Bill Barr continued his Sunday Talk appearances this week, specifically organized by the apparatus in control of DC, to attack Donald Trump and position the executive branch of government as subservient to the interests of the United States Intelligence Community.

Don’t miss the forest when you are looking at the trees. 

Barr is advocating for a system of government that has institutional interests above the constitution.  According to Bill Barr, the DOJ, FBI and US Intelligence Community control the Office of the President.  Look at what he is saying.  The bureaucracy of the administrative state is above the chief executive office holder. The intelligence community supersedes the President.

I’m not putting words in his mouth.  Barr believes the President is a functionary of, and in a lesser position than, the unelected people who control institutions that make up the executive branch of government.  THIS is what he believes.  Get past the parseltongue and obtuse linguistics; this is Barr’s advocacy position.  WATCH:

.

Why?  Why is he doing this?  Does he really believe this?  The answer is yes, and essentially what Bill Barr is doing is protecting the system that George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama constructed and then used respectively.  Barr is defending the surveillance state, the post-Patriot Act state of intelligence agency control over government.

Bill Barr is protecting the weaponized institutions of the Director of National Intelligence (Bush/Cheney), the Dept of Justice – National Security Division [DOJ-NSD (Obama/Holder)], the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA Court), and the Dept of Homeland Security (Bush/Cheney).  These institutions, according to AG Bill Barr, are now in full control of the executive branch, full control of government, and now more powerful than the Office of the President of the United States.

This is the position of the DC system and everyone within it.  This is why Bill Barr is positioning himself as the tip of the spear.  This position is the entire reason why President Trump was told to hire Bill Barr, because Bill Barr had a job to do…. preserve the institutions, he helped build, at all costs.  This is also why Bill Barr protected Robert Mueller, and never impeded the Andrew Weissmann effort.

Bill Barr knows what Jack Smith, Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissmann, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, David Laufman and Lawfare are doing.   Bill Barr supports that effort, because ultimately it preserves the institutions from the corrective action of Donald Trump.

(more…)

Devin Nunes was previously the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In that very specific role, Nunes was a member of the Gang of Eight who are briefed on all intelligence issues at the same level as the President, the chief executive.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, is the #2 ranking intelligence oversight member within the national security oversight apparatus, exceeded in rank amid the Gang of Eight group only by the House Speaker.

As the HPSCI chairman, Nunes has a very granular understanding of intelligence language and the way the intelligence apparatus uses words within national security documents.  When Nunes talks about national security documents, he is a subject matter expert on the administration side of the process.  Why is that important right now? Because Nunes knows how to contrast the wording in the Jack Smith indictment against wording used to describe national security documents.

Pay very close attention to this interview, prompted to 05:06, for the Nunes part.  You have to get past the paid to obfuscate Mrs. Hannity interruptus, as she tries to shut down Nunes from bringing sunlight on the indictment.  However, what Nunes introduces in his comments is the origin of what I am going to explain after the interview.

This is a game-changing context for the Jack Smith indictment.  Again, pay close attention. WATCH:

.

What almost everyone in professional narrative engineering/punditry is missing, many of them because they are paid to pretend not to know, is that the national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17, 2023 {citation}.  What I am going to outline below will explain the fraud that Jack Smith and his Lawfare crew are purposefully generating.

Some baselines are needed for you to understand what is happening.

First, the National Archives and the DOJ did not demand a return of Classified Documents.  They requested a return of documents containing classification markings.  These are two entirely different things.

Most documents containing classification markings are not classified documents; yet, most classified documents contain classification markings.  Additionally, one of the documents used by Jack Smith in his indictment [COUNT #11] contained no markings at all.

Second, it is critically important to remember that throughout the legal issues in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the DOJ has viciously denied any responsibility to describe the classified documents they claim to have retrieved.  In fact, the DOJ has fought against any entity, including the court appointed “special master”, from being able to look at the documents the DOJ *previously* claimed were either classified, or, vital to national security. {GO DEEP}

Because there is a very specific type of Lawfare taking place with words, it is critical to see the value in what Devin Nunes understands about the way the language is being deployed.   Now we return to the testimony of the national archivist office, and here is where it gets really interesting.

