I apologize for the deep weed details, but this stuff will soon become critical.  If James Comey is indicted for leaking the “Comey memos” suddenly the door opens wide to see how the Robert Mueller appointment was a coordinated ongoing ‘conspiracy’ effort to target Donald Trump.

Back in June 2017 CNN (and other media) filed a FOIA suit to gain the Comey memos.  As the lawsuit progressed through a lengthy battle -where the Mueller team did not want to turn over those memos- Mueller’s lead FBI agent, David Archey, made sworn declarations to the court. Those statements became known as the “Archey Declarations”.  Inside those declarations agent Archey provided a specific outline of the FBI and the memos.

There are two sets of documents that outline a very specific picture.  Robert Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey made sworn declarations to the court. However, at the time of his sworn statement, Archey did not have knowledge of an inside FBI “whistleblower” who provided information to DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

There is a distinct conflict within the IG Horowitz report on James Comey (and memos) [Available Here] and the David Archey declarations [Available Here].  However, beyond the conflict there’s an even more alarming picture of how Robert Mueller was deployed, when all the information is overlaid in a timeline.   A very clear picture emerges; very clear.

Note the date: Agent Archey states the “investigative team” came into full possession of the Comey memos: “on or by May 12th, 2017,”…

[Page #3 of Exhibit A – Archey Declarations]

The “investigative team” would be Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and then James Baker as lead counsel for the group.  The “Director’s staff” would be James Rybicki, who is identified by Archey as having “maintained” possession of the memos.

This “small group”, particularly Comey’s Chief of Staff, James Rybicki, is the center of the team.  This team is also confirmed by the IG Horowitz report. This team had the memos on May 12th, 2017.

Now we move into the aspect where the motives and ideology become clear as we look at the IG custodial record of the memos, as outlined by the Supervisory Special Agent in charge of Comey’s documents within the IG report, compared to the Archey declarations.
(more…)

I have less than zero sympathy or consideration of credibility for both individuals in the video below.  Former Deputy Director Dan Bongino sits down for a dramatic, Q-feeding therapy session with Mr Tick-Tock himself, Sean Hannity.

In a widely discussed interview, the co-dependent enabler – masking himself as the victim of all things deep state, says on one hand there are honorable ‘rank and file’ within the FBI as an institution, and on the other hand he fears they will target him once President Trump leaves office.  Go figure.

If you face reality and stop pretending, you then look at the facts with cold pragmatism:  ♦The Robert Mueller investigation used 40 FBI agents, issued 2,800 subpoenas, executed 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 secret orders for communication records, used 50 pen registers and interviewed 500 witnesses, all to prove there was a Trump-Russia conspiracy afoot.  All of it was complete nonsense.  That is the reality of the thing.

On day #1, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino should have terminated (or suspended pending criminal investigation) any and all of those FBI agents and support personnel with extreme prejudice and then held a press conference to make the announcement.

Delivering mysterious statements about the scale and scope of the institutional problem, pouring fuel on innuendo, proclaiming vague possibilities, while hiding behind some opaque ‘trust me bro‘ reasoning for a currently mysterious inability to explain exactly what the heck he is talking about, is unadulterated dramatic ‘clickbait’ prose intended to feed an audience willing to be deceived. WATCH:

.

(more…)

Newly appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, from the Eastern District of Viginia, has released a criminal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey [SEE INDICTMENT HERE].

The indictment alleges three counts. Counts one and two are ‘false statements’ to Congress on September 30, 2020, [18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)], and count three is ‘obstruction of a federal proceeding’ stemming from the same testimony. [18U.S.C. § 1505]

The first false statement charge surrounds Hillary Clinton’s “approval of a plan concerning” Donald Trump and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

[SOURCE]

♦ COUNT #1 – James Comey claimed he could not remember being made aware of the Trump-Russia collusion plan, and there is ample evidence from his own previous public statements, from public and sworn statements by former CIA Director John Brennan, from former statements by officials in the January 5, 2017, meeting memorialized by Susan Rice, from statements that remain sealed as recounted by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and from statements under oath by the former Clinton campaign team -including campaign manager Robby Mook- that James Comey was well aware of the plan.

While this first count is based on the tenuous “I don’t remember” aspect, this count holds more material benefit than simply Comey’s recollection. This count could open the door to public testimony by McCabe, Rice, Mook, Brennan and even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton herself as to Comey’s knowledge; each was a first-hand witness.

This first count holds strong material value in a public trial regardless of the outcome. This first count establishes the baseline for USAO Lindsey Halligan to bring all material witnesses into court and publicly put them on record outlining the Trump-Russia collusion scheme.

