To fully understand today’s response order (pdf here) from FISA Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to the DOJ/FBI, a little background context is needed.
As we noted, last weekend HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes dropped the gloves and essentially stated the DOJ/FBI were conspiring against U.S. citizens with the wilful participation of the FISA court.  This was a stunning, albeit unreported, development.
Nunes change in posture is important because he outlined that without severe corrective action the FISC should be dismantled.  Additionally, on the specific issues of fraudulent applications to the FISC, in February  2018 Devin Nunes and former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte had prior communication to Judge Collyer with warnings.  Very strongly worded warnings and concerns.  So there’s a history on this exact issue.
In their prior communication Judge Collyer, representing the judicial branch, downplayed the warning of the legislative branch, and told Nunes and Goodlatte to work it out with the executive branch.   The developments over the FISA fraud now stand against that context.
Today, Judge Rosemary Collyer responds to the DOJ and FBI about the inspector general investigation and subsequent findings. [pdf here – and full embed below] Having read her writings, and understanding that everything FISC is classified, it is possible to see between the lines she writes.
Collyer outlines in her order how the DOJ-NSD and FBI reported issues to the FISC in October and November prior to the IG report release.  Essentially, Collyer implies the DOJ informed the court that additional FISA applications should now be considered unreliable as a result of the FBI Office of General Counsel compromise (Kevin Clinesmith):
(more…)

Regardless of whether you would support or not support the vigorous defense of Michael Flynn, I would hope we would all agree a fulsome discovery of all relevant background material is a cornerstone of justice appropriately applied.
With that in mind it is concerning how Attorney General Bill Barr would prefer to keep DOJ conduct against Flynn hidden from public review.  Consider…
♦Would it be valuable for Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to know the FBI was discussing how to “lock in” charges against [Flynn] in a “formal chargeable way”?

(text message link)

♦Would it be valuable for Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to consider how Special Counsel Robert Mueller requested DAG Rod Rosenstein to provide leverage against [Mike Flynn Jr] to coerce a plea against Michael Flynn in the second scope memo?
(more…)

Former AG Michael Mukasey appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo.  As Mukasey walks through the purpose and intents behind the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages what he outlines is really the motive for Ms. Page to be suing the DOJ and the reason why current FBI Director Chris Wray is covering for them.
Additionally, Mukasey explains the unlawful activity behind HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff gaining the phone records of Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani and John Solomon.  The only thing he didn’t mention is that AT&T owns a primary impeachment stakeholder, CNN.

.
BIG PICTURE – Lisa Page’s lawsuit is not about a breech of privacy; that’s the excuse.  Lisa Page is working with her Lawfare allies to block the release of unredacted text messages between her and Peter Strzok.  The totality of the communication outlines the context of the FBI conspiracy during the 2016 election.  That *conspiracy* is what FBI Director Christopher Wray was put in place to hide.
DAG Rosenstein recommended Chris Wray for that exact purpose. Wray then hired David Bowditch as his deputy.  Bowditch was/is compromised by his former role in the San Bernadino terrorist attack.  Wray then hired Dana Boente as FBI legal counsel. Boente was/is compromised by his prior role in the DOJ-NSD FISA effort, and his role in the capture of Julian Assange to cover-up the false claim of the Russia DNC hack.
(more…)

Amid the investigative and research questions over the past several years, there was always a question about who, within the Trump orbit, may have been subject to FISA court authorized surveillance during their activity in 2016.
Because they were initially the four targets of the FBI investigation, there was speculation Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and/or Lt. General Michael Flynn were also subjects of Title-1 FISA Court authorized surveillance, in addition to Carter Page.
Today during his testimony, Inspector General Michael Horowitz specifically noted there was no other FISA application against any other campaign official. [See 05:23 of testimony to questions by Senator Chris Coons – prompted just hit play]:

“The only FISA we found existed was the one we have written about here as to Carter Page”…

That means all other FBI investigative evidence documented against Manafort, Papadopoulos, or Flynn had to come from some other method of surveillance.
This begs a significant question….
Carter Page was not associated with the campaign or transition after the election, so under what authority did the DOJ allow the Mueller team to gain access to all of the Trump transition emails, texts, electronic and phone communications?  (more…)

