The DC Cover-up That’s As Big As Spygate…

Former U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, is scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing this upcoming Thursday at 10:00am.  There’s also an unreported background story connected to the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein and Ms. Liu so controversial, it’s as big as Spygate.

In the event any Senator on the approval committee would be brave enough to question the participant here’s the story:

EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.  In 2017 and 2018 Mr. Waldman represented the interests of dossier author Chris Steele and Russian Billionaire Oleg Deripaska.

There was some initial media discussion of the text messages, and some eyebrows raised over why the Vice-Chairman of the SSCI would make statements saying “he would rather not have a paper trail” around the Steele communication, but generally speaking the DC media dropped the story quickly.  It just didn’t fit the anti-Trump narrative in early 2018.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of media curiosity some rather elementary questions were never asked (let alone answered).  Questions including: •Why were the 2017 text messages between Mark Warner and Adam Waldman captured?  •Who captured them?.. and, perhaps more importantly: •why were they released?

The February 2018 story soon disappeared, and no-one ever paid enough attention to go back and see the answers to the questions….

We did.

EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced.  An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.

Mr. Wolfe was indicted for leaking information from within the SSCI to four journalists; and lying to FBI investigators.

Within the indictment we discover the FBI were conducting an ongoing leak investigation throughout 2017.  Within that investigation a top-secret document was transferred to the custody of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe on March 17, 2017.  The details inside that document were leaked to the media.

The indictment describes FBI investigators informing Mr. Wolfe in October of 2017 about their investigation of national security leaks.  In December of 2017 Mr. Wolfe was confronted with evidence of his leaking to journalists including a woman now working for the New York Times named Ali Watkins, with whom he was having a sexual relationship – implied as a possible quid-pro-quo.

Wolfe left the SSCI quietly in mid-December and resigned shortly thereafter.   No-one, outside of the principle characters involved, knows about the investigation until six months later, June 2018, when the indictment is made public.  [Keep this in mind]

The June 2018 media coverage of the Wolfe indictment primarily focused on the affair with Ms. Watkins and Wolfe’s lying to investigators.   Headlines quickly disappeared as the case moved into the formality of legal proceedings between the DOJ and Wolfe’s defense.

No-one drew a connection between the February ’18 publicity of SSCI Vice-Chairman Warner’s text messages and the June ’18 release of the FBI investigation of Wolfe from inside the SSCI the prior year (2017).

EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story.  On July 21st, 2018, the DOJ/FBI declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

The release was connected to a FOIA case filed by the New York Times the year prior [NOTE THIS].  There has never been a good explanation why the application was declassified and released.  Despite the pre-existing NYT FOIA case, it never made sense why the DOJ/FBI did not attempt to deny the FOIA request.  The request was a FOIA for FISA information, the highest security classification possible.  It would have been very easy to deny the FOIA simply because the NYT was seeking classified documents.  A no brainer for shielding any release.  FISA is classified “Top-Secret”.

So, given the nature of the FISA application itself; and considering the DOJ had denied a similar request from congress; why did the DOJ/FBI suddenly decide it was okay to release the FISA application to the public?

[Short Answer (ah-ha moment): The DOJ/FBI knew the New York Times already had it.]

The media discussion of the FISA application release was very heavy.  The story consumed a great deal of air time, print coverage and debate from the release on July 21st, 2018, all the way through to the Inspector General Horowitz report of December 2019, and that coverage continues through today.   However, just like the Warner Texts; and just like the Wolfe indictment; no-one bothered to go back and connect the three component stories.

♦ Within the Wolfe indictment you’ll notice the “Top Secret” document picked-up by SSCI Director James Wolfe took place on March 17th, 2017:

♦ Within the Mark Warner text messages you’ll note the SSCI Vice-Chairman went into the SSCI Secured Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on March 17th, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm:

♦ Within the declassified and released FISA application you’ll notice the copy date from the FISA clerk for the FISA application was March 17th, 2017:

The information within the three events (Warner Text release, Wolfe Indictment release, and Carter Page FISA release) shows the connection of the events.  James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA, delivered it to the SCIF, it was reviewed by SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner, and then leaked by James Wolfe.

