Well, it looks like the gang has a plan… the details are sketchy, but the picture of the construction is visible.  According to Adam Schiff, Robert Mueller has agreed to deliver congressional testimony to a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th.

♦ First, to frame the narrative for the appearance, HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff releases a letter signed by *only* Nadler and Schiff, that “threatened” a subpoena.  This subpoena letter is a prop for a pre-planned theatrical event.  How do we know? Because only Schiff and Nadler signed it (no coordination with ranking members).  It’s an optic to set the cornerstone for a narrative that Schiff and Nadler want Mueller’s appearance.
♦ Second, the joint committee approach is also part of the strategy.  With 40 members from both committees there will intentionally only be ONE ROUND of questions.  The size of the committee is part of the design to protect Robert Mueller.  Those who follow politics closely will immediately note this motive.
Knowing Mueller was in deep discussions with Schiff and Nadler to coordinate the appearance, the optic of the letter and the size of the committee are the first two immediate flares that indicate a staged performance is being set-up.
(more…)

In March 2017 CTH first highlighted statements by Evelyn Farkas that described a coordinated effort from within the Obama administration to push political opposition research, gathered by the intelligence community, into the media.

Jay Sekulow now discovers documents that highlight the Obama administration’s efforts in their last days in office.  This effort backstops Farkas’s earlier statements.  First, from Sekulow:

(Via Fox Op-ed) – Stunning new information just released by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) shows that the Obama administration stepped up efforts – just days before President Trump took office – to undermine Trump and his administration.

The ACLJ, where I serve as chief counsel, has obtained records that show the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, under Director James Clapper, eagerly pushed to get new procedures as part of an anti-Trump effort. The procedures increased access to raw signals intelligence before the conclusion of the Obama administration, just days before President Trump was inaugurated.

(more…)

One of the reasons why the Flynn legal situation is so interesting is not really because of Flynn himself; but rather because the Flynn situation is a likely example of President Obama’s surveillance network in operation.

Tenuous legal theories (Logan Act) and obscure laws (technical FARA violations) appear to have been exploited by DOJ administration officials, in close ideological alignment with the Lawfare Group.  In association with overall Obama administration officials, the fellow travelers used the legal system to create a DC surveillance network.
At the 30,000 ft. level Obama’s surveillance network looks like this:

• White House identifies a target; •passes request to the DOJ National Security Division (middlemen); •who then use the auspices of possible FARA violations to pass the instructions to the FBI contractors; •who data-mine the NSA database.

•The FBI results are then passed back to the DOJ-NSD; •who weaponize the information for FISA applications (becomes legal cover); and •pass the authorized surveillance (spying) results back to the White House etc.

It’s a circle of surveillance activity that could encompass almost every politician in Washington DC as they network with foreign lobbyists and special interests.
(more…)

The official media account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power. Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.
If this version of events were accurate (it’s not), it would fall under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent (Kislyak) who has contact with a U.S. person (Flynn).
In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made. That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.  In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]

.
However, in the two years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?
The reason is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was under FISC authorized active surveillance.  Here’s how we know.
(more…)

When General Michael Flynn entered into the seemingly coerced plea agreement with the special counsel team and prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (November 30, 2017), he gave up the right to defense discovery in his case.  In hindsight this will likely be viewed a mistake.
(h/t Techno Fog) During a court appearance today by new attorney Mrs. Sidney Powell, the topic of needing a classified security clearance -to review documents- was raised.  The DOJ responded to the assertion by saying no classified information was provided to the prior Flynn defense team, therefore Ms. Powell doesn’t need not carry that concern.