Rudy Giuliani went to the Ukraine with an investigative journalist team from One America News Network and boy howdy are the democrats going bananas all over again.
In this interview Margaret Brennan sits with jaw agape as she questions Mark Meadows about the latest information that Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine. WATCH:

.
The DNC media is really worried about anyone going to Ukraine.  The over-reactions indicate something very politically damaging to them must emanate from Ukraine.
(more…)

A Washington Post spin article attempts to defend the DOJ/FBI “small group” 2016 campaign effort by claiming vindication from IG Horowitz and U.S. AG Barr not accepting the finding.   But not so fast…
Before getting to the WaPo narrative construction a little background review is worthwhile; starting with the original investigative purpose of the IG review.  The Horowitz review was initiated to look into how the DOJ and FBI secured a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page:
IG Horowitz was never investigating the predicate claims that initiated the CIA/FBI operation known as “Crossfire Hurricane”.  So how exactly would AG Barr and IG Horowitz be diverging on an aspect to a predicate that Horowitz was never reviewing?
Additionally, IG Horowitz was never tasked or empowered to interview CIA officers who are known to have been at the heart of the pre-July 2016 operation.  Horowitz was/is focused on the DOJ and FBI compliance with legal requirements for the FISA application that was assembled for use in October 2016, and renewed throughout 2017.
(more…)

In the past several days; and in anticipation of an inspector general report/release tasked to look into the FISA processes of the prior administration; I have been assembling a file, a series of reminder questions, that peer into the heart of the 2015/2016 FISA surveillance.  Today, is another reminder…  [*ahem* Sidney Powell, please note]

Left to right: Kathryn H. Ruemmler, President Obama, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice.

Knowing what we know now, consider this long forgotten letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.  Ms. Ruemmler is currently the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to President Obama.  Ask yourself: how do these paragraphs reconcile?

[Feb 23, 2018] The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
[…] While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.
Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office. (link)

How could Ms. Rice be aware of a “national security compromise”, “particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn” after a “briefing by the FBI”, if she was not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation”?
See the problem?
(more…)

There is a very strong likelihood the documentary material that FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith falsified was actual communication from Carter Page to the FBI where Page was seeking their help in 2017.   This revelation would explain and reconcile two seemingly contrasting points:

• Point one – The media have asserted, based on leaks from the principal reviews, the woods file manipulation by Clinesmith did not impact the validity of the original FISA application on October 21st, 2017.
• Point two – The material Kevin Clinesmith did manipulate was so egregious and unethical, it stands as one of the most clear examples of corrupt FBI abuse of power in recent history.

This outline will highlight a VERY disturbing picture:

Start by remembering the timeline of the Carter Page targeting through the use of a FISA application to the FISA Court (FISC).  The original application was submitted on October 21st, 2016.  The first FISA renewal was January 12, 2017 (84 days from origination).  The second renewal was April 7, 2017 (85 days from prior renewal).  The third renewal was on June 29th, 2017 (83 days from prior renewal).

Avoid the spin, and let’s focus on the facts.  According to all reporting on the falsified evidence created by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the manipulation of the woods file, happened during one of the renewals.

Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said. (NYT Link)

The renewals were: Jan 12th, April 7th, June 29th, 2017.  However, we know from the redacted release of the FISA application there was no material added in the first renewal in January 2017.   So that leaves either the April ’17 renewal or the June ’17 renewal.
(more…)

Earlier this morning President Trump called in to Fox and Friends for an hour-long  interview about the breaking story of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulating FISA documents to gain surveillance on the 2016 Trump campaign.
President Trump notes the current trickle of information is only the beginning and the background story could be the biggest political scandal in modern U.S. history.  President Trump awaits the final reports showing the full scope of the investigations and the likelihood of FBI spying and surveillance on his campaign and administration.
Additionally, President Trump discusses the frustrating political agenda behind the Pelosi and Schiff partisan impeachment effort at great length.  WATCH:

.

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HERE

(more…)

At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.
The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrett noted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”
At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

~ Above: 8:15pm Washington Post Screen Grab prior to 12:15am edit ~

However, that said, the edit(s) help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.
(more…)