New York Times Confirms Peter Strzok Team Underling, Kevin Clinesmith, is FBI Lawyer Who Altered FISA Application…

The New York Times is confirming that Kevin Clinesmith is the “low-level lawyer” within the FBI who doctored evidence within the Carter Page FISA application.

As anticipated, the DOJ and FBI ‘small group’ leaks are from their individual review of a heavily compartmented IG report; and now they are being selectively shaped by the favorite ‘small group’ media network: NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Politico et al.

Remember, each of the principals only was able to see the draft of the IG report specific to their outline therein.  All principal reviews were very compartmented.  No principal has any idea what the bottom line conclusions are from the totality of the assembled compartments.  An example of this is in the very first paragraph.

The New York Times article is purposefully heavy on narrative engineering.  However, given how the accountability trends are identified by the specifics of the narrative construction, that’s not a bad thing.  As CTH outlined in anticipation of this phase, take the first wave of media justification with a grain-of-salt. There are two clear angles visible in the narrative assembly.   First, here is the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft.

One can read that from the perspective of accountability and become frustrated.  However, notice the construction closely: “to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump”… or put another way, there was an “abuse of power”, but that abuse cannot specifically be attributed to bias against the President.  Key point: there was an “abuse of power”, it is in the motive for that abuse where narratives step in.

Secondly on this point… CTH has specifically, intentionally and repeatedly outlined how the “bias” issue was a foregone conclusion ever since the July 2018 IG report of FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation outlined the same position.   If the IG report of the DOJ/FBI conduct in the “mid-year-exam” found no overarching political bias; and all of the principals were exactly the same in the 2019 report on the Carter Page surveillance issue; it stands to reason that same lack of bias conclusion would extend.

[…] Investigators for the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said.

Mr. Horowitz referred his findings about Mr. Clinesmith to prosecutors for a potential criminal charge. Mr. Clinesmith left the Russia investigation in February 2018 after the inspector general identified him as one of a handful of F.B.I. officials who expressed animus toward Mr. Trump in text messages and resigned about two months ago, after the inspector general’s team interviewed him.

Three points here: (1) While Clinesmith, as a normal function of his FBI job, did not report to Peter Strzok, when the teams were assembled for MYE, Crossfire Hurricane, and Robert Mueller investigation, Clinesmith DID work directly for Peter Strzok.  When the teams were selected, Kevin Clinesmith reported to Peter Strzok.  Therefore when the inappropriate behavior was identified; and when the action of manipulating FISA evidence was done; Kevin Clinesmith was reporting directly to FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok.

(2) Kevin Clinesmith remained in the FBI during the entirety of the Horowitz investigation. He was not released until the investigation was complete and the draft report was submitted.  So the FBI knew they had a problem with Clinesmith back in February of 2018 and he was allowed to continue work until September of this year. It would seem obvious he was being monitored.

(3) Clinesmith’s status during the investigation aligns with another Main Justice employee also connected to the FISA process who was similarly in position throughout and also left in September 2019.  That would be Tashina Guahar.

[…] More broadly, Mr. Horowitz’s report, to be made public on Dec. 9, portrays the overall effort to seek the wiretap order and its renewals as sloppy and unprofessional, according to the people familiar with it. He will also sharply criticize as careless one of the F.B.I. case agents in New York handling the matter, they said.

In my opinion, the report is going to be much more than that.  Why? Because they didn’t just get a ‘wiretap’, they got a Title-1 FISA authorized surveillance warrant; the most extensive and intrusive form of surveillance warrant possible.  A Title-1 warrant allows any and all surveillance. Wiretaps, bugs, electronic surveillance, physical surveillance, the works.  A Title-1 warrant is used against suspected terrorists in the U.S.

[…] In particular, while Mr. Horowitz criticizes F.B.I. leadership for its handling of the highly fraught Russia investigation in some ways, he made no finding of politically biased actions by top officials Mr. Trump has vilified like the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy who temporarily ran the bureau after the president fired Mr. Comey in 2017; and Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent.

Notice the contradiction and the parsing: “in some ways he made no finding of politically biased actions“…  Some ways?  So there are findings of bias, just not in all ways.  Notice how they repeat a needed narrative tone, yet simultaneously contradicting their lead paragraph.

Again, take this stuff with the proverbial grain of salt.  This is the “small group” selling their narrative through their media allies.  They are trying to make an argument that they are simultaneously undermining.  That’s what happens in the narrative engineering process.

This entire NYT article is fraught with the intent to be obtuse.

[…] The early accounts of the report suggest that it is likely to stoke the debate over the investigation without definitively resolving it, by offering both sides different conclusions they can point to as vindication for their rival worldviews.

[…] The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first approved wiretapping Mr. Page, who had close ties to Russia, as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power in October 2016, after he had left the campaign.

