In June 2018, in response to an IG investigation, while denying the FBI had any political bias, FBI Director Christopher Wray promised anti-bias training for all agents. In response to the “challenges” identified by the report, the FBI “appreciates the opportunity” to provide more “support” to our employees. [June 14th, 2018]

In December 2019, in response to another IG investigation, while denying FBI agents would intentionally act illegally, FBI Director Christopher Wray notified the FISA court a Senior FBI investigative lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith intentionally falsified evidence on a FISA application.
In response to the FBI notification, late December 2019 the FISA court demanded to know what corrective actions the FBI was going to take; and what other applications FBI Lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was involved in.
In response today (full pdf below) FBI Director Christopher Wray promises more training.
(more…)

A very interesting development in the ongoing effort of former CBS investigative journalist, Sharyl Attkisson, to resolve the issue of who spied on her, planted spyware and infiltrated her computer systems for illegal surveillance.  [Attkisson website here]
According to a recent court filing [Source Here] a person who was engaged in the “wrongful activity” has come forward to provide Ms. Attkisson with details about the operation.  As a result of those whistle-blower revelations Attkisson is able to name specific individuals who were running the operation:

Former DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is named as the person who was in charge of the operation; and the former head of the FBI DC field office, Shawn Henry is also outlined.
Mr. Henry is the head of Crowdstrike, a contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.  Those who have followed the aspects related to the FBI use of the NSA database to illegally monitor U.S. persons; and those who followed the DNC cover story of Russia “hacking”; will be familiar with Crowdstrike.
(more…)

Unfortunately we anticipated the DOJ reversing their prior sentencing recommendations for Michael Flynn and that’s exactly what has happened.
In the 2018 sentencing recommendations prosecutors recommended probation. However following Flynn’s unsuccessful effort to access material evidence favorable to his defense, federal prosecutors under U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are now requesting Michael Flynn be sent to prison for a sentence of up to six months.

(pdf Link – full DOJ sentencing recommendation)

Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Emmet Sullivan on Jan. 28, 2020.
The irony here is the DOJ used the threat of FARA charges to compel the guilty plea.  The DOJ then went after Flynn’s former partner Bijan Rafiekian on those exact FARA charges Flynn plead guilty to avoid.  Mr. Rafiekian’s sketchy DOJ conviction was overturned and the indictment against him dismissed in September by a federal judge who said there was insufficient evidence to sustain the case.
The case against Rafiekian was dismissed. However, the case against Flynn, which was based on Flynn’s effort to avoid the case against Rafiekian, will likely see Flynn serving prison time.  No prison for Rafiekian, and prison for Flynn.  Go figure.
(more…)

Yesterday CTH noted 2020 as the year when a variety of prior democrat operations will converge with a single goal in mind. We will see several years effort merging.  Today, more evidence toward that objective is visible.

The House Judiciary Committeee (HJC) argued in the DC court of appeals to obtain the Mueller grand jury information [6(e) material], and compel testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.  Also today, more leaks from the inside the administration.
The House has a group of dozens of various DOJ and former Obama officials working on their behalf. That House network also has several currently employed DOJ, FBI, State Department and Intelligence Community officials feeding them information on current real-time events. The HJC are currently arguing the Mueller material and the McGahn testimony are needed for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
First, if the HJC team wins the argument to the three member DC Appellate Court, the DOJ will likely file for a full ‘en banc’ review by the entire panel. If the HJC wins the ‘en banc’ argument the DOJ will likely appeal for an administrative stay by the Supreme Court.
(more…)

2020 is the year when a variety of prior democrat operations will converge with a single goal in mind.  Predictably we will see several years of prior effort beginning to merge, and it begins today.

NOTE: For interested readers it will be impossible for me to summarize the background for each step prior to putting the next puzzle piece into place.  Therefore I strongly suggest bookmarking posts for later reference because it would take tens of thousands of words to understand for anyone who steps into the light mid-way through. [Just an FYI]

Tomorrow, January 3rd, 2020, the House Judiciary Committeee (HJC) will be presenting oral arguments in the DC court of appeals for their effort to obtain the Mueller grand jury information [6(e) material], and also compel testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.
The House has a group of dozens of various DOJ and former Obama officials working on their behalf.  That House network also has several currently employed DOJ, FBI, State Department and Intelligence Community officials feeding them information on current real-time events.   The HJC are currently arguing the Mueller material and the McGahn testimony are needed for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
If the HJC team wins the argument to the three member DC Appellate Court, the DOJ will likely file for a full ‘en blanc’ review by the entire panel.  If the HJC wins the ‘en blanc’ argument the DOJ will likely appeal for an administrative stay by the Supreme Court.
(more…)

Nuttery.  Abject Lawfare nuttery.  Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied four times to internal FBI investigators, three times under oath, in 2017.  This led to his firing in March 2018.

