Buried in paragraph 40 of the FBI/DOJ justification article presented by the New York Times on behalf of contributing editors James Comey, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, John Brennan and James Clapper, the oft-used intelligence propaganda outlet attempted to bury the lede:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.  (read more)

In essence what the Deep State apparatchik was/is doing is admitting they conducted a large-scale surveillance operation against their political opposition by weaponizing the most intrusive intelligence gathering capabilities of the federal government.  An admission they denied for the previous 18 months….

And somehow, we are supposed to be ok with this.  Well, that’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.  Ultimately they have no choice.  If the participating members don’t justify their endeavors there’s a strong likelihood of shiny new steel bracelets.

(more…)

I might be wrong, but this is the first prime-time mention of Stefan Halper I’m aware of:

.

Two days prior to the New York Times article outlining an FBI counterintelligence sting operation to infiltrate the Trump campaign I wrote the following:

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing.  There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

Well, buckle up, I think today we are going to see and hear much, much more.

(more…)

Andrew McCarthy appeared on Fox News this morning to discuss the bombshell admissions within a New York Times report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of Donald Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Andrew McCarthy’s Latest Article Here

(more…)

Last week, in an effort to target President Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, sketchy porn-lawyer Michael Avenatti received and released stolen financial records for a group of people who held the name Michael Cohen.  At least two of the people who had their records released were the wrong Michael Cohen.

In a New Yorker article today, far-left playtime ‘journalist’ Ronan Farrow writes about his contact with the law-enforcement official who stole the Cohen financial records and gave them to the sketchy porn lawyer.

From the timing it appears the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General is close to catching the criminal leaker.  As such, Farrow writes a sympathetic outline attempting to shape a narrative of a “law-enforcement official” as a wounded ‘whistleblower‘.

New Yorker – Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration.

(more…)

U.S. intelligence officials who participated in the 2016 Russian interference narrative/scheme are now attempting to justify their conspiratorial conduct with leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.  Their leaks are a transparent effort to justify prior conduct. This cover-up endeavor has been their primary focus since congress started demanding documentary evidence from the DOJ, FBI, State Department and intelligence participants in the scheme.

Before breaking-down and explaining the recent obfuscations allow me to posit one simple but central example that highlights the gross intelligence misconduct.

On October 21st, 2016, the DOJ and FBI used the Steele Dossier as the foundation for their FISA Title-1 Surveillance application against Carter Page.  Surveillance was a key part of the FBI counterintelligence operation to investigate Russian interferance in the 2016 election.  However, almost three months later, on January 4th, 2017, when John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey produced their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the same individuals who created the FISA application did not include the Steele Dossier in their ICA report.

Think about the contradiction in this example. It is within this contradiction, and many more, where we discover the origin of the feces. If the Dossier was valid enough to present to a FISA court as evidence of Russian involvement; then why wouldn’t that same Dossier be valid enough evidence to include in their January Intelligence Community Assessment?

When you start asking these irreconcilable common sense questions, you begin to realize -and expose- how insufferably corrupt the entire intelligence scheme really was.  The entire scheme was an assembly of individual lies; each lie a thread rolled into a bigger ball of entwined nonsense.  Look at it from a distance and it looks like a vast Russian conspiracy ball; however, pull any single strand out, look at it, and there’s no truth to it.

It’s all an illusion.

(more…)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz has submitted the “Draft Report” of his OIG investigation to the principals involved. The IG investigation encompasses the FBI and DOJ conduct during the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton investigation. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.

The Draft Report review is the last review phase prior to the Final report being released. The Draft Report review allows the principals to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.

Responses from the principals about the facts outlined in the draft report are then reviewed, cleared for addition if appropriate, and included in the Final Report. The Draft Report is the first time the DOJ and FBI Principals (only those officials who remain inside the DOJ and FBI) get to see the underlying documentary evidenced gathered in the 17-month-long investigation.

Wall Street Journal – Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling t he long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

(more…)

Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[…]  A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein.  There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort  undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

(more…)

John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications.   (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier.  The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support.  Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help.  This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin.  Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd.  He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

Several issues make this interesting:

(more…)

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy appears on Shannon Bream’s television show to discuss the ongoing battle between congress and the DOJ over information and evidence surrounding DOJ/FBI corruption in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

It’s a good interview to watch because McCarthy has just read a large portion of the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok for THIS ARTICLE.  As a result of reviewing the content, McCarthy is able to accurately frame his reference points and provides information that is divergent from the MSM preferred narrative. WATCH:

.

Again CTH reminds readers, despite thousands of articles written by MSM, you can count on one hand the number of journalists who have actually read through all 500+ pages (both releases) of text message communication between DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok.  It’s easy to spot who has not read them because the content of their articles is disputed by the underlying facts within Page/Strzok internal messages.

(more…)

Knowing what we know now – how Stefan Halper (a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6), randomly reached out to contact Trump low-level campaign aide George Papadopoulos; and how that contact was likely part of a coordinated effort by political operatives within the U.S intelligence apparatus to start the counterintelligence operation against Trump;  this prior interview with Chairman Devin Nunes is well worth re-watching.

About a month ago, April 22nd, 2018, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation (July 2016) against the Trump campaign.

This interview follows a mid-April FBI release of “some information” about the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents that underpinned the origin of the FBI operation. The first half of the interview contains stunning information about how the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.

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.

.

When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: 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?

We now know the originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor deeply connected to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

(more…)