A key point to finding truth in any theory is to apply the scientific method to the research; ie. question the assumption, reverse the hypothesis.
Throughout the research into the Machiavellian constructs of “Spygate” and the subsequent Mueller investigation, there have always been larger questions behind the stories. It is a fact that most of the evidence surfaced after General Michael Flynn entered a plea agreement with special counsel Mueller on November 30th, 2017.
Why were the original Page/Strzok text messages released to the public in December 2017, and January 2018? Perhaps more importantly: Who did the redactions within the text messages prior to their release? And why were those redactions ever made?
There’s a bunch of ‘unofficial’ evidence, or data-points, that no-one can explain how or why they came to be visible. The data did not surface sequentially; but it surely surfaced purposefully from within the apparatus of government.
Just like the questions about who redacted information inside the 600 pages text messages between DOJ/FBI Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI investigator Peter Strzok; putting the downstream data-points together leads to a series of questions that remain the subject of much speculation through today:
- How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?
- Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?
- Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?
- Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? Why?
- Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?
- Why be so specific about details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?
- Who made the decision (FISA ap) NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?
- Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence/information coming from?
For a long time CTH has looked at these questions from the position that the information was adverse to the interests of the DOJ; therefore we operated on the assumption that someone within the apparatus of government was leaving a trail of information with good intention. However, over time – and with the absence of any accountability being delivered, there is also another motive that deserves attention and review.
There is a flip-side motive to these releases.
It is entirely possible this information was made public in an effort to tip-off a wide net of corrupt officials who participated in the largest abuse of power in history.
Consider four specific data-sets of information that were made public:
- The redacted Strzok/Page text messages (released Dec ’17, Jan ’18).
- The Text messages from SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner (released Feb ’18)
- The unnecessary details within the James Wolfe indictment (released June ’18)
- The surprise release of the Carter Page FISA application (released July ’18)
The important notations here are: (1) three of the four sets of data were released without any specific purpose (LP/PS Text messages, Warner texts, FISA App); (2) no-one knows why those three data points were released; (3) no-one knows who released them; (4) no-one knows who redacted the text messages; (5) the FISC Clerk Stamp (FISA) appears to have been intentionally left unredacted; (6) the specificity within the page #6 data within the Wolfe indictment was unnecessary for the direct purpose, yet important for the indirect purpose of connecting the data; (7) the Wolfe indictment was unsealed six months after he was caught (Dec ’17); and (8) NONE of these four sets of data were essential information at the time they were released.
This tells me, someone wanted this information into the bloodstream of public knowledge; yet none of this information was part of an official release; except the Wolfe indictment – yet it contained unnecessary specificity within the page-6 details when unsealed.
This brings us to the critical question: Who? Who wanted this out there?
The answer to that question is uniquely narrow when you think about the documents and who held proprietary ownership to authorize the release.
Because of the documents in question, the granting authority would need to be inside the DOJ. Because of the content of the documents, the approver would have to be important enough to have access and knowledge of the bigger dynamic at play. This person or group would also need to be high enough in the food chain to authorize the FISA release and have control over the redaction decision process (leaving the FISC Clerk stamp date visible). This person/group would have to be high enough to ‘unofficially’ release the Warner text messages (example), and yet not worried about administrative punishment after doing it.
In essence, these release decisions -and the filtering of specifics therein- were made at the highest levels of authority within the Department of Justice.
Now, we move toward the motive question.
If you think about a corrupt institution containing stakeholders with both good and bad motives, there’s a solid argument to be made -especially based on hindsight- that bad actors within the organization were pushing this information into the public bloodstream in an effort to tip-off cooperating/participating bad actors who had a role within the conspiracy. In essence, all damaging evidence against their endeavor was made public to allow each person to create their defense.
In this deep state scenario, the granular details (evidence) of what investigating officials were uncovering was intentionally, albeit unofficially, pushed out. Because of the nature of the material, only those corrupt entities who participated would know the specific value and importance of each release. They would know what investigators had against them.
One example is the Wolfe indictment. By outlining exactly how Senate Security Officer James Wolfe was caught leaking classified and top secret intelligence, but not charging him with the unlawful activity outlined therein, all of those who were participating in the leak schemes could cover their tracks and modify their activity.
Another example is the Page/Strzok messages. By pushing those messages out, those who were involved in the conspiracy could evaluate their risk and frame their defense. Those bad actors would likely know what is under the redactions because they directly participated.
By releasing details of the secret back-channel communication between Senator Mark Warner and lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman again the participants would have an opportunity to construct alternative explanations for the contacts and communication. The SSCI would also know the scope of what investigators knew about the evidence.
By making the Carter Page FISA application public, all of the (foreign and domestic) entities who participated in the larger ‘Spygate’ construct would also have a head’s-up on how their involvement was used. Simultaneously, by leaving the FISC Clerk Stamp visible those who participated in the leaks – would be tipped off to a leak hunt method (date changes).
Within the flip-side-motive scenario we find a strong likelihood the bad actors inside the conspiracy have been able to formulate their defense strategy for more than a year. In essence the conspiracy crew, and their lawfare defenders, have known the evidence against them. The very specific evidence.
Secondly, if this unnerving perspective is accurate, in addition to explaining why we have not witnessed any accountability this would almost certainly indicate special counsel Robert Mueller and AAG Rod Rosenstein hold a duplicitous (institutionally saving) intent.
♦(1) Create a Special Counsel investigation – By creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation. Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation. In this way Mueller provides cover for officials.
♦(2) Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2016, 2016, 2017. Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration.
♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry. Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe. In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state.
♦(4) Use the authority within the investigation, and the control parameters therein, to keep those involved in the original conspiracy informed about any evidence against them.
In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective.