unlawful conduct, would require a DOJ official (prosecutor) to be assigned to negotiate and outline the DOJ legal terms of investigative compliance.  The person negotiating the terms for cooperation would NOT be the Inspector General; because of the potential for criminal charges related to the investigated individuals, it would be the job of a DOJ career prosecutor to comply with legal needs.

♦#3) Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr and Bill Priestap have quotes inside the HPSCI memos.  Those quotes come from investigative interviews; no congressional committee has interviewed those persons.  Those would be a few of the people in #2 above; and their testimony to Horowitz and a DOJ Prosecutor, would make them witnesses in a criminal investigation.  That explains why they have not given interviews to congressional committees.  The DOJ needs to keep the integrity of their testimony inside the investigative unit. (ie. in the control of the DOJ official from outside Washington that Jeff Sessions notes).

♦#4) President Trump is the chief executive over the DOJ and FBI; however, in this odd dynamic he is also the victim within the conspiracy as potentially outlined by the investigation.  Therefore, again to protect the integrity of the investigation and witness testimony, the victim would be kept at arms length and not informed of the criminal investigation.  That’s why POTUS Trump doesn’t know; and AG Sessions must keep distance from any discussion with the executive due to this separation.

♦#5) Cooperating witness testimony in a criminal investigation also means congress would not know of the details.  Congress (Nunes, Gowdy and Goodlatte) wouldn’t even know a criminal investigation was opened.  The prosecutor works parallel with, but separate from, the IG investigation.  Congress would know of the IG, but not the prosecutor.  This interview by AG Sessions is the first indication congress would have of a DOJ official already looking at the criminal issues.

♦#6) And the most transparent reason why we know there’s a DOJ prosecutor already on the case is because Jeff Sessions just said there was.

Here’s the U.S. Code explaining the power of the Inspector General – SEE HERE

(Source LINK)

Additionally on February 27th, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below).  During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions if the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.

Attorney General Sessions affirms the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI will indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]


This February 27th mention by AG Jeff Sessions WAS NOT NEWS.

This earlier admission is exactly what those who have followed closely will note has seemed to be the direction since mid-year 2017.   As AG Sessions affirms, IG Horowitz is NOT limited in scope.  Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse.   Add this to General Sessions’ answer today about the appointment of a DOJ official from outside Washington, and you can clearly see the IG and appointed prosecutor have been working together for quite some time.

How long?

Likely since the time when IG Horowitz informed the AG and AAG that he may have discovered significant evidence of unlawful conduct within the DOJ and FBI.  That would be around July/August 2017.

More visibility of the prosecutor is clear within the timeline:

January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.

Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.

The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.

On January 8th, Bruce Ohr was demoted for the second time. [AND DOJ officials scheduled Bruce Ohr to be available to Devin Nunes on January 17th]

On January 9th, the DOJ provided the unredacted DOJ/FBI documents requested to Chairman Nunes; the documents the DOJ produced surrounded the Clinton-Steele Dossier and the FISA Title-1 application. The documents were assigned to a SCIF in the basement of the House. Those documents become the basis for Chairman Nunes to outline his memo; essentially a declassification request to the White House written by Trey Gowdy.

As a result of the agreement between Rod Rosenstein and Devin Nunes, one member from each side of the HPSCI aisle (one Democrat and one Republican) was permitted to review the original FISA application documents which included the Clinton-Steele dossier use therein.

Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff were the two Intel committee members who reviewed. (Remember, this is January 9th, 2018) [Only Gowdy, Schiff, Ratcliffe and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte reviewed the original FISA documents]

A week later, January 16th, 2018, Chairman Nunes postponed the witness interview with DOJ official Bruce Ohr scheduled for the next day, January 17th.

Instead, on January 18th, 2018, the HPSCI voted to allow all members of the House to review the Nunes-Gowdy Memo created after the DOJ provided the documents (January 9th). [January 18th THROUGH February 2nd was #ReleaseTheMemo]

Now remember, throughout this time none of those prior agreed-upon FIVE witnesses (Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, Ohr) have been interviewed. Everyone’s attention shifted from witness testimony to the Memo; and as Democrat Eric Swalwell stated, no witness was interviewed. Period. [<- key point].

So to summarize so far: during January all the DOJ documents arrived, the HPSCI (Nunes) memo was written, released, declassified and released to the public on February 2nd, 2018 but no witnesses testified. [Nunes Memo – Link]

So the question becomes:

How does the exact testimony (including quotes) of Bruce Ohr, and Bill Priestap become part of the Nunes Memo if neither Bruce Ohr or Bill Priestap was ever interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee?

Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?

It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]

See where this is going?  The investigative unit of the IG is providing congress with transcripts of testimony from IG investigators (DOJ and FBI employees within the OIG); with the review, control and approval of the DOJ outside prosecutor.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses, likely with his appointed DOJ prosecutor, and extracted testimony.  This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).

Let me remind everyone that each of the aforementioned names is still within the system. Unlike Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki or Andrew McCabe, none of the five (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, Priestap) have been removed. Peter Strzok is in FBI HR; Lisa Page is doing something; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are holding down chairs somewhere; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence.

It doesn’t go unnoticed the media are transparently not following up on Peter, Lisa, Bruce Jim or Bill. No satellite trucks in front of their houses etc.; no pounding on their doors for comment etc. Nothing.

