When former FBI ‘small group’ members Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Mike Kortan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were working on their political operation to protect Hillary Clinton and remove Donald Trump they had three specific journalists (narrative engineers) atop their speed dials.
Texts, emails, and documents released over the past three years showed that whenever the small group wanted to leak they preferred: Devlin Barrett, Robert Costa and Matt Zapotosky at the Washington Post. [Example – source, pg 5]
So when we see Barrett, Costa and Zapotosky getting the gang back together to write about the upcoming IG report, it is worth reviewing their carefully engineered narrative. [All emphasis mine]
(Via Washington Post) Justice Department officials are trying to release in the coming weeks a potentially explosive inspector general report about the FBI’s investigation into President Trump’s 2016 campaign, according to multiple people familiar with the effort.
Interesting start to the expository: “trying to release“; the implication here is somewhat of an internal struggle between two opposing forces. Those who are defending the deep state, and by extension the small group, and those attempting sunlight.
Of course the customary anonymous disclaimer “people familiar with the effort”, relates to those inside the FBI/DOJ who are still working earnestly to carry on the corrupt endeavor. Unfortunately it is not a surprise that FBI Director Chris Wray and AG Bill Barr have not removed the career resistance operatives inside the institutions.
[…] One person involved in the discussions said the target date for the report’s release has been Nov. 20, but another indicated that the Justice Department is unlikely to deliver it by then and that it is more likely to come after Thanksgiving because of the complicated and contentious mix of legal, classification and political issues at play.
Where “complicated and contentious” is again representative of the internal dynamic between those who are hell bent on covering-up the corruption, and those who are less inclined. Those who want the full disinfecting distribution want a faster release; those who want the diluted version, prefer delay.
[…] The report’s findings will mark a major public test of Attorney General William P. Barr’s credibility, given his past suggestions of significant problems with the investigative decisions made by former FBI leaders involved in the case.
Whereby if AG Bill Barr allows the toxic scale of the group’s activity to be diluted, then he will be “credible” to the institution. However, if Barr supports an aggressive report, which outlines the full scale of corruption, then he is “less credible” to those who cherish the institutions. All of the sources for this WaPo expository are, as you would expect, career members of the institutional preservation effort.
Despite the Mueller report stating conclusively that no Americans participated with any Russian interest to actively influence the 2016 election, the Washington Post must keep the resistance narrative. Hence: “might have conspired”.. Apparently the conduct being criminal in scope remains a concern for the usurping agents.
This paragraph is interesting. Aside from our previous predictions of how the internal battle would evidence by how the ‘executive summary’ is written; the small group members have not yet received their “Principal Review” segments.
This is specifically Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, Yates, Rosenstein and McCord speaking to the Washington Post. Those officials would likely be recipients of the report specific to their conduct. Apparently the principal review has not taken place.
Interesting projection here from within the small group in that they view any discussions between Bill Barr and politicians as a “planned rollout”. The rolling out of a specific narrative is exactly the process the small group used when they engaged with their media co-conspirators for the Russia Collusion narrative.
[…] Current and former law enforcement officials have said the Russia investigation began in late July 2016 with an examination of George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser whose statements and behavior raised suspicions among diplomats and intelligence officials. After Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey in May 2017, the Russia investigation was handed over to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who filed a lengthy two-volume report of his conclusions earlier this year, deciding there was no proof of a conspiracy between Trump associates and the Kremlin, and declining to reach a conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. Barr examined Mueller’s evidence and concluded he had not.
The small group is sticking to their origination date of July 31st for “Crossfire Hurricane” and they are informing all fellow participants to stick to that date.
[…] The current and former officials insist the investigation was handled correctly and carefully, and argue it would have been a dereliction of duty on their part not to investigate alarming allegations that members of a presidential campaign were conspiring with a foreign power. (read full article)
The engineers almost said by the book, but realized it might not be a good catch-phrase all things considered. Again, it’s interesting to pause and consider who was defining the crazy investigative predicate as “alarming allegations”?… when you consider they affirm all of the predicate surrounds George Papadopoulos (here’s where the Mifsud aspect is so key).
If Mifsud is a western intelligence asset, everything about the origination of crossfire hurricane is an extinction level event for the claims of the CIA, FBI and DOJ participants.
Keep in mind, a few days AFTER the Mueller team used the Papadopoulos mistake of wrongfully remembering the date of first contact with Mifsud to charge him with a 1001 violation of lying to investigators; and therein specifically identifying Mifsud as a Russian operative attempting to influence Papadopoulos; the same Joseph Mifsud is pictured (October 21st, 2017) hanging out with Boris Johnson & other officials in London.
If Mifsud, the Russian operative, was such a danger, why was he innocuously hanging out with western politicians without a care in the world? ….
Joseph Mifsud is the Maltese Fulcrum !