The Justice Department obtained three renewal orders. The paperwork associated with the renewal applications contained information that should have been left out, and vice versa, the people briefed on the draft report said.

“and vice versa”, meaning there was information that should have been included.  Yes, that would be the exculpatory information…. the absence therein speaks to the motive of assembly.

The email Mr. Clinesmith handled was a factor during the wiretap renewal process, according to the people.

Mr. Clinesmith took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own understanding.

Mr. Clinesmith included this altered email in a package that he compiled for another F.B.I. official to read in preparation for signing an affidavit that would be submitted to the court attesting to the facts and analysis in the wiretap application.

The details of the email are apparently classified and may not be made public even when the report is unveiled.

[…] Additionally, Mr. Clinesmith worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia investigation. He was among the F.B.I. officials removed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, after Mr. Horowitz found text messages expressing political animus against Mr. Trump.

Wait, the article just said, including the lead paragraph, Horowitz found no evidence of political bias?

Shortly after Mr. Trump’s election victory, for example, Mr. Clinesmith texted another official that “the crazies won finally,” disparaged Mr. Trump’s health care and immigration agendas, and called Vice President Mike Pence “stupid.” In another text, he wrote, in the context of a question about whether he intended to stay in government, “viva la resistance.”

In a June 2018 report by Mr. Horowitz about that and other politically charged texts, which identified him as “F.B.I. Attorney 2,” Mr. Clinesmith said he was expressing his personal views but did not let them affect his official actions.

The inspector general apparently did not assert in the draft report that any of the problems he found were so material that the court would have rejected the Justice Department’s requests to continue surveilling Mr. Page. But the people familiar with the draft were uncertain about whether Mr. Horowitz said the problems were immaterial, or instead avoided taking a position on that question.

[…] The report is also said to conclude that Joseph Mifsud, a Russia-linked professor who told a Trump campaign official that Russia had damaging information on Mrs. Clinton in the form of hacked Democratic emails — a key fact used to open the investigation — was not an F.B.I. informant. That undercuts an assertion of conservative critics of the inquiry.

No-one in conservative critic circles said Mifsud was an “FBI informant.”  The concern is whether he is a CIA, or Western Intelligence, operative…. not FBI.

You can continue reading the NYT article here.  The bottom line is there is going to be much more than presented in these weak defenses and media constructs.

Having read the initial round of justifications and defenses, CTH is more optimistic than a week ago on the issue of accountability.  It won’t stop at Kevin Clinesmith.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY. Bookmark the permalink.

342 Responses to New York Times Confirms Peter Strzok Team Underling, Kevin Clinesmith, is FBI Lawyer Who Altered FISA Application…

  1. John55 says:

    The GOP Senate leadership are leaning HARD on Graham to not investigate Joe Biden. Why, it’s almost like the top Congressional Republicans are playing for the other team.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/466207-gop-cautions-graham-against-hauling-biden-before-senate

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sentient says:

      Can the president’s legal counsel call witnesses in a senate trial? I’d be calling Joe Biden, Hoover Biden, Adam Schiff, and any of the Ukies who had any input into the Steele dossier.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John55 says:

        Trump’s defense team will not be permitted by this supposedly “Republican” Senate to call the Bidens in an impeachment trial. They, and the Steele Dossier, will be deemed out of bounds for that proceeding. If they won’t let Graham ask him questions now they won’t let Trumps lawyers ask him questions later.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bogeyfree says:

        According to Jay Sekulow he said both McConnell and Schumer must agree on the Senate trial rules which I assume includes the witness list.

        But the other way to restrict witnesses is by setting the rules to only allow the questioning to be centered on PT’s call and those people involved.

        IMO this is a huge tell once they get set and may give us an indication if this is a setup.

        Liked by 3 people

        • John55 says:

          It’s the Republican controlled Senate, so it goes without saying that they will do their utmost to help the Democrats take down Trump. Their every action from January 2017 onward has been in the furtherance of that goal, from their intense loyalty to Mueller and his corrupt investigation to their refusal to call any of the known bad actors in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/State Dept in for questioning.

          Like

        • Ray Runge says:

          Bogey, the moment is huge. Are we to stand up for our constitutional republic or shall we continue to contour our justice system for the benefit of those in “the club”.

          Like

        • John55 says:

          >>” both McConnell and Schumer must agree on the Senate trial rules which I assume includes the witness list.”

          There is no “must” about it. The Senate makes its own rules, just as the House makes the rules for the House. Fifty-one Senators can scrap whatever rules are currently in place and replace them with different rules.

          McConnell and friends do not WANT to change the rules to help Trump and hinder the Democrats. But they could certainly do so if they wanted to.

