Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released 11 transcripts of interviews conducted during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry into the origins and aftermath of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.  (press release)

1. Handling Agent 1: Interviewed on Tuesday, March 3, 2020 (Transcript)
2. Michael B. Steinbach: Interviewed on Friday, June 12, 2020 (Transcript)
3. Stephen C. Laycock: Interviewed on Monday, June 15, 2020 (Transcript)
4. Dana J. Boente: Interviewed on Monday, June 22, 2020 (Transcript)
5. Bruce Ohr: Interviewed on Tuesday, June 30, 2020 (Transcript)
6. Stuart Evans: Interviewed on Friday, July 31, 2020 (Transcript)
7. Supervisory Special Agent 1: [Joseph Pientka, the name no-one is allowed to repeat] Thursday, August 27, 2020 (Transcript)
8. Jonathan Moffa: Interviewed on Wednesday, September 9, 2020 (Transcript)
9. Deputy Chief, Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, Justice Department: Interviewed on Friday, September 18, 2020 (Transcript)
10. Case Agent 1: Interviewed on Friday, September 25, 2020 (Transcript)
11. Supervisory Intelligence Analyst: Interviewed on Thursday, October 29, 2020 (Transcript)

“The bottom line is that going forward we must have more checks and balances when it comes to political investigations. We must have more meaningful sign-offs on warrant applications, and we need to restore the trust to the American people in this system.”  – Press Release

Lots of reading to do… I shall be starting with #4 Dana Boente, the FBI legal counsel hired by FBI Director Chris Wray who was removed from his position by AG Bill Barr.

The “EC” or electronic communication that started the July 31st counterintelligence operation was one of the original declassification requests from Devin Nunes original bucket list in 2018.   The EC has been declassified and Judicial Watch received it.

Originally the EC was presumed to be a CIA communication to the FBI detailing the need for a counterintelligence investigation; however, the EC as presented is originated by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and centers around George Papadopoulos.

This means Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, was predicated based on gossip, innuendo and rumors related to George Papadopoulos.   The information was relayed by Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer.

(Judicial Watch) […] The redacted document details seeming third hand information that the Russian government “had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President.” The document also alleges Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, claimed to an unnamed party that “they (the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” (more)

The EC is below:

(more…)

Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the 2016 operation against President Trump.  During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John Brennan.
First, here’s a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where Bartiromo asks the same question.  [hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]

.
Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for Bartiromo’s assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.
(more…)

Early May 2016

After the third reading of the strategically worded Weissmann/Mueller report, we are able to reconcile some issues. This outline reconciles the oddly worded Weissmann/Mueller claim to the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation known as “crossfire hurricane” on July 31st, 2016.
It must be first noted that Devin Nunes has outlined the two-page “Electronic Communication” or “EC” from CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey was not from official intelligence channels. Meaning the intelligence used to originate Crossfire Hurricane did not come through officials Five-Eyes intelligence communication.
When we reviewed the documents recently released by the Australian government, there was a disparity between the dates of George Papadopoulos meeting Australia’s High Commissioner Alexander Downer. The Weissmann report seemed to put the meeting as May 6th, 2016, but Papadopoulos and Downer (Australian docs) put the London meeting on May 10th.
(more…)

This is one of those rare interviews where granular substance surfaces.  On a particular issue Trey Gowdy is a valuable SME.  Gowdy has seen all of the classified documentary evidence that surrounds the July 31, 2016, FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign to include Crossfire Hurricane FISA documents, and issues related to “spygate”.  Gowdy was one of the few who reviewed all source documents.
In this interview Gowdy draws a distinction between 2016 CH (spygate) and what Andrew McCabe is discussing; highlighting how the investigative issues McCabe continues to talk about are the two additional FBI investigations, one counterintelligence and one criminal, McCabe started on May 10th, 2017. WATCH:

.
For sake of brevity there are essentially three investigations: ♦One counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, began on July 31, 2016, into the Trump campaign and possible Russia involvement.  ♦One counterintelligence investigation that McCabe started on May 10th, 2017, (Trump as the target w/Russia); and ♦one criminal investigation (Trump obstruction) that also began on May 10th, 2017.
(more…)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.  The primary discussion topics are the refusal of the DOJ to turn over origination documents; and the FBI using FISA surveillance, active measures, and informants paid by the U.S. government to target political opposition.

(more…)

U.S. intelligence officials who participated in the 2016 Russian interference narrative/scheme are now attempting to justify their conspiratorial conduct with leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.  Their leaks are a transparent effort to justify prior conduct. This cover-up endeavor has been their primary focus since congress started demanding documentary evidence from the DOJ, FBI, State Department and intelligence participants in the scheme.

Before breaking-down and explaining the recent obfuscations allow me to posit one simple but central example that highlights the gross intelligence misconduct.