Further, ask yourself why Inspector General Michael Horowitz (or someone thereabouts) began to advance upon the entire ‘Trump operation’ with releases of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages? Why them? Surely, other collaborative communication was also captured, yet we only heard of Page and Strzok. Why?

Here’s what is becoming transparently obvious. The fab-five are cooperating with the investigative unit of the OIG. All five of them.

The text message release was strategic. It was intended to substantiate the entire enterprise, put the ‘small group on notice’ and flush out the co-conspirators. The downstream exits of Kortan, Laufman, Rybicki, McCabe et al are evidence therein.

Additionally, the OIG (Horowitz) would want to keep the testimony of Page, Strzok, Ohr, Baker and Priestap away from the Democrat politicians, well known leakers, within the House Intelligence Committee (ie. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff) until he was certain their usefulness as witnesses was exhausted.

The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.

The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG (as Jeff Sessions confirmed today) and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part.

[That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; and no-one outside the AG, AAG, and the ‘outside’ prosecutor’s office would know.]

The prior testimony/statements to the IG by the fab-five would explain why AAG Rod Rosenstein was negotiating with Devin Nunes; would explain why Rosenstein was reluctant to allow testimony; and would also explain why Nunes came away from those negotiations with wind in his investigative sails.

The DOJ (Rod Rosenstein) needs to wall-off the politics (Nunes/Congress) from the ongoing criminal investigation (DOJ-OIG-Prosecutor) to preserve the integrity of his advancing and assembling case (including criminal witness testimony).

As soon as he understood this was going on, and after a review of the FISA documents – Nunes dropped his demand for immediate testimony by the fab-five to the HPSCI mid-January.  [A record is already established]

As a person familiar with such specific investigative measures recently shared:

“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.”

Additionally regarding Bruce and Nellie Ohr:

“The Republican memo states they turned over all their work and testified to someone that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele and Steele was saying he didn’t want Trump in office. They didn’t testify to a Congressional committee, so it had to be the IG.”

The already existing “outside DOJ official” outlined by AG Sessions, is the person who would be constructing the witness agreements with approval of his DOJ bosses, Rosenstein and Sessions.

All of the news and information coming forward, including the lack of follow-up attention by the Democrats regarding the minority HPSCI memo, aligns with a very specific set of facts.  Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with the outside prosecutor for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor.

Thereby the Fab-Five have provided the IG investigative team and the DOJ prosecutor with sworn statements and testimony which is highlighted in investigative communication between the DOJ and Chairman Nunes; and we see snippets surfacing in the Nunes memo.  That perspective explains everything seen and not seen.

It is likely the final investigative summary from the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG), Michael Horowitz, is going to be very encompassing.  It is also likely to be immediately followed-up by actions, perhaps immediate indictments, from the DOJ Prosecutor who Jeff Sessions brought in from outside Washington.

There is no need for a “Special Counsel” when a DOJ Prosecutor is already working with IG Horowitz.  The “outside prosecutor” can begin issuing subpoenas for Grand Jury testimony and statements by the officials no longer within the DOJ/FBI, just as soon as the IG report is finished.

This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, 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, Jeff Sessions, media bias, President Trump, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

1,144 Responses to Attorney General Jeff Sessions Confirms Prior Appointment of “DOJ Prosecutor” to Parallel IG Horowitz, NOT a Special Counsel…

  1. dawg says:

    I have to say that I had all but given up hope in the last couple of weeks that anything would come of all this. I was 99% convinced that Sessions was useless, weak and/or possibly corrupt. But Sessions statement last night, specifically that he has already appointed someone outside the DOJ to investigate really changed my mind.

    Considering that players like Strzok, Paige, Ohr, etc… who are still in the DOJ and under IG jurisdiction, any need for a special counsel RIGHT NOW isn’t urgent. The IG has those guys (and girl) by the balls, and Sessions has an outside investigator (prosecutor?) on hand. Sessions statement that he is “seriously considering” the second SC has me thinking that once this IG report is out, thats exactly where this is headed.

    But then we have the problem of Rosenstein. To the extent that Rosenstein was involved in any of the malfeasance, he may have plausible deniability and/or could save himself by signing off on a second special counsel, IF the AG couldn’t do it because of his recusal.

    On the subject of Sessions recusal, no matter what happens in the future, that will forever go down as a massive mistake.

    Even when my doubts were peaking, I still kept coming back to this one thought. Think for a moment what our country would look like if Sessions was actively, publicly hunting down Hillary, Comey, Obama etc….and telling the world all about the investigation. The left would be SCREAMING dictator, tyrant, etc…..and borderline civil war. Meanwhile, nothing could drive D voter turnout to the polls more. Keeping it all as hush-hush as possible seems wise.


  2. Donzo says:

    I expect the movie will come out before the first is convicted.


  3. Kevin Putt says:

    I am not sure what is meant by this post’s use of the term “outside prosecutor”? Just because this prosecutor is not in Washington DC does not mean that he/she is not a US Attorney who works for the Justice Department, which clearly they are? The designation of some such person by Sessions already means that when it comes to FISA abuses involving every actor who is no longer at the Justice Department, that the Justice Department is now investigating itself. It seems to me that, as much as I truly hate them, a second special prosecutor is more appropriate here to do a comprehensive look at the FISA abuses and the actions, motivations and criminality of all of the key Obama players in order to avoid the predictable cry of the left that Sessions is being political (should any of these actors be indicted by a grand jury).


