Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and fellow travelers, wrote an internal prosecution memo for current Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to use on behalf of their conscripted Special Counsel, Jack Smith. [SEE 186-page Guidance MEMO HERE]

Essentially, what we are witnessing is what skilled researchers would expect to see.

The Lawfare operatives, represented by Weissmann, Eisen and company, are all ideological agents connected directly to the anti-Trump efforts.

I use the term “Lawfare” to describe their general group association, as well as the actual organization funded by the Brookings Institute that carries the same name.

Essentially, Lawfare et al, are the group of current and former Dept of Justice ideologues that we find throughout the deployment of all Main Justice weaponization, activism and corruption.

The Muller team were all Lawfare members. The legal team in/around the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, what Christine Blasey-Ford called “beach friends,” are all Lawfare members.  The legal team behind both of Trump’s impeachment efforts were all Lawfare members.  It is one large network of legally minded ideologues working toward a common goal; they are inside government and connected to the same DOJ minds outside government.

The second thing they have in common is their collective risk within their action.  Many of their activities were/are unlawful (spygate, FISA, Mueller probe, impeachment background etc), so to the extent the Lawfare group can mitigate risk by attacking anyone who would be a threat to them, this is what we see.

(more…)

Here we go again with the ever-familiar silo defense.  The FBI is refusing to hand over the unclassified FD-1023 stating there is an ongoing investigation using the confidential human source who made allegations outlined in the document.  Remember, the allegations and the statement record was created in July of 2020, almost three years ago.

Prior to last week, the FBI refused to say the 6-page unclassified document existed.  After House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told FBI Director Chris Wray he had already seen the unclassified document via a whistleblower, then Comey admitted the FBI indeed had it.  Today, the FBI is refusing to release the document, stating it is now captive as part of an “ongoing investigation.”  The claimed investigation began July 2020 – the investigation is “ongoing”.  Go figure.

James Comer said he will begin the process, this Thursday, to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

~ The Background is HERE ~

A brief post just to emphasize a point about DC and how the power centers protect themselves.  You might remember when Attorney Jeff Sessions was told he needed to recuse himself from anything to do with the Trump-Russia investigation.  We know from FOIA requests of schedules, the participants in the meeting on the date of those discussions:

Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself at the conclusion of a meeting involving Jody Hunt, Dana Boente, Jim Crowell, Tashina Guahar and Scott Schools; an apparent conflict of interest.  Now consider….

Mary McCord was Acting Asst. Attorney General for the National Security Division, when she submitted the fraudulently constructed FISA application used against Carter Page. Mary McCord, knowingly and with specific intent, defrauded the court and broke the law.  Mary McCord then went on to join Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler in the construction of the articles of impeachment. She did not recuse herself. 

(more…)

I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet.  The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.

Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.  Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.”  However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe.  The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham.  So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?

The answer is found in the footnotes.  Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA.  Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]

♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews?  Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?

[ NOTE to Congress.  Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]

Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class.  The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham.  I will share that story below.

(more…)

People often ask me why I seem to highlight datapoints and background events that do not trend to the media-driven narrative priority of the moment.  The answer is simple; everything is connected to the next thing that happens. If you do not outline the originating point, the accurate reference is missed when needed.

This approach is why I have focused significant research on Elon Musk’s financial situation with Twitter {GO DEEP}.

The issue of Twitter’s financial status speaks to the motives of Musk that later surface – like his relationship with Fox News billionaire Rupert Murdoch.  Once you see the connections, suddenly everything makes sense.  Musk and Murdoch have intersecting interests.

Elon Musk is in desperate need of revenue for his social media platform Twitter.  By his own admissions, Twitter is currently in the red on an annual basis between $1.5 to $4.0 billion; that may go as high as $5 billion, depending on what happens over the next six months.  Currently losing $100 million/mo, Musk is limited on how much he can pull from his other companies to support Twitter, and with $1.5 billion in debt service alone on the $12.5 billion borrowed for the Twitter purchase, Musk needs an income stream quickly.

Advertising revenue has dropped 50%. This is the motive for Musk to hire Linda Jaccarino, the former head of NBC Universal advertising, to bring urgently needed revenue to a platform currently considered too extreme for the DEI-minded corporate advertising executives.  Musk is also captive to contracts with Bezos’ Amazon (AWS) and Google cloud services for platform data processing support.  Those very expensive contracts – $1 billion and $2 billion respectively – do not expire until 2025.

In short, Musk needs revenue. For Twitter, this reality drives his decision-making.  Enter, Rupert Murdoch.

(more…)

This is a little long and very boring, but people keep asking.. lol

If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.  More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP}

Mary McCord was acting head of the DOJ-NSD when the Carter Page FISA application was submitted.  After leaving the DOJ-NSD, McCord became head of the Nadler/Schiff impeachment staff.  McCord was the organizer of the Vindman CIA whistleblower during impeachment effort #1, and it was Mary McCord’s former NSD lawyer turned Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, who changed the rules for whistleblowing in the CIA -a request made by McCord- to permit anonymity.

