As many people are aware, CTH has decided to go back through two years of documents, releases, reports, testimony and 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 Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel assigned to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.
Suffice to say, this project was no small task; reading the messages in a chronological order takes a minimum of four to six hours. It is understandable why so much mystery and confusion circles the rather complex storyline. However, before going into the deep weeds – two distinct issues must frame what will soon follow:
♦First, notice a catch-phrase by fired FBI Director James Comey in every interview: “that was not my understanding.” That phrase is Mr. Comey’s ‘go-to’ lead-in at the beginning of every explanation, amid challenging questions presented to him, on his current book tour. That phrase is also a highly legalized linguistics and deployed for a specific reason.
♦Second, if you are going to endeavor to read through all of the released messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and/or review an outline of content that utilizes their communication as the background to understand events within the FBI and DOJ-NSD; it helps to have a familiarity from their perspective.
Having said that, this encapsulation of the Page and Strzok outlook by “Newhere” is both fair and accurate:
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.
Chairman Devin Nunes calls in to Fox News for an interview with Neil Cavuto to discuss the HPSCI report on Russian active measures (pdf also below):
.
fyi, late last night I decided to reset all assumptions about the ‘small group’ and go back to the beginning of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texts and re-read every single message that has been released. *Note* it takes, at a very minimum, six hours to chronologically review every document containing their messages. I’m writing up a summary of that review today.
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.
Noted in this interview is discussion that a new batch of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and DOJ/FBI lawyer Lisa Page have been sent by the DOJ to the State Department. Understanding the public and congressional release process, this would indicate the DoS needs to sign-off on potential classified information within the texts.
Often, amid our frustration, we forget there’s an actual process for releasing information; it’s not simply a matter of current DOJ or FBI officials trying to block the release. I will bet a donut the next batch of Page/Strzok messages outline some connective tissue to DoS.
FBI Director James Comey appears on CNN tonight and digs himself deeper into legal jeopardy. Remember as you watch this answer, on March 20th, 2017, while still officially FBI Director, Comey testified to congress a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign began in July 2016.
In an effort to attempt to obfuscate his current legal and professional malfeasance in leaking information, via his leaks to the media, Comey insists he did nothing wrong. However, Comey also states that it would be a violation to leak “information about an ongoing investigation.”
As Comey describes his leaking of his notes from a conversation with President-elect Trump, he conveniently avoids the contradicting fact that President Trump was a person within the investigation the FBI was conducting. WATCH:
.
Comey states that “leaking” is releasing the “content within an investigation.” If Anderson Cooper would have been faster on his feet, he would have asked Comey: how is it OK for him to distribute evidence, and leak the substance of an internal document, that is part of an ongoing investigation?
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?
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is the godfather of one of James Comey’s kids. Additionally, Fitzgerald was the prosecutor of recently pardoned Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Fitzgerald was also the person who Lisa Page and Peter Strzok recommended in their text messages debating the possible need for a special counsel looking into the actions of Hillary Clinton.
In short, Fitzgerald is a sketchy lawyer, dependable confidant, personal friend and like-minded political fixer for any/all legal issues within the circle of the ‘small group’ of co-conspirators; the crew who politicized and weaponized the DOJ and FBI to target their political opposition. According to recent reports, Fitzgerald has also been hired by James Comey in advance of possible criminal indictment(s).
WASHINGTON – Former FBI Director James Comey has reportedly hired his close friend and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as one of his personal lawyers.
Two Capitol Hill sources confirmed to Talking Points Memo that Comey had retained Fitzgerald, though it was not immediately clear in what capacity he made the hire. (more)
Led by Representative Ron DeSantis, previously congress sent a criminal referral letter (full pdf below) to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Federal Prosecutor John Huber.
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)
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation, that began in July 2016, against the Trump campaign.
Last week the FBI released the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents that underpinned the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation. The first half of this interview contains some stunning information: the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.
Meaning, the origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his ‘raw intelligence product’ with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.
The questions, many of which are rhetorical against the backdrop of political motives, become: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?
.
As we begin to ponder the ramifications and answers to the questions in the first half of this interview, we must remember that CIA Director John Brennan gave congressional testimony last year where he explained how he delivered the raw intelligence product itself. We spotted this issue, and Brennan’s obfuscation therein, a year ago, when Brennan first gave his testimony.