  4. jameswlee2014 says:

    Here is another possibility. It could be that the investigation has roped in Barack Obama. Should word leak out that Trump had launched a criminal investigation of Obama there would be massive Soros led civil disorder designed to halt the investigation. Therefor the possibility that Sessions and Trump are playing charades for the media is real.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Paco Loco says:

    Russian collusion is a mythical story furthered by the WAPO. It will not end until Mueller is fired and the DoJ goes after the WAPO for lying.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. OpenMind says:

    The action Sessions is mulling over is whether or not to direct DOJ prosecutors to start presenting evidence to a Grand Jury. That is the only action available to him “more significant” than appointing a second SC.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. deqwik2 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  8. OpenMind says:

    Also, while I am not disagreeing with the general framework set forth by Sundance, it is possible that the quotes from Ohr and Priestap could come from notes or meeting records (302 and otherwise) that Nunes and Gowdy reviewed as part of the records they received from FBI in early January. That would tend to make sense, because if they are being interviewed by a prosecutor, then it would be quite improper for that prosecutor to leak that testimony. It happens, but it would run completely contrary to the notion of the quiet construction of an airtight criminal case.

    Liked by 1 person

    • OpenMind says:

      I can imagine Ohr writing in a 302, “today, Steele said he was desperate….” Also, I can seen the IG reviewing notes from a meeting Priestap attended in October of 2016, in which Priestap may have noted surpirse that Comey and Lynch were moving forward with a FISA application when attempts to corroborate Steele were in their “infancy.”
      Just saying it’s possible.


    • cozette says:

      Openmind the information came from Inspector General Horowitz. Nothing Sundance referenced was leaked.


      • OpenMind says:

        I don’t disagree, but the reference to at prosecutor controlling and approving releases of witness testimony does not feel right. I don’t have experience with the interworkings of the relationship at play here; few do, and given the stakes, perhaps noone does. That said, an ultra-cautious and professional prosecutor, and that’s what most everyone would agree would have to be in play here, would realize that a followup congressional panel or SC may come along in 4-8 years to review every step of this investigtion; I just don’t see a senior DOJ white hat attorney controlling releases by the IG. I absolutely see the information in the Nunes-Comey and Grassley memos coming from the IG. The recent announcements from Sessions and DOJ are definitely a step in the right direction, but I’m not yet convinced a DOJ prosecutor has been assigned and in place for 6 months or more, and I definitely don’t want to believe the quotes of Ohr and Priestap are derived from releases authorized by a prosecutor.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Manic Emissary says:

      You pose a great point (especially idea of improper sharing of witness testimony) that I have been following up on (re: FBI, 302’s, January).

      A review of the Nunes Memo tells us clearly that Ohr’s quotes came from FBI.

      Nunes Memo Section 3: “Shortly after the election, THE FBI BEGAN INTERVIEWING OHR, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr… This clear evidence of Steele’s BIAS WAS RECORDED BY OHR AT THE TIME and SUBSEQUENTLY IN FBI OFFICIAL FILES— but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.” (emphasis mine)

      Directly after, we also have: “Ohr later PROVIDED THE FBI with ALL of his wife’s opposition RESEARCH, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS.”



      • OpenMind says:

        I agree completely. I believe Ohr later provided the Nellie information to the IG. IG began to grasp scope of his involvement, confronts him, and then has a come to Dios meeting with him. Ohr brings in the banker’s box.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Andy says:

        If Ohr was demoted, wouldn’t that indicate that he was investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates all DOJ allegations of misconduct? A prosecutor would not be assigned to investigate that kind of case. OPR has its own attorneys whose main responsibility is to investigate misconduct by DOJ attorneys.

        Once OPR had documented the misconduct, OPR’s record of that misconduct would then have been subject to the Nunes-Rosenstein agreement to turn over all records relating to the FISA application to Nunes’ committee. And that discosure would have been completely “by the book.”


        • OpenMind says:

          Very plausible. If you go back and look at the recores Nunes requested and presumably received, for the most part, from DOJ, there was a catchall reference to other related documents. I can see OPR files or other records being part of what Nunes and Grassley received.


  9. phoenixRising says:


  10. AmericaFirst says:

    As we closely follow all that is going on – that is available – to try to remediate the last 10, 20, 30 years of malfeasance and corruption intended to lead us all happily into that NWO, there are probably at least 12 people simultaneously writing books about the whole process. I expect at least 3 to be published in the first 10 days after the opening of the Sealed Indictments.


    • ForGodandCountry says:

      After reading your post I thought…

      If I were Clint Eastwood or James Woods, I’d be working on releasing a new movie every summer in front of each election on what we are learning here at CTH in an on-going series of films (too much for just one). Pity that can’t happen prior to this year’s election, but it would be a WHOPPER in front of 2020 and beyond.

      Paging Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Woods….