Mary McCord was the person who went to the White House with Deputy AG Sally Yates to carry out the DOJ justice scheme to remove National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.  McCord was also selected by a seriously sketchy FISA Judge Boasberg to be the amicus for the court clouding the issues with the FBI and fraudulent information to the FISC. Mary McCord also worked with the congressional team on the second impeachment effort, and it was Mary McCord who went to work for J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thomspon to frame the J6 case and narrative.

To say that Mary McCord is deeply and professionally attached to the lawfare effort to target Donald Trump would be an understatement.

Today, as a Lawfare contributor to MSNBC, and while discussing the dropping of the investigation in the Pence classified documents case, McCord said she can see no way the DOJ doesn’t indict Donald Trump for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents.  “I don’t think it’s realistic to think that the DOJ would avoid, from here on out through the 2024 election, taking any kind of legal action against Trump or those in his inner circle,” says McCord.  WATCH: 

(more…)

Last night on Sean Hannity television show, House Oversight Chairman James Comer made the first admission that both he and Senator Chuck Grassley had seen the FD-1023 form filled out by an FBI agent based on allegations of Joe Biden taking bribes as outlined by an FBI CHS (Confidential Human Source).  {Backstory HERE}

FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to admit the document existed until Comer and Grassley informed Wray they had already seen it.  However, the FBI is still refusing the release the document to congress. During a Fox News interview today, Senator Chuck Grassley gives his opinion of what is contained within the six-page document {Direct Rumble Link}.  The comments about the FD-1023 happen after the 02:00 mark. WATCH:

.

(more…)

An interesting series of updates to the FBI whistleblower case of Joe Biden taking a $5 million bribe payment which now looks to have originated in Ukraine.

The background claim is pretty basic. A whistleblower approached congress stating the FBI had a report, an unclassified FD-1023, detailing a conversation with a ‘confidential human source’ (CHS) that outlined Vice President Joe Biden taking a $5 million payment from a foreign national to affect a U.S. policy decision.  The FBI agent responsible for investigating the CHS claim was FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, a sketchy character from the Trump-Russia probe.

The investigative events took place in June and July 2020 during the presidential election year.  The claim is that FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Auten reportedly buried the CHS allegation saying it could not be corroborated, and then wrote an assessment that it was Russian disinformation.  However, the FBI investigative team didn’t see any effort by any FBI member to substantiate it.  Hence a whistleblower, with specific knowledge of the details in the allegation, surfaces and tells congress the FBI is hiding the FD-1023 that outlines the confidential human source allegation of bribery.

Congress requested the FD-1023, the FBI refused to provide it.  House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer then set a compliance deadline while he coordinated with Senator Chuck Grassley.  The FBI still refused to turn it over, saying they would neither confirm nor deny the FD-1023 existence, and said releasing any information like that would potentially compromise Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s).  The proverbial sources and methods excuse.

(more…)

Last night I participated in a conversation. This article is written as an outcome of that conversation, as requested by those who participated.

Essentially, the framework of the conversation, as I initially listened, is best described as a series of questions amid a group of smart intellectual types who are very understanding of the nature of our current situation.

In various forms they were asking each other the same question.  What happened in the last several years that caused Democrats, leftists and the traditional political left to switch positions on their advocacy?

Liberalism literally went from railing against Big Govt, to embracing corrupt Big Govt. Why and how did this happen?

In short, it was the same line of questioning I have seen asked by Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Tulsi Gabbard and various traditionally liberal people as well as people on the right side of the continuum.

Why and how did traditional liberalism so suddenly flip from being, big picture – ‘anti-government’, to suddenly embracing corrupt government enterprise, and supporting the intelligence apparatus, federal govt (writ large), institutional oppressive law enforcement and FBI etc.?  What happened?

After listening to this conversation quietly, as I am prone to do, my remarks -with citations and examples- silenced the room.

At the conclusion of my remarks, everyone asked me if I had ever written about this, and if not – why not?   I did not have an answer, so consider this a promise fulfilled.  Perhaps you might find value.

(more…)

Special Counsel John Durham previously submitted his 306-page report on Matters Related to the Intelligence Community Efforts in the 2016 Election [pdf HERE]. There is also a 48-page classified appendix available to cleared members of Congress.

On Tuesday June 20th, Durham will deliver a classified briefing to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); the following day, Wednesday June 21st, Durham will testify in a public setting before the House Judiciary Committee.

WASHINGTON DC – Special Counsel John Durham will testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his report in June, a source has told Fox News on Friday.

The hearing will happen on Wednesday, June 21. The day before, Durham will appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door briefing.

Durham has found that the Department of Justice and FBI “failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law” when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation. (read more)

We have a little less than a month to assemble questions for both the classified (HPSCI) briefing, and the public (HJC) hearing.

If you have traveled the deep weeds and have a specific line of questioning you think might be pertinent to either committee 😉, I am including the Republican names of both the HPSCI and HJC below.   The HPSCI members can ask anything – including questions directly related to classified intelligence.  The HJC members will not be limited in their questions but might find a non-answer in return to anything considered classified.

The FISA silo would likely fall into the classified questioning, depending on the specifics of the inquiry.  Questions involving the CIA and/or ODNI involvement may also be best explored in the HPSCI briefing.

(more…)