This is the hidden story that could lead to a criminal probe of Loretta Lynch and James Comey
Tonight on his TV show, Lou Dobbs highlighted the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton that never took place. WATCH:
.
CTH decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony, media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Within this project some breakout discoveries needed to be highlighted. One of those discoveries pertains to the Fox News interview with James Comey and Bret Baier.
Having reviewed every conversational message between FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in new chronological order; and having overlaid those messages atop congressional witness testimony, released investigative reports, historic media presentations and generally known details of events; and having questioned all prior assumptions amid the latest information; here is some -perhaps new- perspective.
There is zero evidence of a romantic relationship between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page; and no, a complete chronological review doesn’t indicate the romantic stuff was withheld. By looking at the messaging chronologically, studying the date and times, there’s nothing to indicate segments of romantic stuff was removed. What does appear obvious in many redactions, and likely some removals of messages, is an intentional effort to remove content that would be of an embarrassing professional nature to Ms.Lisa Page.
It is more than likely the “affair narrative” was likely created by investigators as part of an agreement on content control to explain withholding some information and message redactions. Investigators would not want those being investigated to know the scale of the evidence trail. Regardless, except for the useful story, the romantic angle is irrelevant.
It is clear that when Lisa Page gave FBI INSD (Inspection Division) authorization to access *all* her communication and messaging *accounts* and devices (July 15 – 20th, 2017) the FBI INSD and Office of Inspector General (OIG) agreed to redact snarky interoffice material that would be embarrassing to Ms. Page.
[Congressional Report – Page 18, Item #3, second paragraph] “The DOJ OIG obtained the initial batch of text messages on July 20, 2017.” It is clear that Ms. Page underwent a period of (no less than) three solid days of extensive initial questioning by FBI (INSD) and DOJ (OIG) officials. [Which ended on/around July 20th, 2017.]
As many people are aware, CTH has decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony, media interviews; including interviews with fired FBI Director James Comey; question all prior assumptions; re-examine the entire framework within all the known granular DOJ and FBI activity; and finally contrast it all against the full scope of released messaging between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Within this project some breakout discoveries need to be highlighted. One of those discoveries pertains to the Fox News interview with James Comey and Bret Baier.
Within the interview Mr. Comey is questioned about the announcement of re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation on October 28th, 2016. In his response to why there was a delay between the FBI being notified by New York on September 28th, and waiting until October 28th, James Comey revealed a very important nugget.
The New York U.S. Attorney (SDNY) called Main Justice in DC to ask about why they were not receiving authority for a search warrant. We knew that call took place on October 21st, 2016. Now we know “why” and who New York called at DOJ HQ.
Listen closely to James Comey at 06:06 to 07:30 of the interview (prompted):
Baier: “Did you know that Andrew McCabe, your deputy, had sat on that revelation about the emails”?
Comey: “Yeah, I don’t know that, I don’t know that to be the case. I do know that New York and FBI headquarters became aware that there may be some connection between Weiner’s laptop and the Clinton investigation, weeks before it was brought to me for decision – and as I write in the book I don’t know whether they could have moved faster and why the delay”
Baier: “Was it the threat that New York Agents were going to leak that it existed really what drove you to the ‘not conceal’ part?
Comey: “I don’t think so. I think what actually drove it was the prosecutors in New York who were working the criminal case against Weiner called down to headquarters and said ‘are we getting a search warrant or not for this’? That caused, I’m sorry, Justice Department Headquarters, to then call across the street to the FBI and poke the organization; and they start to move much more quickly. I don’t know why there was, if there was slow activity, why it was slow for those first couple of weeks.”
There’s some really sketchy stuff going on in that answer. Why would SDNY need to get authorization for a search warrant from DC, if this is about Weiner’s laptop? Yes, you could argue it pertains to a tightly held Clinton investigation run out of DC but the Weiner prosecution issues shouldn’t require approval from DC.
But let’s take Comey at face-value…. So there we discover it was justice officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant for “this”, presumably Weiner’s laptop by inference. Now, let’s go look at the Page/Strzok description of what was going on.
Earlier today the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released their final report on Russia Active Measures (full pdf below). House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today:
“The Intelligence Community has finished its declassification review of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation final report. Given the substantial public interest at stake, the Committee is publishing the redacted version we’ve received. However, we object to the excessive and unjustified number of redactions, many of which do not relate to classified information. The Committee will convey our objections to the appropriate agencies and looks forward to publishing a less redacted version in the near future.” (LINK)
There are some initially revealing aspects to the release including: revelations that DNI James Clapper was a leaker to CNN about the Steele Dossier content and Presidential Briefing [SEE HERE]; and that Former Dianne Feinstein staff raised $50 million after the election to continue funding Fusion-GPS and Christopher Steele [SEE HERE] Likely much of that money was used to pay journalists and continue the Muh Russia narrative.