          Like

          • Bogeyfree says:

            Absolutely wrong, a caller into the Jay Sekulow show and Jay is PT’s Attorney asked this question and Jay said the Senate never changed their rules like Pelosi did when the new House was seated and thus the current rules in place say that BOTH the majority and minority MUST agree to the rules for any impeachment trial.

            I would assume Jay knows what he is talking about.

            Like

            • swimeasy says:

              Bogey, my ROLCON radar is getting pinged.

              Like

            • John55 says:

              The current rules can be changed. The rules are whatever fifty-one Senators say they are. I repeat, McConnell and the Republicans do not WANT to change the rules, but they clearly have the power to do so, and have always had that power. They knew impeachment was coming down the pike as soon as their Dem friends won back the House.

              If there is one thing the Senate Republicans are really good at, it is coming up with creative excuses for why the Democrats retain control of the Senate even when they are in the minority.

              Like

        • swimeasy says:

          According to the Spectator article I posted, the scope of witnesses is defined by the Articles of Impeachment. The POTUS’s team would be entitled to calling all relevant witnesses based on the articles. Sekulow is a savvy litigator who is diplomatic but not prone to give up too much information about a case when interviewed. I doubt POTUS arrived at his position of wanting a trial without speaking with Sekulow.

          Like

        • sickconservative says:

          The rules should be the same as the house at this point the same as the Shitt show at this point.

          Like

      • bluenova1971 says:

        “Hoover” Biden may have been a typo, but it gave me inspiration…

        How about “Homer” Biden? Seems quite fitting for this ne’er do well.

        Like

      • bluenova1971 says:

        “Hoover” Biden may have been a typo, but it gave me inspiration…

        How about “Homer” Biden? Seems quite fitting for this ne’er do well.

        Like

      • swimeasy says:

        Sentient, you may be interested in reading this article in full:

        “…they’ll all go under oath to be cross-examined without end by the best trial lawyers money can buy — with the unlimited resources of the White House and the executive branch generating evidence to support and direct those questions…”

        https://spectator.org/absolutely-lets-have-an-impeachment-trial/

        Like

        • John55 says:

          You are citing some anonymous internet expert called Hyram F. Suddfluffel as a binding legal authority? The guy does not know what he’s talking about.

          >>” .. the President’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT.”

          No, they won’t. Schumer and McConnell, along with John Roberts, will decide what witnesses may be called and what subjects may be brought up. And all three of those men hate Trump.

          Like

    • individualright says:

      Is graham investigating Biden from the Chair of the committee that Grassley will resume later on?

      Like

    • telemon1 says:

      Totally (sorry, I’m a SoCal surf rat). They’re all the guys who were part of the 100 day plan to out Trump before he made the primaries. Graham, if he knew what was good for him would ignore the hell out of them, and see it through.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Tom says:

      There’s only one team within the congress critters. It’s the grab all the money while you can team, and F the American people.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Deb says:

      McCain would be implicates as well.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kaco says:

      Holy cow, what’s this all about?

      “Giuliani has lost some credibility with GOP lawmakers after two associates who helped him compile information on Ukrainian corruption were arrested at Washington Dulles International Airport last week trying to leave the country.”

      I tried looking it up but can’t find a probable unbiased story.

      Like

      • John55 says:

        I don’t know what that means either. Probably they are talking about the two Ukrainians who our corrupt SDNY are charging for money laundering.

        Like

      • Bogeyfree says:

        Giuliani addressed this and said he didn’t know Ukraine very well and even where to begin to look to find the guys he was looking for so he needed a couple of people or scouts who knew the country well and knew how to find people who didn’t want to be found.

        So you can imagine the two guys he got who he did say found the guys he was looking for, may not have had the best credentials.

        I see nothing wrong with it. The left is just trying to dirty up Giuliani by association IMO.

        Like

      • Roni says:

        Guiliani spoke about this in a Glenn Beck interview on YouTube this week.

        Like

    • cantcforest says:

      Do you, my fellow Treepers, not see how 85-90% of Congress is taking taxpayer dollars as kickback from corrupt governments?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Roni says:

      Grassley and Johnson have requested Archives release notes of 2016 WH meeting between Obama, DNC, Ukrainians. I believe Treasury is also tasked with researching Biden info.

      Like

  2. individualright says:

    Well, it now makes sense why they say what Clinesmith did, did not affect the original FISA request. CNN just let it slip …..Clinesmith changed the request for an extension.

    Like

    • Right to reply says:

      So there was already a FISA on Page… Obviously so they could spy on anyone to do with Page’s previous work for the FBI/CIA with the Russians..

      Like

  3. Daniel says:

    Lawyers do not typically act on their own accord. And when they do, they generally choose the most safe option. He is likely to cooperate and give up others and especially Strzok. I actually expect lots are giving each other up though. The same personalities as Strzok’s are weak in the end. They did it because they thought they would be immune.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ann says:

      Daniel,
      Strrzok is scarey, just knowing the Bureau entrusted him w authority is terrifying.