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Let's roll says:

    Love basketball season. Trump running best “pick and roll” ever with Sessions, Horowitz, Nunes, and Goodlatte. 6th man Grassley coming in strong from the bench. Media and corrupt Dems so lost on defense… Let’s ROLL!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. william elbel says:

    Now if the outside prosecutor can also go back as far as the 1996 TWA 800 FBI crimes?
    No fuel tank advisory was ever forthcoming.


    • mimbler says:

      Yes there were airworthiness directives written against the Boeing fuel tank wiring. I was in the FAA when it happened.


  13. Scarlet says:

    I don’t know how Sundance does it. These posts are like writing an enormous term paper every single day, co p,eye with research and developments, quoted sources and basis for facts. It’s seriously impressive.

    Liked by 9 people

  14. mike murphy says:

    Unbelievable work Sundance! This reads like a great spy novel. Unfortunately it’s true. Is it possible that the fab five will implicate Obama? I hope so.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. sundance says:

    Liked by 6 people

  16. Doc Moore says:

    Fortunately you are able to work harder uncovering the truth than the MSM can work to keep it covered up. WELL DONE … THANK YOU….and please keep it up…and be careful.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Heika says:

    Ok so this sounds great. However, I hate getting comfortable with ‘the appearance of a magical fairy appearing from the sky to save us all’ (and justice to be enforced over this horrendous pile of waste in Washington that became irradiated under Obama Inc). I think wary caution should be exercised on Sessions ‘gift’. I believe nothing until I see it. Secret (and under the radar) it may be, etc etc, but one has to observe what the consequences are of what Sessions has said from a skeptical view in order to stay alert.

    Remember it was his DOJ that refused to assist the Nunes and the Select Committee on Intelligence who had to force DOJ to hand over documents. That is evidence that I am not going to ignore. Was that a ‘perception trick’? To make the public think that they are not singing Trumps tune? If so it is a foolish one as they would simply have been obeying the structure of power – Oversight in Congress has the power to call up these documents, and yet were refused. That should be looked into in itself in my view. The recalcitrance by the current DOJ and FBI is mind-blowing. And what excuse? All sorts of things (Meuller, Meuller, or even no excuse in DOJ’s case).

    The tactic of the current DOJ and the current FBI has been to stall and obfuscate any attempts to get sunlight into this mess. Why? Why has the FISA court not come after the DOJ and FBI for lying to it? There are gaps in the theory that I have not seen filled. Things standing out that indicate all is not well in Sessions hands.

    Again I don’t want everyone to get mad at me. I’m on this sites side and because of Sundance’s work this is the only place (that I have found) where proper deep investigation and thinking is going on, but can we please not forget that there are some inconsistencies remaining (perhaps only in my mind? I have only seen a couple of others here pointing them out. Perhaps some of you can convince me if you have the time of why my thinking is unnecessarily wary.

    I said I would eat my hat and withdraw my skepticism if Sessions took on board Goodlatte and Gowdy’s suggestion on putting in an SC. I know there are reasons a SC could be problematic of course, as Sundance educates us well here. But I see no reason to eat my hat going by what Sessions has said so far. All I see (again using the Occam’s Razor approach) is that he has given nothing but ‘words’ which could be seen and nothing more than to take the heat off himself and the DOJ to do something by saying he has. The words and action, are looped up in mystery. What is it, where is it? No matter its not in ‘Washington’, it’s once again STILL INSIDE the DOJ.

    Its the DOJ investigating itself. I’ve given it to ‘someone’ from DOJ ‘out there’, so don’t you’all worry your sweet little heads about it and call off your dogs boys (to Nunes etc, the hard-working men in the Oversight Committee who do aspire for absolute transparency – which is the medicine here)

    There is no assurance of anything having been done. I will believe it when I see it, but the trouble is with Sessions little announcement, the nation, and transparency, has been dished up nothing, no timeline, no accountability framework, nothing. Another red herring? Who knows. Do you know? Tell me why this is real? Accountability in an opaque mess comes with clarity, complete public transparency in process and action with time frames for reporting back to THE PUBLIC.

    Feel free to counter me but please don’t yell me down, just give me reasons to have hope when this all looks very nebulous and shifty to me.

    Liked by 7 people

    • amber says:

      BRILLIANT post Heika!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Consider the following Occam’s Razor.
      The mentioned five, Page the Ohrs, Priestep etc are still in the employ of the DoJ.
      Government employees get paid much less than the private sector.
      When one gets demoted, you’d think he’d say “thanx but no thanx, I’ll take my leave and go into the private sector where I can make 10 times the pay as a lawyer.”
      Yet none of them have resigned. Why?
      They were told (as part of their plea deal) that they must stay put, pushing pens around.

      The level of secrecy from the House and Senate is obvious. The Dems, especially Schiff and Swalwell leak to help their side. They would have leaked as much as they could to warn their side, and would have spun a storm of political narrative.
      The other person they don’t want to have detailed knowledge of what’s happening within the IG office is of course Mueller.
      With all his powers, Mueller could and would have thrown a giant spanner in the works. He has 6 ways from Sunday of doing that.

      I think the non-resignation fact is telling.

      Liked by 3 people

    • mimbler says:

      Another thing to add to your list is that August 2017, Sessions announced a stepped up investigation of leaks. Nothing heard since except the 27 investigations are open.
      There appears to be a pattern of announcing things when the pressure goes up, but people move on and the results don’t appear.