You could say, I hope the intent is not just to incarcerate Comey per se’ – but rather to use what Comey represents to indict the entire enterprise around him.  The facts behind Count #1 make this possible.

Let’s all hope this strategic intent unfolds.

(more…)

Apparently, Kash Patel just discovered Daniel Richman, the guy who leaked information on behalf of James Comey; and along with that name from the past, someone in the Kash Patel office decided they wanted to highlight the 8-year-old FBI investigation about the FBI hunting for internal leakers.

Patel sends John Solomon the information on Daniel Richman.  Solomon repackages the information and sells it as new bombshells.  I’m not sure what these guys are doing, but Richman is a well known name from the past, when James Comey made the unsolicited announcement, a self-admission in 2017 about his use of Richman to leak to the New York Times.

SEE Solomon Article HERE – READ the FBI Information HERE

If you find something new about Daniel Richman and his leaking for Comey, let me know.  So far, it seems like something we discussed and outlined years ago being repackaged for Tick-Tock promotion.

The story of James Comey using Daniel Richman is old news.   Even OIG Michael Horowitz investigated the FBI leaks and wrote a report about it.

SEE Richman article from 2018 – SEE Richman article from 2017 – See Richman article from 2019 

In 2018, Congressman Jim Jordan made mention of the issue where James Comey had a special employee on assignment ‘off-the-books’.  People started asking questions, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge detailed how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.

2018 – The professor, Daniel Richman, confirmed the special status in response to an inquiry from Fox News, while referring other questions, including on the scope of his work, to the FBI.

“I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay),” Richman wrote in an email.

Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for leaking memos documenting his private discussions with President Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material. Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding. (read more)

Daniel Richman is part of the Lawfare association and close friends with Benjamin Wittes, another of Comey’s tribe.  Remember the little cannon Wittes would use during Andrew Weissmann’s Trump-Russia investigation?

(more…)

Interestingly, yesterday I posited some random thoughts about accountability on Teh Twitter, noting that a few dozen random accounts know more about Russiagate individually than any person who has ever sat in a room with President Donald Trump.  [FWIW – The author of this story I’m highlighting agreed.]

Miranda Devine notes in a New York Post article (Murdoch publication), polling shows more people are following the declassification of Russiagate documents than ever before [READ HERE].  That’s both a good thing from the perspective of an enlarged awakening but also holds a serious downside if people are focused on the delivery of accountability.

The series of documents declassified by the DNI (Gabbard), CIA (Ratcliffe) and FBI (via Grassley) has not changed the arc of the story; but they have provided strong evidence to support what was already obvious.

Essentially: the Clinton Campaign and the U.S. Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, conspired together to exonerate Clinton from her email scandal, and frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset to assist her election win in 2016.

Everyone who has walked the deep weeds of Russiagate/Spygate has essentially known this framework for seven or more years.  The DNI, CIA and FBI evidence is providing receipts for the operation as it unfolded.  The latest evidence has proven the conspiracy researchers accurate, and the corporate media participants who participated in the ruse are not happy.

Miranda Devine breaks down the data on who is following the story and what the releases have done to squash the defenses of those who tried to label the Clinton/FBI operation as conspiracy theory.  All of this is a very positive outcome and a greater percentage of the public are now aware.

However, there’s a downside as a result of those who are new to these discoveries.  Even more people are thirsting for accountability for the conduct, and those who are very familiar with the story are renewing expectations of criminal activity against the perpetrators of the fraud.

(more…)

Special Counsel John Durham has released a highly anticipated 316-page report outlining corrupt U.S. activity during the targeting of presidential candidate, president elect, and subsequent President, Donald J Trump.

[FULL REPORT pdf HERE]

I have completed my first review of the report, and suffice to say the details within it are not new.  The majority of the reaction so far has been centered around how Special Counsel Durham is not prosecuting anyone for their corrupt conduct outlined within the report.  However, for the sake of this first review, I will draw attention to a few aspects you will likely not see discussed anywhere else.

Please note this detail found at the bottom of page 3 and top two lines of page #4:

[…] “The Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate but did not investigate every public report of an alleged violation of law in connection with the intelligence and law enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns.”

As perhaps the only person who tracked down and subsequently interviewed the investigators on the Durham team, and as a person who subsequently came away with a full understanding of how the silo operation inside this investigation was going to play out, I can reasonably assure you that notation and reference by team Durham is entirely directed to us.

That statement above tells us why none of the DC politicians who engaged in specific violations of law were criminally charged. This is part of the silo effect within government, which I will explain later.  As a good friend said, “Yeah great, but we don’t have badges.”  So, we went to the badges with the evidence, but the badges did not want to act upon the evidence, because it would have been, in their estimation, too damaging to the framework of our government.