Last night another batch of FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page text messages were released by the DOJ. (pdf here)
This series of messages are clearly from captures on the Peter Strzok side of their communications. All prior releases were captures from Lisa Page’s side, and were a direct outcome of her providing the messages to the FBI Inspection Division (INSD) as verification for her side of the story in the contradictions between her statements and those of her once boss Andrew McCabe (per the INSD leak investigation).
This is far too epic-worthy not to achieve a bit more attention.
Twitter handle IWillRedPillYou did a little digging on the more nuanced aspects from last night’s State Dinner, held by President Trump and Melania Trump to honor French President Macron and Brigitte Macron, and discovered a hilarious detail:
“Get this: The China (dinette set) Trump Ordered Used Tuesday Night for the Macron Dinner? Same China Bill and Hillary Clinton STOLE from the White House and Were Forced to Return (Dead Serious – Trump = Master Troll)” [Tweet Link]
Yes, it’s true.
The China, personally selected by First Lady Melania Trump, was originally the “Clinton China Service”, as first identified by CNN reporter Kate Bennett:
After congressman Jim Jordan made mention of this issue last Sunday people started asking questions. Fox News Catherine Herridge details how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.
(VIA FOX) […] The professor, Daniel Richman, confirmed the special status in response to an inquiry from Fox News, while referring other questions, including on the scope of his work, to the FBI.
“I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay),” Richman wrote in an email.
Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for leaking memos documenting his private discussions with President Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material. Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding. (read more)
Wait, let’s look at something here. From the article the benefits included: “Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding.”
A few paragraphs later, this: “Richman’s portfolio included the use ofencrypted communications by terror suspects.”
Oh my. Well, well, well… You see what’s being described here. There’s only one way to gain access to “encrypted communications” and that means having access to the FBI and NSA database.
Accepting he obviously had such access…. what would be the probability that Daniel Richman was one of these?
Joe diGenova appears on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to discuss the ongoing investigation into James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch and the politicization of the DOJ and FBI by former President Obama intelligence officials.
.
In related news, and indicating the IG Horowitz investigation on 2015, 2016 and 2017 politicization of FBI and DOJ is complete, House Judicary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has reached an agreement with U.S. Attorney John Lausch for the production of records compiled and used by Inspector General Horowitz:
“The Committees have reached an agreement with the Department of Justice to access the documents we have been requesting for months. We look forward to reviewing the information to better understand the decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 and 2017. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken.” (LINK)
You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States. ~SD
During a Friday night segment of Sean Hannity former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova and former federal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz debate whether the actions taken by:
….President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Crowdstrike, Fusion-GPS, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, John P Carlin, Mary McCord, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Lisa Monaco, Denis McDonough, Jim Rybicki, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele…
…in 2016, were all just accidentally working in exactly the same direction; on exactly the same processes and political approaches with intelligence use by government institutions; in accidental alignment,… or, perhaps, it was all coordinated.
Two months ago Andrew McCarthy wrote an article in National Review discussing the email President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on inauguration day 2017. With the latest discoveries from James Comey’s admissions amid the headlines, the February article by McCarthy is very prescient. {see here}
Susan Rice emailed herself to create a record surrounding a January 5th, 2017, meeting between top White House officials and senior intelligence members. It was the next day, January 6th, when FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump on part of the Clinton-Steele dossier. With hindsight, the White House meeting (1/5/17) and the Trump Tower briefing (1/6/17) take on additional meaning.
The departing administration’s highly-politicized intelligence apparatus, Comey (FBI), Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (DNI), conspired -strategically- to weaponize false intelligence in order to create a media narrative that would damage, and hopefully eliminate, the incoming president and his administration. With full measure of context, contrast against the identifiable behavior that followed; and accepting the FBI team was working diligently on an “insurance policy” agenda; there is no other way to look at these events.
[…] Let’s think about what was going on at that moment. It had been just a few days since Obama imposed sanctions on Russia. In that connection, the Kremlin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, had contacted Trump’s designated national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. Obama-administration leadership despised Flynn, who (a) had been fired by Obama from his post as Defense Intelligence Agency chief; (b) had become a key Trump supporter and an intense critic of Obama foreign and national-security policy; and (c) was regarded by Yates and Comey as a possible criminal suspect — on the wayward theories that Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak could smack of a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop the sanctions and might violate the never invoked, constitutionally dubious Logan Act.