      Now maybe results will appear someday, and we’ll all be happy when they do. Until then, there’s nothing wrong with observing past patterns of behavior, and maintaining skepticism until conditions merit.

      For some, they are already satisfied. Fine. For others they aren’t yet, Also fine.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Keebler ac says:

        The only action are interviews and words, tamed down substantially against President Trump after an initial scornful “thou knowest less than I your supreme recused” outburst. What is quite apparent when we refer to the swamp is that the DOJ and FBI act as if they are not accountable to anyone, Oversight nor the President. This attitude of stealth and with holding data is elitist at best, and enabled the decades of corruption to exist for Comey. The corruption is the DOJ and FBI allowing money to avert eyes from foul play. Now they’re caught. Yes SC for Trump, not for their own. Expect only the little guys to get caught. There will be no Clinton, no Obama, no Podesta…..just the Manaforts and Flynns

        Liked by 1 person

        • ForGodandCountry says:

          Nice whine to go along with all that cheese….nevermind anything Sundance says to prove otherwise.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Albertus Magnus says:

            There are none so blind as those that will not see.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Keebler ac says:

              Lol, there ya go again. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a turf war and the FBI and DOJ long ago decided they aren’t accountable to anyone not even the President nor the people. This is why the swamp exists today, because those with the power to stop corruption are dirty cops at top. Mueller running rampant still is proof.


            • ForGodandCountry says:

              So very true.


          • Keebler ac says:

            Seriously, I’ve read your attacks on commenters about a US District Judge being able to prosecute at the executive level because SD says so, and your constant Alinskying of so many here, I skip your comments altogether now.


            • ForGodandCountry says:

              “There will be no Clinton, no Obama, no Podesta…..just the Manaforts and Flynns”

              This is defeatist, negative pablum for whiny children. Sorry you don’t like being exposed for one. The rest of us are sick of it.


              • Keebler ac says:

                As we are of your repeated attempts to shut down others through childish insults.


                • ForGodandCountry says:

                  When speaking with those who think, behave, and act like children, it is often necessary to speak their language. Even then, an adult might not get through to them. You seem to be a case in point.


                • Keebler ac says:

                  Sure thing. You act the child to a parent. Actually, you’re more of a house fly buzzing.


                • ForGodandCountry says:

                  Thanks for proving my point.


      • James F says:

        Isn’t the fact that there have been no illegal leaks about the leaker investigation a good thing?

        That is the way it supposed to be, as opposed to the leaky special counsel.

        Liked by 1 person

        • mimbler says:

          That part is good. Open investigations is not. I was in intelligence in the army and 7 or 8 months is too long not to have closed one and charged him.
          IMO, of course.
          And the SC is actually indicting and convicting people even though they aren’t who he should be investigating. We saw evidence of those people being subpoenaed, public search warrants, etc. Those weren’t leaks, they were action.


      • Apollo says:

        “Now maybe results will appear someday, and we’ll all be happy when they do. Until then, there’s nothing wrong with observing past patterns of behavior, and maintaining skepticism until conditions merit.

        For some, they are already satisfied. Fine. For others they aren’t yet, Also fine.”

        Exactly. I’m perfectly happy to take good news as it comes, while also acknowledging that it’s not “game over” until the Scheme Team is actually charged/indicted. It’s great to know that it’s being looked at. But our goal here is not merely an investigation.

        Liked by 2 people

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      “Tell me why this is real”

      Sundance has. Over and over and over again, including with his post today that you are posting underneath.

      “There is no assurance of anything having been done.”

      Wrong. See my comments above.

      “I will believe it when I see it.”

      And yet you don’t want people to get mad at you for remaining a skeptic, even after you post this in addition to the above: “I’m on this sites side and because of Sundance’s work this is the only place (that I have found) where proper deep investigation and thinking is going on”.

      If you can’t see how frustrating this is to others lime me, there is nothing left to say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ockham's Phaser says:


        Why not try being a little less tribal. One can agree with Sundance’s logic and still hold out for indictments as their metric of hope. Cynicism, after all, has got us this far.


    • Hard telling, not knowing. Conservatives are skeptics by nature, with a healthy “show me” worldview. Never abandon your skepticism. We all see the pervasive DOJ foot-dragging that continues. You think we’re frustrated, look at it from Trump’s view. Waste and corruption in every department at all levels. Fiefdoms reign, firings impossible, and the momentum of the Ship of State is almost impossible to turn. Almost. There are good people in all corners of the world. That’s your reason to have hope when all we see are shadows on the cave wall.

      So far 8 or 9 DOJ/FBI senior executives have had their careers ruined… and not a single charge has been revealed (We have not yet begun to fight!). Almost 100% turnover at the top. That’s the first step of a purge. If we soon see charges against Sundance’s “small group” without those corrupt Clinton-style immunities, only then can skepticism yield to facts.


    • Heika, we must enjoy each day. Occasionally I go to YouTube and watch Evelyn Farkas admit leaking, then watch her eyes bug out when the male interviewer mentions “felony leaking.”


  18. georgiafl says:

    Someone suggested the new special prosecutor is this guy:

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Ross says:

    I still do not understand where/how Rosenstein fits into this. To be still where he is, he must have flipped a long time ago, but then he seems to have been hugging up to Mueller all the way along.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mueller is in the best position to gum up the works. I would keep Mueller in the dark as much as possible.
      I’d even give him the feeling that nothing much other than procedural work was happening at the IG office.