(more…)

Rather than write 10,000 highly specific and legally granular words to deconstruct the Trump indictment, I will share the opinion of others with supporting analysis and add some substance to the issues. Later I will compile all the various points of analysis into one very granular article.

First, it is important to always remember why this indictment is taking place.  The DOJ, specifically Lisa Monaco, are continuing the offensive against Trump in large part to cover for the actions of the Obama administration in the originating targeting of their political opposition.  Originating Spygate operations (’15-’16), Russiagate (’16-’17), Mueller (’17-’19), Impeachment #1 (’19-’20), Durham (’19-’23) and Jack Smith ’22-present, are all part of one long continuum of weaponized DOJ and FBI operations.  The entirety of the effort is to protect the actions taken by the Obama administration. [Note to congress: Questioning Durham this month is defense key #1]

In this interview {Direct Rumble Link} Jeff Clark gives his opinion of the statutory weaknesses that exist in the case as outlined in the indictment.  The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  WATCH:

Granular note, putting aside the fact that classification is irrelevant to the statute being used, within the indictment please notice how the DOJ states 102 classified documents [pg 27], some that were never marked classified as noted in the indictment [count 11, page 30] but defined as classified after DOJ review, were discovered after the Trump affirmation of compliance in July 2022.  This is the predicate for the FBI raid.  Again, a total of 102 documents were identified as classified by the FBI/DOJ.

They were unable to use classification status as a legal mechanism to attack President Trump; instead, they use the non-production as an evidence enhancement to the ridiculous claim that Trump lied to them (sec 1001); but notice how there are only 31 documents [31 counts] outlined as national defense security issues.  This would mean approximately 70 classified documents are memory holed by this special counsel.

70 defined “classified” documents retrieved, no description provided, those documents not a part of any legal contention – they just disappear.   I suspect we know what those sets of documents pertained to, and they have everything to do with DOJ and FBI conduct in Russiagate.

(more…)

….At a certain point Lawfare fails.

Do you remember the prosecution “Witness #8” in the case against George Zimmerman? The person described as Trayvon Martin’s “girlfriend” who was claimed by FOUR state prosecutors to be the star “ear witness” against Zimmerman.

Do you remember how we waited month after month, laughing at how the State of Florida was relying upon their one key witness, and we all knew it was totally made up?

Do you remember the buildup, the drama, the media’s breathless anticipation, and the eventual beverage that flushed out of your nose in laughter when the State called Witness #8, and brought Rachel Jeantel to the stand?

Not only did she have no clue about any detail the prosecution was saying, she didn’t fit any of the profile that was claimed to be her importance in the case.  And… not only could she not read the statement the State of Florida claimed she wrote (she didn’t), Jeantel didn’t even know Trayvon Martin.  She was completely manufactured by the prosecution because her mom was a friend of Trayvon’s mom.  Everyone wondered how the hell the prosecution could even put her on the stand. Remember that?

The reason they put her on the stand was because the prosecution and Trayvon’s family had no choice.  For over a year, they had hyped up this imaginary “ear witness” in an effort to convince Zimmerman to take a plea deal.  That was the purpose of the fabrication, and when George Zimmerman didn’t take the plea – when he forced the prosecution to put Witness #8 on the stand – the case collapsed, because the case was manufactured.

When people ask me about the DOJ and/or Jack Smith bringing an indictment against President Trump, in many ways I laugh while waiting for the DOJ to bring a proverbial Jeantel to the court.  The DOJ has to indict Trump for the same reason Angela Corey had to put Jeantel on the stand.  Their political narrative cases have to continue regardless of the evidence.  Lawfare is a construct for media consumption intended to manipulate public opinion.

(more…)

Last year, CTH outlined a four-part series of articles going deep into the background of the DOJ-FBI raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, along with the outline into why it was important to them.  It doesn’t matter how many different legal angles and Deep State justifications the DOJ attempts to deploy in order to divert away from what took place; the background of who, what, when and why they raided Mar-a-Lago will not change.

In Part One, we outlined the background of the modern Deep State {Go Deep}. In Part Two we outlined the specifics of how President Trump was targeted by political operatives using tools created by the DC system {Go Deep}.  In Part Three we outlined how and why President Trump was blocked from releasing documents {Go Deep}.  And then finally, as below in Part 4, we assembled the specifics of what documents likely existed in Mar-a-Lago.

It is important to remember, the Presidential Records Act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute.  An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.

The DOJ-NSD warrant, and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago can only be related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests.  Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement.

In prior outlines, we have exhaustively covered the details of President Trump’s desire to publicly release information about DOJ and FBI conduct in their targeting of him during the fabricated Trump-Russia claims.  However, to understand the nature of the documents he may hold, we first review the declassification memo provided by President Trump to the DOJ upon his departure from office.

(more…)

I’m going to go into the deep weeds on this story, because many people are missing a key facet.  The names behind the Trump targeting operation are included, along with citations for independent checks by House congressional investigators.

Inside the recently released report by John Durham [CITATION], the special counsel outlines how former FBI Director James Comey was intimately involved in the creation of the Carter Page FISA application.  Durham notes that Comey kept asking the DOJ National Security Division and FBI counterintelligence investigators, “Where’s the FISA, we need the FISA.”  However, John Durham never interviewed James Comey or Andrew McCabe.  The former FBI Director and Deputy refused to cooperate or give testimony to John Durham.  So, how did John Durham have details about the demands of Comey?

The answer is found in the footnotes.  Durham reviewed transcripts of interviews given by Andrew McCabe to the Office of the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who previously investigated FBI conduct in the origin of the Carter Page FISA.  Durham pulled quotes from that transcript. [Footnote #1207, page 199 – Durham Report]

♦QUESTION: If Andrew McCabe gave testimony to the OIG about the motives and impetus of FBI Director James Comey in pushing for the Carter Page FISA application, why did the OIG report never outline those transcribed interviews?  Why was the interview transcript never included in the 2019 OIG report?

[ NOTE to Congress.  Now that you know a transcribed interview of Andrew McCabe exists in the OIG office, request the transcription and release it to the public.]

Let me answer those questions without the customary pretending from the DC professional political class.  The short version is that OIG Michael Horowitz was trying to protect the DOJ and FBI. The longer version is a coverup that includes Rod Rosenstein, Bill Barr and yes, John Durham.  I will share that story below.

(more…)

Last night on Sean Hannity television show, House Oversight Chairman James Comer made the first admission that both he and Senator Chuck Grassley had seen the FD-1023 form filled out by an FBI agent based on allegations of Joe Biden taking bribes as outlined by an FBI CHS (Confidential Human Source).  {Backstory HERE}

FBI Director Christopher Wray refused to admit the document existed until Comer and Grassley informed Wray they had already seen it.  However, the FBI is still refusing the release the document to congress. During a Fox News interview today, Senator Chuck Grassley gives his opinion of what is contained within the six-page document {Direct Rumble Link}.  The comments about the FD-1023 happen after the 02:00 mark. WATCH:

.

(more…)

Special Counsel John Durham previously submitted his 306-page report on Matters Related to the Intelligence Community Efforts in the 2016 Election [pdf HERE]. There is also a 48-page classified appendix available to cleared members of Congress.

On Tuesday June 20th, Durham will deliver a classified briefing to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); the following day, Wednesday June 21st, Durham will testify in a public setting before the House Judiciary Committee.

WASHINGTON DC – Special Counsel John Durham will testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his report in June, a source has told Fox News on Friday.

The hearing will happen on Wednesday, June 21. The day before, Durham will appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door briefing.

