There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-frame for this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.
If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.
A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…
If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.
(more…)

There is a lot to unpack in a decision today by the Director of National Intelligence to declassify (with redactions) a 2018 FISA court ruling about ongoing unauthorized database search queries by FBI agents/”contractors” in the period covering 2017/2018.
BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the DNI released a FISA report written by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collery that showed massive abuse, via unauthorized searches of the NSA database, in the period of November 2015 through May 2016. Judge Collyer’s report specifically identified search query increases tied to the 2016 presidential primary.  Two years of research identified this process as the DOJ/FBI and IC using the NSA database to query information related to political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.
Now we fast-forward to Judge Boasberg in a similar review (full pdf below), looking at the time-period of 2017 through March 2018.
The timing here is an important aspect.
It is within this time-period where ongoing DOJ and FBI activity transfers from the Obama administration (Collyer report) into the Trump administration (Boasberg report).
It cannot be overemphasized as you read the Boasberg opinion, or any reporting on the Boasberg opinion, that officials within DOJ and FBI are/were on a continuum.  Meaning the “small group” activity didn’t stop after the election but rather continued with the Mueller and Weissmann impeachment agenda.
Remember, the 2016 ‘insurance policy’ was to hand Mueller the 2016 FBI investigation so they could turn it into the 2017 special counsel investigation. Mueller, Weissmann and the group then used the ‘Steele Dossier’ as the cornerstone for the special counsel review.  The goal of the Mueller investigation was to construct impeachment via obstruction. The same players transferred from “crossfire hurricane” into the Mueller ‘obstruction‘ plan.
(more…)

Lots of people, lots of analysis, lots of obfuscation, and lots of pundits stuck deep in the forest losing perspective…..  This interview with Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t help.  If you are cynical of politicians, avoid the confirmation bias and don’t watch this interview.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can impeach a president for just about anything, because impeachment is a political process.  The offenses are supposed to entail “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” However, ultimately a majority House vote is all that’s needed for a technical impeachment. If Speaker Pelosi wants an impeachment vote against President Trump because he’s OrangeManBad, she can do that.  All she technically needs for any impeachment vote is a majority agreement.
Technically, Speaker Pelosi can tear the country apart, and destroy her political party with a brutally obvious political ploy to defend life in the swamp.   As a result Speaker Pelosi can also hold an impeachment vote framing an impeachment resolution, based on manufactured ‘articles of impeachment’, created by hearsay, rumors, gossip and innuendo.
However, a President should not be “removed from office” because some anonymous complaint makes an accusation.  The removal from office is another kettle-o-fish entirely…. Unless, well, unless the Senate concurs with Speaker Pelosi.
Anyone who thinks Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get his hands dirty amid this highly partisan political process is very much mistaken. Watch Graham hoping the entire impeachment operation collapses before it reaches a UniParty Senate… Wait for Barr…. Wait for Durham…. Wait for Horowitz…. Wait, Wait, Wait, bottom line, for 2020:
[wpvideo yRHVmjNS]
(more…)

Representative Chris Stewart (R-Utah) of the House Intelligence Committee debates the insufferable Chris Wallace over the issues of corruption in the swamp.
Obviously the tradition of politicians selling their office for financial gain political hits a nerve with Wallace who must defend the practice in order to defend the swamp.  The level of pearl-clutching pretzel logic by Wallace is off-the-charts…. In essence, all corruption must be accepted while politicians are running for office.

Several years ago the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera the Democrats who were assembling healthcare legislation were “relying upon the stupidity of the American voter”….  Fast forward to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 and her “official impeachment inquiry” by decree; she’s doing the exact same thing.
Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.
In the last week you’ve probably heard the media sell a narrative that Speaker Pelosi’s House Committee teams are sending out subpoenas to the State Department and White House.  However, has anyone actually looked for those “subpoenas”, or read the language of the written communication from those committees’?
Using the House Oversight Committee as the example (because that’s the one most cited and all of the letters are formatted identically), take a careful look at how they frame their undertaking.
As you read this, remember: these carefully chosen words come from the Lawfare Alliance:
(more…)

The Federalist was able to gain a copy of the opening statement delivered to congress by Ambassador Kurt Volker.  The statements made by Volker support the outline put forth by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani surrounding the initial contact and purposes.
The statement by Volker directly undercuts the narrative spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and his attempt to create an impeachment narrative.  Here’s the statement:
[scribd id=428765582 key=key-qZmOFCD6kgjIcMuJBR94 mode=scroll]
.
The outline by Volker supports the original story as told by Rudy Giuliani.
(more…)

Through a FOIA request Judicial Watch has received Rod Rosenstein’s email communication around the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller [See Here]. The content further confirms when Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16th, 2017, the purpose was for Mueller to preview his target, President Trump.
Many are focused on May 12, 2017, where Rosenstein sent an email to Robert Mueller, Subject: “I assume you realize”… “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions”; however, that date is being misconstrued.
Rosenstein took Mueller to visit Jeff Sessions on May 13th, the specifics of that email likely concern keeping prior private conversations out of the discussion with Sessions.

(Source pdf)

If we insert the Rosenstein email conversation into our timeline the picture is clear.
Perhaps the most important aspect is how DAG Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House on May 16th, to interview President Trump.  The decision to appoint Mueller as special counsel was pre-determined prior to the White House visit:
(more…)

White House Senior Policy Adviser, Stephan Miller, appears on Fox Business with Lou Dobbs to explain the apoplexy coming from DC’s administrative state. Miller outlines the deep fear held by many in the professional political class in/around DC toward ongoing investigations by U.S. AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.
In framing the opposition to the Trump administration, Mr. Miller identifies the Marxist roots that bind governmental ideologues in united resistance.  Impeachment is their best hope of defense.

The DOJ responds today to the Flynn motion for additional evidence; ie. Brady material requested by Flynn’s defense.   In the governments’ response filing (full pdf below), the DOJ rejects any additional efforts to provide evidence, and requests Judge Emmet Sullivan proceed directly to sentencing:
[scribd id=428288771 key=key-xp0SvMBoJg7zKvd7Swgj mode=scroll]
.
Additionally, the government filed a weird appendix, intended to highlight the amount of Brady material the prosecution has turned over to the defense team.  However, it is notable the appendix is full of “summaries of” instead of the raw underlying evidence.
(more…)