    • albrevin says:

      Rosenstein is a flincher.


    • G. Alistar says:

      Hard to say, we have only what we have been presented to see, read or hear. I personally believe that Mueller all along was looking for any evidence of a trump cheating during the election with the help of the Russians. While there is a remote chance of that, I think he is cooperating with Sessions and Rosenstein to help track, investigate the corruption at DOJ FBI and FISA gate. Perhaps he is just an honest guy trying to find answers and will go where he evidence takes him.


  20. georgiafl says:



    • Andy says:

      Regarding your article and its link, Sessions recused himself from the Russia Investigation of the Trump campaign, but nothing else. He has always been involved in other investigations, including FISA.

      Sessions did not say he appointed a prosecutor, rather he appointed a “person” to look at the Judiciary Committee allegations. He specifically did not refer to him as a prosecutor, although there was no reason not to if he really was appointed as a prosecutor. I find it doubtful he would appoint an outside prosecutor to look at misconduct by DOJ personnel. The Office of Professional Reponsibility within the DOJ has that responsibility given to it by CFR Title 28. According to CFR Title 28, the OPR “shall…investigate…allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate….” The OIG has responsibility to investigate DOJ attorney misconduct that does not fall within the OPR’s mandate.

      So it would seem that if anyone was working in parallel with the OIG, it would be OPR. I suppose you could refer to attorneys in OPR handling criminal complaints as prosecutors, and it seems they would have been working with Horowitz from the time he came across criminal misconduct, which he cannot prosecute.

      It’s hard to tell whether DOJ/FBI personnel are cooperating with Horowitz. In the case of criminal investigations, personnel are not required to give interviews or submit statements. Basically, they are not allowed to incriminate themselves. Since the FISA abuse appears to involve multiple crimes, it seems likely none of those involved is cooperating with either OIG or OPR.

      The quotes in the memo that come from Ohr and others can be from text messages or from reports agents/attorneys are required to file as work product. For example, Ohr’s comments about Steele would likely be in a report he wrote as work product for the DOJ, as statements relating to the credibility of an informant would normally routinely be recorded on some form.

      Trump doesn’t know what Sessions is doing — correct. However, if Sessions had appointed a special counsel, that fact must be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee within 7 days. The fact that Goodlatte wrote his letter requesting an SC tells us one has not been appointed — unless it was done in the 7 days before Goodlatte wrote his letter and he hadn’t been notified yet. So Trump is aware of that fact.

      I think the person Sessions was referring to in his interview is someone he is consulting about appointing a special prosecutor. In the past, Sessions has made reference to consultations he has with others about appointing a special counsel, in the uranium one case and in the Clinton Foundation case. In both cases, he declined to appoint one but instead opened criminal investigations using DOJ prosecutors. I think Sessions was being coy in his interview, basically letting people know that what they were requesting by way of a SC he was already in the process of considering and getting an outside opinion on. JMO.


  21. Msher says:

    Sundance asserts Trump can’t know about prosecutor because he is the victim. What is the rule that says a victim can’t know the perpetrators of a crime against him have been assigned to a prosecutor and are being investigated for prosecution? Victims often know the status of their cases, usually are interviewed by prosecutors or their investigators in the pre-trial preparation. They usually know there is a prosecution and the name of the prosecutor.

    Victims can’t steer the prosecution and if they are going to be a witness, there are rules severely limiting what they can know about the case and other witness’ testimony.That is to prevent their testimony from being tainted. For this reason, prosecutors will usually err on side of caution and say less, not more to victim: prosecutor doesn’t want to run risk of being accused of tainting victim’s testimony. I don’t think Trump’s testimony is an issue here.

    Is there some special circumstance here I’m missing? Maybe Trump wants to stay out of it because of Mueller investigation. But I don’t know why being a victim means he can’t know name and general outline of what’s happening.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      “Is there some special circumstance here I’m missing?”

      Yes. DJT is the president. He is also the victim.

      This is where you both have it right and wrong:

      “victims…if they are going to be a witness, there are rules severely limiting what they can know about the case and other witness’ testimony.That is to prevent their testimony from being tainted. For this reason, prosecutors will usually err on side of caution and say less, not more to victim: prosecutor doesn’t want to run risk of being accused of tainting victim’s testimony. I don’t think Trump’s testimony is an issue here.”

      You were doing great, right up to that last sentence. In point of fact, his testimony could very well wind up being an issue, so revert to your previous and correct thoughts.


      • Msher says:

        But that would be because he would be a witness, not because he is a victim. Sundance says he cannot know anything because he is a victim. I don’t know why that, per se, is correct.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Msher says:

        What is Trump going to be witness to? He was not privy to any of FBI or DoJ actions which are basis of investigation. This is not like a robbery where crime was committed on victim’s body. Even the wire taps are not something he would know about directly. It is NSA records, not his testimony, which establish those. Same with unmasking. I don’t believe he has any testimony relevant to actions taken by potential defendents. He can testify as to what they told him, but I don’t think that’s going to be relevant to any of the charges. Also, I said that I thought he should just be informed of general outline, not in great detail.