It was the Carter Page FISA application that James Wolfe leaked to Ali Watkins as outlined within the unsealed June 2018 indictment.

Sidebar, a fourth albeit buried public release in December 14th 2018 confirmed everything.  The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked:

I only share the sidebar (out of chronological sequence) to emphasize there is no doubt it was the FISA application that James Wolfe leaked.  (Don’t get hung up here).

This explains (slightly, but there’s a much bigger story) why the DOJ/FBI released the FISA application in July 2018, as the result of a New York Times FOIA request.

The investigators within the DOJ/FBI knew the New York Times already had the FISA application from the James Wolfe leak to journalist Ali Watkins.

It’s going to get complex and I’m likely to lose all except the most dedicated readers who can understand what comes next…..

Keep in mind when the FISA court released the application copy to Wolfe on March 17th, 2017, there was only the original application from October 21st, 2016, and one renewal from January that existed.  [The release was March 17th, 2017 – the April and June 2017 renewals had not taken place.]

Additionally, within the July 2018 public release (of the March 17th 2017 copy), the FBI investigators redacted all dates relating to the copy they released to Wolfe.  AND, in all subsequent releases of any information from the FBI -through the declassification process- (including the initial version of the IG report on FISA) those dates were always redacted.

There has purposefully never been a clean copy release of the original FISA application and the three renewals.  Therefore there has never been a clean copy release without date redactions – which includes the FISC copy dated March 17th.

When the DOJ/FBI released their July 2018 FOIA compliant set of FISA application(s) they didn’t just print a new copy, instead they re-released the Wolfe version and then added the last two renewals.

RECAP Chronology:  February 2018 release of Warner Texts.  June 2018 unsealed Wolfe Indictment.  July 2018 release FISA application.  All three of these releases are connected to one much larger story.

Knowing that James Wolfe was caught by the FBI and DOJ leaking the FISA application, why wasn’t the SSCI Security Director ever charged with leaking classified information?

Here’s where the poop hits the fan.

Here’s the cover-up.

Here’s where another event comes in.

Keep in mind SSCI Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner was the impetus for the FISA Court releasing the March 17th copy; also keep in mind the purpose of the text messages between Senator Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman.

During his initial summer and fall negotiations with the DOJ, James Wolfe threatened to subpoena the SSCI in his defense.  The implication was that Wolfe was directed to leak the FISA by members of the committee; and/or Wolfe was operating independently but under the assumption of alignment with SSCI members who were not adverse to Wolfe’s leak.

The investigation of Wolfe (October through December 2017) explains how and why the Warner text messages surfaced in Feb 2018.  It’s highly likely Warner’s communication with Waldman was intercepted by FBI investigators who then questioned the Vice-Chairman about those texts.  Or it’s possible/probable the FBI investigators asked Warner if he was aware of Wolfe’s leaks.

That investigative scenario prompted Senator Warner to attempt to get out in front of the story about his secret and covert communication efforts to contact and meet with Christopher Steele.  Thus in February 2018 the Warner texts hit the media.  The texts go from February 2017 though May 2017 [SEE HERE] and encompass the exact period when Wolfe leaked the FISA application – March 2017 (with April discussion).

As the Wolfe defense team discussions with the DOJ played out throughout the fall of 2018, there was little movement. Then came another event, the November 2018 mid-term election where Democrats took control over the House.

Meanwhile, in the lame-duck congressional period Senators on the SSCI asked the DOJ to go easy on Wolfe:

Immediately after the 2018 mid-terms DC Attorney Jessie Liu dropped most of the charges against Wolfe, and he was allowed -under a plea agreement- to plead guilty to only one count of lying to investigators.

December 11th, DOJ sentencing memo [HERE], and then a very pissed-off FBI follow-up within the DOJ response to the Defense sentencing memo [HERE] dated December 14th.

