Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.
Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.
The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

(more…)

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.
Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.
This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:
With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.
My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.
The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?
(more…)

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher has really been put into a narrow gauntlet by a military command structure that does appear to be attempting retaliation and retribution against a warrior out of spite.  It is a remarkable dynamic and very troubling to see two high ranking military leaders seeming to rebuke the civilian command structure.

.
Purely my opinion; but I would feel much less nervous about the stability of our military leadership if Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Rear Adm. Collin Green resigned.  Rogue military leadership is troubling in the framework of our constitutional Republic.
(more…)

At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.
The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrett noted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”
At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

~ Above: 8:15pm Washington Post Screen Grab prior to 12:15am edit ~

However, that said, the edit(s) help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.
(more…)

Representatives Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise discuss the partisan effort to remove President Trump through a one-sided impeachment effort.

.
Within the interview Ms. Stefanik notes the outside money pouring in to her district in a concerted effort to remove her from office.  The link to support her IS HERE
(more…)

Representative Jim Jordan appears with Bret Baier to discuss the last two weeks of impeachment testimony.  Baier, the evolving human cabbage patch doll, attempts to protect the DC impeach narrative.

.
Jim Jordan is exceptional. At the conclusion of todays testimony Jordan also held a brief press conference (below).
(more…)

Listening to the pearl-clutching from State Department foreign service officers; and looking at the circular laundry operation where DC politicians send taxpayer funds overseas and then use networks, friends and families to capture those same funds for their own personal financial benefit; while overlaying how much Hillary Clinton corruption the U.S. Justice Department, State Department and intelligence community hid in the 2016 election; the big picture emerges.
When politicians in Mexico or Afghanistan accept bribes we call it corruption, but when DC politicians participate in the exact same process we call it “lobbying”. It is no wonder the Clinton Foundation starts losing money as soon as the political influence over policy no longer exists. It is also no surprise why those same donors hate President Trump.

In the larger picture it is clear the Obama administration weaponized institutions of government to target their political opposition. It is also increasingly clear a Hillary Clinton administration would have further monetized the U.S. government.
President Obama’s team used the IRS, DOJ, CIA, FBI and State Dept. to target their opposition. The intelligence apparatus was weaponized; one small example that scratches the surface is the FBI/NSA FISA(702) database exploitation. Black files on DC politicians, private sector groups and individuals facilitating leverage, and we are still seeing the ramifications.
(more…)

There are three current court cases that touch upon whether the House “impeachment inquiry” is following a constitutional process.

♦The first case is the House Oversight effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending.
♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was also stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, could also go to SCOTUS]
♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday, November 25th:

WASHINGTON DC – […] “The Judiciary Committee anticipates holding hearings after HPSCI’s public hearings have concluded and would aim to obtain Mr. McGahn’s testimony at that time,” the committee wrote, referring to the impeachment inquiry hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee. “Thus, there is an urgent need for final resolution of the matter now pending before this Court.”

(more…)

The Supreme Court has halted a lower court ruling that granted the Committee on Oversight and Reform access to President Trump’s tax returns.  However, that’s not necessarily the lede.
The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers. The House issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns, which the Committee then later argued was part of the September House impeachment investigation.

All of the surrounding court rulings are predicated on accepting a constitutional process for an official impeachment investigation is underway.  However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will likely challenge that assertion.  To wit, within the buried lede to the background issue we find this paragraph:

On Monday, Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)

(more…)

Amid increased calls from House Republicans to force the testimony of the CIA “whistleblower”, today the Washington Post, the primary outlet for CIA misinformation and public relations, began shaping the “whistle-blower” as a hero.
Because the overall effort involves multiple parts of the deep state apparatus, to see through the construction it is important to note which media outlet holds equity for agency talking points within the coup.  The Washington Post is primary PR for the CIA and IC writ large. The New York Times is primary PR for the FBI; and CNN is primary PR for the State Dept.  This pattern has been consistent throughout.

Over time it has become clear the first confidential human source for the CIA Ukraine dossier, written by CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella and also known as the “Whistleblower report”, is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman a Ukraine expert inside the National Security Council on assignment from the Dept of Defense intelligence unit.
Within his deposition the ideology of Lt. Col Vindman is clear. Vindman’s mission focus was/is to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine (and by extension NATO) regardless of the actual policy view of President Trump.  Within his deposition Vindman admitted to giving countermanding instructions to his Ukraine counterpart two weeks after understanding opposite policy objectives from his commander-in-chief.
During his deposition Lt Col Vindman also admitted -with considerable angst and attempts to deflect from his legal advisors provided by the Dept. of Defense- that he was intentionally usurping the chain of command in an effort to follow his own ideological agenda; and perhaps that of his DoD leadership.
(more…)