        See my post below objecting to your objection that his testimony could be an issue.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dustycowpoke says:

      Then you have a conflict of interest as Sundanece pointed out.PDJT is both victim and yet perp maybe.


    • Keebler ac says:

      President Trump has a right to representation as do all victims of crimes I would think! It’s the media who will turn this representation around to suggest that in his official capacity as president he did something more. Sessions maybe fears this too and is going the opposite way of the plaintiff(s).


  22. jbowen82 says:

    There were hundreds of agents, analysts, translators, technicians, supervisors, and clerical personnel involved in the domestic surveillance operation against the Republican candidate, President-elect, and President for over a year. “Just following orders” is not a valid excuse to a crime. I assume that the IG and prosecutor (probably an experienced AUSA) and their legal and investigative staffs are following the leads developed, building a case with evidence that will stand up in court, and using the smaller fish to get to the bigger fish. I believe many people involved here really believed that they were going to find Russian collusion and if they had to cut a few corners, they’d be vindicated in the end.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. James F says:

    Special Counsels are more for investigating to see if any crime has actually been committed.

    DOJ prosecutors are appointed when there is already sufficient evidence of crimes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • steph_gray says:

      Great point!


    • DixT says:

      That was my take, too. The IG had to have found evidence of a “crime,” or surely they would not have brought in an outside DOJ Prosecutor. I guess we need to give AG Sessions more credit than he’s been getting lately. When I hear the word Prosecutor, I’m thinking “indictments.”

      Liked by 2 people

  24. RLC2 says:

    I’ve been cross-posting to Instapundit once a day, to TLR on updates as they come in.
    Looks like someone is reporting on it, now- referenced Sundance and TLR.


  25. Donzo says:

    As an aside, assuming the best and the creatures from the black lagoon are held to account from bottom to top, it’s a mistake to believe such a resolution to the lawlessness of the last 8 years (and more) would heal America’s great political rift. If anyone thinks the Left is going to have a come-to-jesus moment – sorry, not bloody likely! If you think they are crazy now just wait until Obama or his minions are wearing stripes. That will be when the cold culture war becomes a hot one.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. mashall says:

    If an investigator continues to witness new, revealing evidence of crimes, and additional criminals, would he hold back until he has gathered as much as available then strike? Would he wait until there was no indication of new criminals or criminality to pursue? Akin to interrupting a criminal while they are confessing, let ’em talk. Then Strike!


  27. RLC2 says:

    Great work Sundance. Getting kudos over at Instapundit today.


  28. DixT says:

    And those 24 former FBI and DOJ officials that Trey Gowdy said only a Prosecutor or Special Counsel has the “authority” to subpoena for an interview, and a Grand Jury appearance, will be coming into this fray before too long, I would imagine. Instead of Russia, Russia, Russia—-my head is reeling from corruption, corruption, corruption!


  29. Madeline Huffnagle says:

    My faith in the AG was fading and this post this morning made my day.  Thanks very much.


  30. DixT says:

    This has to be the BEST article I have read, thus far, on the “deep state” corruption in the FBI and DOJ—-and we haven’t even gotten to the Brennan CIA, yet! Kudos to Sundance for the LOGIC and TIME that went into this article!

    And by the way, we sure haven’t heard much from the MSM about AG Session’s acknowledgement of ALREADY having hired “an outside DOJ Prosecutor,” have we???


  31. Laura Wesselmann says:

    Thanks for the ins and outs of this legal maze. My patience had worn thin as a hot-bed motel towel.


  32. Sunspy1 says:

    Lord have mercy ,this is a meaty article.I apreciate it &need to work on my attention span. I continue to support AG Sessions.


  33. iwitness02 says:

    Someone on twitter was hoping that this outside of Washington prosecutor was not Pete Behrara (not the correct spelling) . I remember him falling off the radar a few months back.


    • Matthew LeBlanc says:

      If it is Preete Bhara then all bets are off and Sessions is reincarnation of Benedict Arnold. That rumor would be a bridge too far to spend time on.


  34. Andy says:

    The exact role being played by this outside prosecutor is not clear. Just because he is a prosecutor doesn’t mean Sessions has given him the assignment to prosecute this case. I’m guessing what he’s doing is evaluating the case to see whether it’s appropriate for the appointment of a special counsel. Sessions has conducted this kind of review several times before. Sessions said, “I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations.” He did not say, “I have appointed a prosecutor.” He appointed him to “look at” the allegations, so it seems like he is conducting a review process of some kind, most likely to see if the allegations warrant the appointment of a special counsel.


    • Keebler ac says:

      That’s an interesting take. Like a consult. Provide him with recommendations since he’s recused especially on Clinton. The Clinton-Steele dossier is very much Clinton…and now it’s also Obama. There is no way for it to be done properly without a complete department or official crew of prosecutors. Some people were suggesting that a SC is only for identifying a crime has taken place. This simply is not true! And yes, crimes need to be identified first using evidence. So far, this has not happened yet.

      Also the problem has always been the DOJ and FBI not held accountable to the public. This is how Clinton, Soros, and the Podestas have been able to run rampant with their crimes against people. While I applaud the recent broadcast due to pressure, we must ‘t forget that unless we stand up fiercely against FBI and DOJ corruption, it will be business as usual and Sessions is no exception. There is no question to me that Rosenstein. Mueller and maybe even old establishment way Wray doesn’t get it, that holding back from the Oversight committee is the problem. They think it’s a turf war to protect their rights to function independently of accountability. No such thing. They’ve been spoiled for too long thinking they need not be accountable to the majority because of their legal training.