In essence, after the November election, SSCI Director Wolfe was allowed to avoid prosecution for leaking top-secret classified documents; and the bigger issue was covered-up.

DAG Rod Rosenstein was in charge; the Mueller investigation was ongoing; and DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on the plea deal.

OPPORTUNITY – Ms. Jessie Liu is scheduled for her confirmation hearing on Thursday at 10:00am.  Ms. Liu will be under oath.  If any Senator on that committee is brave enough, they would ask:

♦ Did the DOJ or FBI have evidence that SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the Carter Page FISA application to the media?

We know the honest answer is yes.

The next follow up:

♦ Why was James Wolfe not prosecuted for that leak of classified information?

And then things would get really interesting… Consider the ramifications.

An honest answer would prove the media lied for 18 months about the content of the FISA application. They’ve had it since March 2017. That’s how the New York Times knew to FOIA it. That’s why the New York Times filed the FOIA, to use it more openly.

An honest answer would prove the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was a participating entity in the coup effort.

An honest answer would explain why the SSCI would only approve of nominees who would not expose their activity. Remember, the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI, DNI, etc. all require confirmation from the SSCI (including Chair and Vice-Chair); and the answer would highlight SSCI members were engaged in a seditious conspiracy against the office of the presidency.

An honest answer would explain how Vice-Chairman Mark Warner’s text messages surfaced. Mark Warner entered the dragnet of the FBI investigation of James Wolfe…. and he was questioned by the FBI about his text messages. THAT is why Warner got out in front of them.

An honest answer would also explain why former DOJ-NSD lawyer Michael Atkinson was recommended to become Intelligence Community Inspector General…. And why the SSCI approved. An honest answer would explain why ICIG Atkinson participated in the second soft-coup effort via the “whistle-blower.”

An honest answer would explain the unique nature of all the interests in/around Adam Schiff, Mark Warner, the House intel committee, the SSCI, the DOJ-NSD… Almost everything reconciles within the sunlight of an honest answer.

An honest answer would highlight several members of the 2016 U.S intel community oversight known as the “gang of eight” were participating in a covert effort against candidate Trump; and how some of the current Go8 members have legal exposure.

The ramifications are far reaching:

  • Who was Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and DC Attorney Jessie Liu protecting?
  • What institutional interests did Rod Rosenstein and Jessie Liu consider too stunning, too damaging, too overwhelming, to confront in their decision to allow such a weak plea contrast against such severe criminal conduct?
  • Is it even possible for the United States Dept. of Justice to conduct a trial where members of the Gang of Eight were implicated in the activity?
  • How could the institutions of the United States government survive the publicity of members within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence conspiring with foreign and domestic actors to eliminate the President of the United States?
  • How could the highest and most widely recognized U.S. media institutions (NYT, WaPo, CNN and more) survive exposure within that same trial.  The media caught participating in a government effort (receiving leaked classified information) intended to eliminate the presidency of Donald John Trump?

The downstream consequences are quite dramatic. The answer to those questions could create an explosion strong enough to split the atom within the swamp.

Here’s all the documents you need for citations:

.

.

.

.

.

…”Ms. Liu, did the DOJ have evidence that SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page?”…

They won’t ask.

Here’s the Link To The Committee Members

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Treason, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

664 Responses to The DC Cover-up That’s As Big As Spygate…

  1. Jimmy Jack says:

    Great post SD.
    1. I hope this lays to rest for many exactly what kind of swamp creature Rosenstein is.

    2. Is it even possible for the United States Dept. of Justice to conduct a trial where members of the Gang of Eight were implicated in the activity?
    I’d suggest no and that military tribunals may indeed be necessary. That said I don’t know how I’d trust this either as we have seen how many of those Generals are corrupt and working against Trump – Petreus, Jones, Kelly & Mattis come to mind immediately.

    3. How could the institutions of the United States government survive the publicity of members within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence conspiring with foreign and domestic actors to eliminate the President of the United States?

    Some of those institutions will fall – and they should. They are working against the American people and therefore have no right to exist.