However, by admitting the DOJ provided no classified information to the defense, the prosecution is simultaneously admitting they never provided Flynn with a copy of the phone call transcript (December 29, 2016) between President-elect Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  The content of that phone call lies at the heart of the FBI interview that took place on January 24th, 2017.
(more…)

During a segment today with Maria Bartiromo, Representative Devin Nunes notes the “two parallel tracks” CTH has previously outlined.  The “parallel track” explanation begins at 11:15 of the interview. [Prompted – Just Hit Play]

“Two Parallel Tracks”

CTH Archive – Everything after March 9th, 2016, is a function of two official intelligence units, the CIA and FBI, operating together with two private political operations, Fusion GPS and the DNC, to coordinate -then coverup- political surveillance and spy operations.
Prior to March 9th, 2016, the CIA/FBI political surveillance and spy operation was using the NSA database to track and monitor their opposition. However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to: (1) continue the operation; and (2) create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. [Full Backstory]
The evidence for this is found in the documents attached to both operations; and bolsters the original 2018 statements by Congressman Devin Nunes as highlighted below.
(more…)

Those who haven’t followed the backstory might not catch what Nunes is saying.  However, if you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.
Boente took over for former chief legal counsel James Baker, after the discoveries around Baker and McCabe could no longer be hidden. After being removed from responsibility eventually Baker resigned and went to work with the Lawfare group.  Boente’s job at FBI was/is to bury information, block congressional inquiry, and protect the crew. Boente, along with Christopher Wray, is still there.
In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Nunes said “someone at the FBI” appears to have been “determined to hide” then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s notes from both the FISA court and Congress.  Our research identified that “someone” as Dana Boente and crew more than a year ago.

.
[*Note* There’s a snap-load of mistaken and ‘steered’ reporting by a bunch of people who have dined on the buffet of controlled leaks. Hopefully, that will all become clear soon.  Bookmark this ⇓ and prove me wrong]
(more…)

Joe diGenova has a great deal of confidence in AG William Barr.  After the interview last night (w/ Hannity) where President Trump outlined the lack of investigative information from the DOJ and FBI to the executive office of the president, I’m not sure that confidence is deserved.
In this interview with Lou Dobbs, diGenova and Victoria Toensing discuss the currently suppressed Rosenstein scope memos issued to allow Weissmann and Mueller to expand their targeting of Trump; while simultaneously retaining optimism toward Bill Barr.
Additionally, both Toensing and diGenova discuss presidential candidate Joe Biden.

(more…)

Byron York has put down the crustless triangle sandwich and white wine spritzer long enough to finally discover the October 20th, 2017, scope memo written by Rod Rosenstein that authorized Weissman and Mueller to target Michael Flynn Jr.

[…]  The Justice Department has recently allowed members of some congressional committees to view the scope memos, and out of that has come the news that there was a third scope memo to Mueller. Dated Oct. 20, 2017, its contents remain a secret. But its very existence suggests something was going on behind the scenes in the relationship of Mueller and his supervisors at the Justice Department. (read more)

York continues… “At the moment, the third scope memo, like most of the second scope memo, remains a secret.“…  Good grief, seriously?  Funny how AG Barr is now letting congress look at the scope memos, meanwhile -despite the authorization to release provided by President Trump- the public is blocked from them.  I digress.
The October 20th, 2017, Rosenstein scope memo was specifically so that Weissmann and Mueller could target specific people for maximum political damage; including the targeting of Michael Flynn Jr. to generate leverage so that Flynn Sr. would have to accept a plea or see his family crushed under the weight of the weaponized special counsel.
(more…)

The possibility of U.S. Attorney John Durham exploiting/using documents declassified by his boss, AG Bill Barr, could suggest some of the material may not be made public; indeed that’s the inference from Representative John Ratcliffe three weeks ago as he outlined to Maria Bartiromo.

If accurate, it is worthwhile considering what *could be* publicly declassified by AG Barr, and yet not run afoul of any investigative value for Durham.   Example: the declassification of the Rosenstein scope memos to Robert Mueller (no longer a reason to be hidden) would not seem to materially affect the investigative intents of Durham.
So considering investigative value, what documents could be made public that would not impede Durham?
Here’s the list of material possible for declassification. This was the original list as outlined in 2018:
(more…)