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…)

Here’s the opening statement from HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes:

The House Intelligence Committee will begin holding public hearings to impeach President Donald Trump today at 10:00am EDT.  The hearings are carefully scripted, organized and planned. Day One begins with Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent.  To support the Democrat impeachment effort all major media networks are carrying the event live, and promoting their anticipation of drama.
Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff has threatened severe punishment if any member of congress speaks publicly about the CIA helping to organize the ‘whistleblower‘ effort.
Mr. Taylor currently serves as the Chargé D’affaires for the U.S. State Department in Ukraine. Mr. Kent serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State.  Both State Dept. officials disagree with President Trump’s foreign policy which they hope will lead to his removal from office.
Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – CSPAN Livestream – HPSCI Livestream

HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes has sent a letter to HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff formally requesting his testimony prior to the public impeachment hearings next week.
On its face this might seem like a stunt; and it might indeed be dismissed by Adam Schiff; however, at the heart of the issue is something quite serious and quite factual.  There is mounting evidence the entirety of the Pelosi, Lawfare-Schiff proceeding is a collaborative event that includes the coordination with a CIA ‘whistleblower’.
Specifically because the issues in/around the originating ‘whistleblower’ have become a risk to the effort, and in a complete reversal from the original premise, Adam Schiff is now refusing to present testimony from the originating whistleblower.   Nunes is now engaging in a process with the goal make the political coordination self-evident:

(Source – pdf)

(more…)

With impeachment headlines absorbing most attention, there is a quiet background story happening in DC where re-authorization of the USA Freedom Act is needed prior to expiration on December 15th. Techno Fog points out the bulk NSA data collection and FISA(702) surveillance programs are part of this reauthorization.
Just yesterday, November 6th, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization.  “Senators expressed their displeasure Wednesday with the Trump administration’s inability to answer questions about the National Security Agency’s collection of data records” (link). Which begs the question:

Is the current Inspector General report on FISA abuse being delayed due to the need for congress to reauthorize the very same programs the IG is about to criticize?

For context to this question, and considering the potential for some surprising revelations within the IG report on FISA, it is worth noting the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held back the the findings of FISA Judge James Boasberg that strongly criticized the FISA-702 process for a year.
The Judge Boasberg report was written in September of 2018 but not released (redacted) until last month.
(more…)

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT – Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack sends a letter to Flynn’s defense team today containing a stunning, almost impossible to comprehend, admission of a mistake central to the claims of the prosecution.  In March 2018 the FBI presented notes taken by agents Pientka and Strzok, now they say they made a ‘mistake’.
For almost two years the DOJ misidentified, misattributed, and never corrected that the authors of the Flynn interview notes were actually reversed.  All of the notes attributed to FBI Agent Peter Strzok actually were taken by FBI Agent Joseph Pientka, and vice-versa:

(LINK)

What kind of f**kery is this?  The DOJ never confirmed the authorship of the FBI notes that are central to the FD-302, upon which the entire prosecution claim of Flynn lying to investigators is based? …Seriously?
(more…)

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)
Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.
What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public.  This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.
The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence.  Page One:
(more…)

I’m going to attempt to remove the legal linguistics and explain what appears to be a highly predictable process most are ignoring.
BASELINE – After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff…. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.
♦On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.
Additionally, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.
In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”
♦The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the “stay” motion.
The DOJ appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.
The temporary administrative stay was granted to freeze the status quo while the court considers whether to grant a longer stay that would remain in effect until the DOJ appeal is argued or decided (deadline tomorrow).  The outcome is pending.  Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge of the DC Appeals court.
(more…)

Very nice trick here by the Lawfare advisory and rules committee that is handling the construct of the “Official House Inquiry” on impeachment.  It is such a good trick it has everyone crossed-up and confused.  Likely, that is by design.

On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”.  Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”.  Read the wording carefully:

(LINK)

Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”.  The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.
This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree.   Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process: “and for other purposes”.
Note in this video, Pelosi is careful to say “this is not an impeachment resolution”:
(more…)

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the latest developments within the Michael Flynn case.   As McCarthy points out, if Judge Sullivan doesn’t accept the defense position of gross misconduct by the prosecution; and if Sullivan does not dismiss the case; Flynn could end up on a worse position than the prior plea agreement.
Additionally McCarthy discusses the potential risks present for John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey; and then goes in to his perspective on the impeachment inquiry.