(more…)

The legal case brought by prosecutor John Durham against Igor Danchenko is predicated on the notion that Christopher Steele’s source for his dossier willfully and intentionally lied to the FBI, and therefore Danchenko is guilty of purposefully misleading FBI investigators assigned to the Trump-Russia/”crossfire hurricane” investigation.

Transparently everyone knows the FBI were not duped by Danchenko and records indicate Danchenko told them the Steele dossier was full of fabricated nonsense. Additionally, to keep the revelation of the dossier as nonsense hidden, the FBI hired Danchenko as a confidential human source, technically shielding him from being questioned or exposed.  The FBI decision to hire Danchenko was to keep the fraudulent dossier useful for their Trump targeting operation.

So, what’s going on?

This is where John Durham is doing two things: (1) He is protecting the corrupt DOJ and FBI institutions by not investigating any government action; and yet, (2) Durham is exposing corrupt FBI and DOJ action through his court filings and cases.  Yesterday Durham provided more evidence of just how corrupt the FBI was in the lead-in to the 2016 election.

FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s contracted opposition researcher, Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, was offered up to $1 million by the FBI in early October 2016 if Chris Steele could prove the claims within the Trump dirt dossier he authored.

Steele was never paid the money because he could not prove the claims within the dossier, nor would he give up the name of the primary source for the information, Igor Danchenko.  However, despite the FBI knowing the dossier could not be proved, validated or verified, later that same month they used the dossier as evidence to support a Title-1 FISA warrant against former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

The details provided by Durham only prove the researched outline we made almost 5 years ago.

(more…)

CTH begins every outline of the ongoing Durham investigation with the following disclaimer:  How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up?

The short answer is, Durham can’t.  He’s not allowed to.

Durham can only outline the external participants in the corrupt activity of the U.S. government. No internal participants of government, legislative or executive, are allowed to be investigated.

In the latest court filings against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, the prosecution drops some significant discoveries outlining how the external participants lied to willfully blind FBI officials.  Technofog has all the details:

On September 19, 2016, DNC/Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker, where Baker was provided with data and “white paper” purporting to show covert communications (since proven to be bogus) between Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

Special Counsel John Durham has just provided evidence that the night before – on September 18, 2016 – Sussmann sent Baker this text:

(more…)

Look carefully at this tweet from Catherine Herridge at CBS.  Notice anything?

Emphasis mine:

“#Durham filing reveals his team learned for first time, this month, the Office of the Inspector General had TWO cellphones for former FBI General Counsel who is central witness in Sussmann case, “the Government has been working diligently to review their contents.””

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has known about the Durham probe of Michael Sussmann for how long?  And specifically, the criminal case against Sussmann revolved around the central witness, the point of contact with former FBI General Counsel, Jim Baker.  Yet the OIG said nothing to John Durham about their possession of Baker’s phones until this month?

Think about what that tells us?

(more…)

Carter Page was the convenient target of a FISA application the Obama-era DOJ and FBI needed to cover for their illegal surveillance. In essence, late summer 2016 the DOJ/FBI needed to get a search warrant to cover for the illegal political surveillance they had been undertaking for the past 10+ months on the Trump campaign.

The DOJ/FBI had an intelligence source named Carter Page, essentially an informant who worked for the CIA and whom the FBI previously used to indict Russians in the Buryakov case. Page was tangentially affiliated with the Trump campaign, so he became the conduit -a target- to get a search warrant that would provide the cover for all prior surveillance.

Carter Page became the useful target, and the Steele dossier, again provided by -essentially- another confidential informant (Chris Steele), provided the evidence to support the warrant. Thus, the dossier was important to support the search warrant application (the FISA app). The FISA application is the Title-1 search warrant application, and the dossier was essentially the underlying ‘woods file’, to justify the warrant.

Everything associated with the search warrant was nonsense, including the informants (Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko, Charles Dolan) who provided the DOJ with evidence (fabricated information) to take to the judge. That’s why it is all falling apart in closer examination. Everyone in the DOJ and FBI knew the evidence justifying the search warrant was nonsense, but they needed the warrant to cover for their prior unlawful conduct.

However, the target of that warrant, the former useful CIA, FBI and DOJ informant who was valuable to the DOJ in prior legal cases, is angry. Carter Page is righteously angry at the FBI and DOJ for lying to a judge (FISA Court) to get a search warrant against him and everyone he talked to and communicated with. So Carter Page has been filing civil lawsuits against the participants hoping to hold them accountable.

Today the civil lawsuit Carter Page -vs- James Comey, former FBI Director at the time when Page was targeted, was assigned to a new judge….. and who do you think the judge “randomly selected” was?

Yup…. James Boasberg, current presiding judge over the FISA Court.

(more…)