      It’s very apparent to me that there is arrogance and it’s time they show respect to T45 and his administration especially after the incredible wins yesterday with Chunkymeister.


      • Andy says:

        If we were to get a special counsel, the quality of the person selected will have a big impact on the investigation. Hopefully we don’t end up with a Robert Fisk type. An aggressive type like Mueller would be fine. Something else that will be important is the breadth of the mandate. We don’t want the mandate defined too narrow. Let’s sweep up as many of the conspirators as we can. Of course, as we’ve seen with Mueller, one crime can lead to another and so forth.

        I’ve seen Michael Mukasey’s name mentioned as the person Sessions is in contact with. He’s sharp and would do a good job. He’s been a federal judge and GW’s AG for awile.


        • Keebler ac says:

          Good point about the SC. Both a former judge and AG sounds like the combo treepers on both sides of the debate liked.


  35. Andy says:

    In fact, looking a little closer at Sessions’ language, he never mentions the word “prosecutor.” He simply identifies him as a “person outside of Washington” with “many years in the DOJ.” This sounds like a retired DOJ attorney whom he’s asking for advice,


    • Keebler ac says:

      I think you are right! Was Guiliani ever in the DOJ? I don’t trust just one guy, the OIG, to get the job done. He may have a staff of 400 but it doesn’t mean they are full time on the FIsa, and if they are, what’s taking so long then? I guess all the data has to be assimilated by the IG. I wonder who the back up is to the IG?


      • Andy says:

        Giuliani was the US Attorney for a district in NY, responsible for rolling up the Mafia. I’d love to see him as a special counsel, but I’ve seen somewhere he has some kind of scandal he’s dealing with. Still, he’s be fantastic.


  36. My guess is it’s none other than Rudy Giuliani, the man who took down the Mafia! MAGA!


  37. Larry says:

    What about Hilary? The AG should do his job, instead of auditioning for an acting part as the Cowardly Lion.


  38. jstanley01 says:

    New personnel is progress, but a genuine “fresh start” requires accountability, something I’ve never heard Sessions talk about.


  39. Vik says:

    Great analysis, SD… AG Sessions has been called The Silent Executioner (in AL); others called him Sly Fox… He is also known for his impeccable and thorough work.
    We are faced with draining a deep swamp that for decades has gotten away with murder, literally. we need to be patient, yet remain vigilant and questioning.


  40. LauraFl says:

    I think SD is over the target in explaining this. Mr Magoo’s demeanor has changed dramatically lately. Consider how difficult it must be to keep this all under wraps these many months. Besides the evidence of interviews and the twiddling thumbs of the five, his much brighter mood, consider how air tight every step must be to take down the biggest fish. I know if I were targeting that particular fish in this political climate, I would leave nothing to chance and I would use all my best people by the book. If indeed that person is the target, then, Yates, Lynch, Comey and yes, even, Hillary will just be side dishes.


  41. LM says:

    I have wondered why there was such secrecy and why so much has been done underr the radar.

    Being somehat left in the dark, many of us have been fighting discouragement and (speaking of myself) a feeling of impotent rage as we have viewed the unchecked viciousness of the Special Persecutor’s actions against the President and those who support him.

    However, reading the threats against the President coming from those-who-must-be-incdicted, and the violence of the left against all Deplorables, I believe that silence has been necessary in order to protect the lives and welfare of those who are on the frontlines ridding our country of evil, leftist, tyranny.

    God bless all.
    Thank you AG Sessions and White hats.
    Thank you President Trump.
    Thank you Treepers.
    Thank you Conservative media supporting the President (and facing persecution and financial ruin from the left.)
    Thank you Sundance.


  42. van winkle says:

    This is all a wonderful explanation. However, NO one knows what is going on, because it cant be revealed. So we are suppose to believe Sessions??
    Meanwhile most of the main players walk around free as a bird. Many are still employed in the
    DOJ and FBI. Shouldnt they be at least suspended without pay???
    Sorry but this whole thing still stinks!


  43. Donna in Oregon says:

    Listened to the interview video and Jeff Sessions refers to the issues with FISA etc. as “errors”.

    IG has staff of 500. What is the staff of Haber? Didn’t hear that. Did I miss something?


  44. Donna in Oregon says:

    When Rudy Giuliani went after the mob he utilized Washington DC & local LEOs:
    Giuliani received permission from Washington to pursue a case against the Mafia Commission. By 1984, 350 FBI agents and 100 New York Police detectives were investigating the Mob. At the time, an estimated 1,000 “made” men and 5,000 Mob associates lived in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and elsewhere.

    Giuliani decided to use RICO. Giuliani assigned federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff to take the Commission case to trial. The government called 207 witnesses.

    RICO cases take a lot of resources. Aside from the IG, I see Arkansas and Utah. Hillary Clinton’s scam was global. Will two offices will be able to do a global investigation with these resources?

    I just don’t see the staffing required. Maybe I’m wrong, but this looks more like a fishing expedition than the Grand Jury preparation that I dream of.


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