Durham has found that the Department of Justice and FBI “failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law” when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation. (read more)

We have a little less than a month to assemble questions for both the classified (HPSCI) briefing, and the public (HJC) hearing.

If you have traveled the deep weeds and have a specific line of questioning you think might be pertinent to either committee 😉, I am including the Republican names of both the HPSCI and HJC below.   The HPSCI members can ask anything – including questions directly related to classified intelligence.  The HJC members will not be limited in their questions but might find a non-answer in return to anything considered classified.

The FISA silo would likely fall into the classified questioning, depending on the specifics of the inquiry.  Questions involving the CIA and/or ODNI involvement may also be best explored in the HPSCI briefing.

(more…)

The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election.  This DNC hack claim is the fulcrum issue structurally underpinning the Russian election interference narrative pushed by the Weissmann and Muller Special Counsel.  However, this essential claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as outlined during a Dana Rohrabacher interview and by Julian Assange’s own on-the-record statements.

Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London immediately after the Weissmann/Muller report was released to Bill Barr.  Despite investigating the background of the Trump-Russia nonsense, John Durham never touched the DNC hacking claim – the core of the Mueller report.  Why? Because Durham knew the U.S. Government threw a bag over Assange to protect the fraudulent Trump-Russia and Russian interference claims.

Again, this reality speaks to the corruption within the John Durham investigation.  Durham was protecting Weissmann, Mueller and the core of their justification for a 2-year investigation.   Durham knows why Assange was arrested.  Durham stayed away from it, intentionally.

The Russians HAD TO have made efforts to interfere in the election, or else the factual basis for the surveillance operation against candidate Donald Trump is naked to the world.

That’s why so much DOJ, FBI and Mueller special counsel energy was exhausted framing the predicate.

“Seventeen intelligence agencies,” the December 29th Joint Analysis Report, the expulsion of the Russian diplomats which was an outcropping of the JAR, the rushed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, shoving microphones in everyone’s faces and demanding they answer if they believed Russia interfered – all of it, and I do mean every bit of it, is predicated on an absolute DC need to establish that Russia Attempted to Interfere in the 2016 election.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf) is pure nonsense.  It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor. However, it was needed to help frame the Russian interference narrative.

There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.

(more…)

[Part 1, understanding how the silos are used to deflect accountability.]  In this #2 outline we give specific background examples of how weaponized Trump-Russia fraud worked and calling out names with examples of what they did.

On March 15, 2017, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes held a press conference announcing there was no specific evidence of “wire taps” at Trump Tower {HERE}.  However, on March 22, 2017, Nunes held another press conference saying information was brought forth to the HPSCI showing the Trump campaign was under Title-1 surveillance by the FBI and former Obama administration {SEE HERE}.  In between those critical six days, something happened that was important.

With the full backdrop of the Durham report as the baseline, we now know there was zero evidence of any Russian interference effort in the 2016 election.

The Trump-Russia narrative was created by the Clinton campaign, promoted by the FBI and Main justice and advanced in narrative construction by the Obama administration.

On March 17, 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner asked the FISA court for a copy of the FISA application used against Trump campaign official Carter Page.

This is not in doubt and was evidenced in DC USAO court records related to SSCI security director James Wolfe who was initially indicted for leaking that specific copy of the FISA application.  The FISC stamp is also visible on the copy of the FISA that was eventually released.

QUESTION:  Why did Mark Warner request a copy of the FISA application from the FISA COURT and not from DOJ Main Justice?  The answer to that question falls into how insiders played the silo game against the Trump administration.

Warner didn’t request the FISA application from Main Justice because: (1) the DOJ insiders were going to fight the release of any toxic information that proved the Trump campaign was under active Title-1 surveillance; they were going to fight release to Devin Nunes. And (2) the legislative branch was part of the Trump-Russia attack construct and the SSCI membership were active participants with the DOJ and FBI (executive branch).

(more…)