On October 21st, 2016, the DOJ and FBI used the Steele Dossier as the foundation for their FISA Title-1 Surveillance application against Carter Page.  Surveillance was a key part of the FBI counterintelligence operation to investigate Russian interferance in the 2016 election.  However, almost three months later, on January 4th, 2017, when John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey produced their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the same individuals who created the FISA application did not include the Steele Dossier in their ICA report.

Think about the contradiction in this example. It is within this contradiction, and many more, where we discover the origin of the feces. If the Dossier was valid enough to present to a FISA court as evidence of Russian involvement; then why wouldn’t that same Dossier be valid enough evidence to include in their January Intelligence Community Assessment?

When you start asking these irreconcilable common sense questions, you begin to realize -and expose- how insufferably corrupt the entire intelligence scheme really was.  The entire scheme was an assembly of individual lies; each lie a thread rolled into a bigger ball of entwined nonsense.  Look at it from a distance and it looks like a vast Russian conspiracy ball; however, pull any single strand out, look at it, and there’s no truth to it.

It’s all an illusion.

(more…)

Those who understand the construct of Lawfare understand the purposes and intents. Lawfare is an outcome of a radical activist pivot point that happened during the Obama administration.

Prior to the Obama-era the radicals tearing down government defended the transparently guilty, their allies and fellow traveling communists. Those who were arrested for violence the radicals supported, were defended, excused and their activity justified.

After the election of Obama, as noted first by author Jack Cashill, something changed; the radicals reversed their position. Instead of defending the transparently guilty, the Obama aligned usurpers -now with actual power at their fingertips- began accusing the transparently innocent.

In the “anger games” era of Barack Obama, the radicals began attacking the innocent and using their allies in media as part of the attack narrative. George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, the Baltimore-six, etc. The list is long; we tracked them all with detailed research; however, the theme amid every story was the same. Isolate, ridicule and marginalize the transparently innocent target and make them appear guilty.

When you think about the construct during the 2016 election and the entirely fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion narrative, you see the same theme continued. Stand back and elevate yourself and you see this era of using completely false accusations transposed over the election.  Essentially, accuse the target, Donald J Trump, of something he was transparently innocent of doing.

After they lost the 2016 election, the radicals did not stop.  They continued constructing entirely false Lawfare stories with the intention to frame the transparently innocent.  This approach had two benefits; (1) radical Lawfare maintained the attack position blocking any reversal of Obama policy, and (2) the Lawfare process covered up their unlawful activity.

Using Lawfare constructed by Main Justice and the FBI, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation became the special counsel Mueller investigation, which became impeachment investigations, which became the Durham investigation, which became the J6 investigation, which became the Jack Smith investigation.  All of it was/is one long Lawfare operation.

(more…)

If you have followed law and politics for any length of time, you have probably heard of “speaking indictments.” That’s where the prosecution will write an indictment or court motion with very granular -yet perhaps not pertinent- details of a case against a suspect that highlights a much bigger picture than a singular perspective against the individual defendant.  The intent is to make the public aware of the details within a case by making them part of the court record.

In the Special Counsel Jack Smith constructed Lawfare case against Donald Trump, what is generally called “the documents case”, involving the raid on Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, did something similar to a speaking indictment with an extensive court motion on January 16, 2024.   The 68-page motion is a comprehensive “speaking motion” which outlines a great deal of the fraud and Lawfare manipulation by the special counsel. [SEE DOCUMENT HERE]

In response to the filing, using the pre-established legal narrative about needing to control “national security” information [SEE HERE], the Jack Smith team (essentially Lawfare operatives like Weissman, Eisen and McCord) redacted large portions of the Trump motion specifically to stop the public record from showing the outline.   However, two days ago, April 22nd, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed and more importantly ‘unredacted’ the motion.

[READ THE DETAILS HERE]

Keep in mind, back in the beginning of the pre-trial discovery phase -in response to the filing by Trump- Jack Smith gave the judge the opinion of the DOJ [SEE HERE] toward discovery and documents.  As noted, and summarized well by Julie Kelly:

To clear up any confusion as to what Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to conceal in classified documents case, this is what Smith told Judge Cannon in Feb 2024 in response to Trump’s motion to compel discovery from numerous govt agencies:

1) Defendants are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged.

2) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence of ‘Improper Coordination with NARA’ and of ‘Bias and Investigative Misconduct.’

3) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Trump’s Security Clearance With The Department of Energy.

4) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Secure Facilities at President Trump’s Residences.

5) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Production of Materials Concerning the Search of Mar-a-Lago.

AND FINALLY:

6) Defendants’ Request for Unredacted Discovery of Materials Should Be Denied.

(more…)

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum.  This point is where many people understandably get confused.

In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system.  This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.  When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

(more…)