(Source)

In a remarkable act of hubris, in late 2018 Andrew McCabe sued the DOJ for wrongful termination through Lawfare lawyer Michael Bromwich.  The legal argument was/is essentially that McCabe was allowed to lie to FBI investigators because he was the head of the FBI (an employee of the agency).
In response to the McCabe lawsuit the DOJ filed a motion for summary dismissal due to McCabe’s lying, and an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) affirmation, saying the termination was valid.
In today’s response motion opposing the summary judgement [cloud pdf here], using a new batch of lawyers, McCabe’s legal team argues President Trump called McCabe a “dirty cop” last month, and that proves McCabe’s firing in March 2018  was wrongful.
Yes, that is their argument.
(more…)

The FBI official who led the team effort to violate the fourth amendment rights of U.S. person Carter Page via unlawful surveillance, is now claiming his first amendment rights to free speech were violated when the FBI fired him for gross misconduct.

WASHINGTON DC – Former FBI agent Peter Strzok, a onetime member of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, is claiming the FBI and Justice Department violated his rights of free speech and privacy when firing him for uncovered texts that criticized President Trump. (link)

Our research indicates the lawsuits filed by Peter Strzok & Lisa Page have an undisclosed purpose. It appears both lawsuits are designed to block the DOJ from releasing the unredacted text conversations. The redactions are hiding evidence of FBI motive.
The “direct evidence” for FBI bias the inspector general says he could not find is likely located behind the redactions; the lawsuits help to block sunlight.   However, that said, the complete failure of AG Bill Barr to declassify any of the primary material also highlights an institutional motive cover-up the abuses of power by both agencies.
Almost three years after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave special counsel Robert Mueller investigative authority; and almost a year since that investigation was completed; and We The People are still not allowed to see the underlining justification the DOJ used to authorize and continue that investigation.

Logical thought is antithetical to the interests of the coup-plotters.  Nuance and obfuscation are their shields; that’s why they, writ large, will not release the classified documents. A common sense American Thinker article cuts through the chaff and countermeasures for many interests:
[…] The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every “bell” in the FBIs and Attorney General’s Guidelines for sensitive investigations. As discussed in the IG report, by regulation, these cases cannot be initiated without the written approval of the Director and the Attorney General. 

In addition to the approval obviously granted by the Director and AG, the IGs report identified the following additional high level officials who reviewed and approved the Page FISA affidavit:  “NSD’s Acting Assistant Attorney General, NSD’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight over 01, 01’s Operations Section Chief and Deputy Section Chief, the DAG, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Deputy Attorney General responsible for ODAG’s national security portfolio.”
The suggestion that somehow, seventeen significant errors, omissions of fact, falsehoods, or deliberate misrepresentations made their way into a FISA affidavit/s (accidentally, at the hand of an anonymous case agent) and then were not immediately noted and corrected throughout the course of this exceptional review process is simply not believable. ~ Continue Reading

Natasha Bertrand is the stenographer for Fusion-GPS smear activities with a reputation for egregious lying and narrative engineering.  As a result it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Bertrand writing a collaborative article in Politico taking swipes on behalf of a thoroughly corrupted intelligence community.

Consider this paragraph using another vile creature from the political swamp:

[…]  When it comes to Durham, Haspel is likely “confident there has been no serious wrongdoing, and will therefore find a means to cooperate” with the investigation, said John Sipher, a 28-year CIA veteran.

Too funny.  The spooks and scribes live a life so deeply enmeshed in the world of fraud and lying they cannot even see themselves exposing their own character.  Put another way: ‘if Haspel was confident of serious wrongdoing, she wouldn’t cooperate with the investigation’. 
See, they just can’t help exposing themselves. If it wasn’t serious, it would be funny.  These inherently vile liars cannot stop themselves from exposing their nature…. it just flows out.
The good news in the article; and there is a lot of accidentally placed good news within it for those who follow closely; comes from these paragraphs:
(more…)

An interesting CTH discussion on Carter Page is worth expansion.  Factually I have not spent much time thinking about Mr. Page because he always seemed irrelevant.  However, some people have put a great deal of smart thought into how Page plays into the larger SpyGate dynamic.  That analysis is interesting & the various possibilities are a good read.

From the initial CTH review of Page he always seemed to be a tool. Something akin to a disposable syringe.  The viral agent in the syringe is important; the motives of those using the syringe obviously important; but Page himself seemed disposable to the sharps bag.
Maybe that’s the wrong way to look at him.
Having not spent much time thinking about him, it’s very interesting to read Treeper comments about him and the various possibilities his appearance in 2016 might represent.  So please use this thread to discuss your own opinion(s).
What role do you think Mr. Carter Page played in the larger objectives of the coup crew?