      But you say he is weak in the end? I’m glad to know that we still have some people who are capable of interrogating & prosecuting him. ♥️🇺🇸🦅

      Liked by 1 person

    • Newhere says:

      That’s what I was thinking. Especially the line attorney. I can’t imagine any government line attorney going criminally rogue, especially one who works for the friggin FBI.

      Whatever the IG report does to whitewash — I don’t think it’s going to cut it this time to simply throw low-level staff under the bus. With years of teasing and build-up, it’ll have to be more subtle.

      SD’s right … if this is all they could muster, it seems they either really don’t know much about the consequential parts of the report, or they do and there actually ARE some consequential parts, or a mix of both.

      Like

    • Ray Runge says:

      So possibly true Daniel. First, the DoJ will require a brave should to agree to work inside a court room.

      Like

  4. Gary Thomson says:

    Kevin Clinesmith – Another Pajama Boy look-alike!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. telemon1 says:

    Funny how all the Dem leadership, especially Schiff, look like the kind of folks that sat alone during recess.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. FPCHmom says:

    Shem has a good analysis too of the article in this thread –

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Jason Ross says:

    What percentage of the U.S. population takes as fact the constant narrative engineering?? Is legacy media really just meant for people with below-average IQs? Who is the NYT and WashPo really kidding? Themselves? They are paying their own salaries after all.

    Like

  8. Bill Hollinger says:

    Thank you Sundance for making these observations. My blood pressure is back in the normal range again.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. TradeBait says:

    One thing a reader can always be sure about, the NYT will be 99% disinformation, deflection and manipulation. The remaining 1% will be the obits.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. WES says:

    If Clinsmith is even charged with anything what is the worst he will face?

    A few weeks/months maybe?

    Probably not enough to even lose his right to practice law.

    Like

  11. T2020 says:

    We all know the deep septic has nothing left but to lie 24/7/365. Anything wapo, ny slimes and cnn prints is usually a lie. Especially when it comes to covering for the contents of the toilet bowl in dc. If it looks like poop and smells like poop, etc. Wait for the report and see what Durham does. POTUS will pull out all the stops if there aren’t some serious indictments.

    Like

  12. Reserved55 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Linus in W.PA. says:

    If this Clinesmith fool was ‘intimate’ with the Moyer thing…………………………………..

    ………………………………..ewwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  14. HeelinVA says:

    Hopefully there’s some tasty barium in those IG report portions shared with named persons

    Like

  15. Okay, here’s the upcoming narrative if you’re still trying to figure it out:
    Much like Comey’s manufactured ‘intent’ requirement in exculpating Hillary’s email handling, you are seeing the forming narrative of EXCUSING the top culprits in FISA abuse from their behavior by claiming their lack of provable ‘bias’ in their actions will prevent them from being prosecuted.
    Barf.

    Like

  16. Kleen says:

    Ohhhh things make sense now;

    Dude was caught with falsifying evidence for a renewal not to open the FISA investigation
    That’s why what he did, didn’t change the origin of the investigation.

    Jeff Carlson

    4h4 hours ago
    More
    The Justice Department obtained three renewal orders. The paperwork associated with the renewal applications contained information that should have been left out, and vice versa.

    The email Mr. Clinesmith handled was a factor during the wiretap renewal process.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. individualright says:

    So the corrupt DOJ/FBI got a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page. That let them spy on whoever Page came in contact with. Page didn’t get charged with anything because he is CIA and knew what they were doing. So what if the white hats used the same FISA while it was current to spy on ALL the people Page came in contact with….including the corrupt FBI who were in contact with Page?

    gets really interesting.
    Same for Papa D. If there was a FISA on him, White hats could downstream spy on all the people who came in contact with him…including Halper

    Like

  18. islandpalmtrees says:

    Based on the comments below: everyone in the compartment must have known about the 302 contents to include changes. Especially when you review the previous work down by Sundance.

    WhiteBoard, are you asking if this could have happen – people like Comey signed off on the FISA warrants because the text within the Carter Page warrant and its warrant extensions were based on altered information improperly placed their by others? And, that the signers of the warrant had no idea that the text had been altered?

    November 22, 2019 at 6:33 pm
    @4:08PM today Emily Componlo on the Five today. As a federal authority, I worked closely with the ODGC on every thing, multiple actions. I never submitted one word without many eyes on their part with confirmation from my team and theirs. So this business about a rogue line authority is totally unbelievable!

    Like

  19. JohnCasper says:

    Let’s blame it all on the nerd!
    – Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey

    Like

  20. Judy says:

    Clinesmith ‘IS NOT’ a low level attorney!!!!!!!

    Like

  21. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Woah.

    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 )

Connecting to %s