    What a timeline folks. Still praying for the exposure of wrong doing and a restoration for the country. God be with us.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. abel says:

    incredible how good sundance is getting at writing years worth of analysis succinctly in a quick read. great service to us.
    not seeing how this doesnt end up in hangings and if it doesnt it ends up in guns and countless hits and murders. exposing all
    is our only hope.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ike says:

    Wow this is Pulitzer level stuff…kudos

    Liked by 1 person

    • jello333 says:

      Yeah, and only for about the 5th time since I arrived here early 2012. Lots of things in life aren’t “fair”… and Sundance not having a few Pulitzers is definitely one of them.

      Like

  4. Dave Huff says:

    At what point does it become treason?

    Like

    • Don L says:

      Maybe way back it already was? The question now is, when will it be “called’ what it is, treason?

      Like

    • CountryDoc says:

      It cannot effectively become treason unless/until a critical mass of people of the Republic value their republic enough not only to lay down their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for it, but also value it enough to demand the life of those wolf in sheeps clothing citizens who try to take it away from us.

      It can be treason on paper, but it is not really treason until We the People are ready to eliminate those who try to steal the Republic.

      Like

  5. Terry Gilmour says:

    When will we get to Rudy Contreras and to Joe Pientka? I’m anxious to see how their “crimes” play out and their “escapes” from prosecution are facilitated.

    Like

  6. Corruption is a cancer that will eventually kill the host, but the cure can be as equally deadly.
    I believe Trump has resisted a full-on response to this because he does not see a decimated government as making America great again.
    In the end, they may give him no other choice.

    Like

  7. John Galted says:

    Wow this is amazing research and actual deep dive journalism. I nominate Sundance for a Pulitzer!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. PatternSeerPatriot says:

    And I share and share and share and nobody sees it. Maybe I should print copies and go stand at a busy intersection? Beyond frustrated.

    Like

  9. GTOGUY says:

    I personally think that AG Barr should not be giving interviews regarding any Spygate or any ongoing DOJ investigations. Especially regarding Ukraine information gathering or anything related to Giuliani. That is what sets the press and the Democrats off to call for his recusal. Just start indicting them and post the indictments on the DOJ website or give a press conference on them when they are released.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Rodney Short says:

    Bravo Sundance you brought alot out into the light.

    Like

  11. This stinks worse than Hillary’s diaper.

    Like

  12. Michal Klein says:

    How is it possible that Senator Mark Warner was allowed a vote on impeachment? If the Senate is considered a jury, how is someone intimately connected to Russiagate allowed on that jury, what kind of justice/oversight system is this???

    Like

    • vladdy says:

      I remember hearing a clip or hearing about a clip, maybe last summer (and cannot recall where), but it has stuck with me since…It was Mark Warner, well-oiled at some gathering, speaking about “You ain’t seen nothing yet”—and “There’s stuff going on here that would blow everybody away if it came out.”

      Odd, I don’t know if I read it or heard someone on a talk show quoting him, but that quote was so distinctive, and I was already so caught up in what was happening, that everytime I’ve heard or seen Warner’s name since, I have thought about that quote.

      Maybe someone else remembers.

      Like

  13. james lee says:

    Problem not addressed is that Barr as Director of CNN/TimeWarner thru late 2018 is conflicted and has liability for actions of CNN during the 2016-2018 period which means he is a limited hangout kabuki cover-up master in league with the deep state. Further he has liability and is conflicted from his law firm’s representation of Jeffrey Epstein and his father’s personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This explains why James Comey’s daughter was the lead prosecutor on the Epstein case and why she looked the other way when all of the video cam evidence from the Bureau of Prisons disappeared and in exchange its THE ONLY REASON to explain why Barr/DOJ has not prosecuted James Comey….

    Like

  14. MagicTwanger says:

    Perhaps it was discovered that one of the senators on the Banking Committee was preparing to ask the very question you mentioned, and that was why Liu’s nomination was withdrawn.

    Like

  15. AlgorythemQ says:

    “Sometimes a leak turns into a flood. “

    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