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…)

Shifty appears with for an interview with Furrowed Brow to push the impeachment narrative etc.  Within the interview Shifty talks about lengthy coordination and careful planning with Robert Mueller for a scripted July appearance.
[Prompted to 05:38 just hit play]

.
Shifty, Pelosi and Nadler have to be very careful with Mueller to avoid exposing the coordinated enterprise behind the two-year Rosenstein, Weissmann and Mueller scheme.  It will be interesting to see how they plan it out. [If Ever]
Likely they will only bring Mueller under VERY carefully control; and they’d probably prefer a panel approach where scripted Mueller confidants can bookend him during any questioning.  It’s highly unlikely Schiff would attempt to use Robert Mueller as a stand alone witness in a public hearing.
(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…)

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…)

Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment.   The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(more…)

The foundation for the Russian election interference narrative is built on the claim of Russians hacking the servers of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and subsequently releasing damaging emails that showed the DNC worked to help Hillary Clinton and eliminate Bernie Sanders.
Despite the Russian ‘hacking’ claim the DOJ previously admitted the DNC would not let FBI investigators review the DNC server.  Instead the DNC provided the FBI with analysis of a technical review done through a cyber-security contract with Crowdstrike.

The narrative around the DNC hack claim was always sketchy; many people believe the DNC email data was downloaded onto a flash drive and leaked.  In a court filing (full pdf below) the scale of sketchy has increased exponentially.
Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.  When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission.  Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.
Yes, that is correct.  The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a “draft” report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted… and that redacted draft is the “last version of the report produced”; meaning, there are no unredacted & final versions.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!
(more…)

Responding to a request from Chairman Jerry Nadler, Attorney General William Barr has sent a letter (full pdf below)explaining the scope of the DOJ review of intelligence activities in the 2016 presidential campaign.  According to the letter AG Barr says the review is “broad in scope and multifaceted,” and includes examining actions by US and foreign intelligence agencies, “as well as non-governmental organizations and individuals.”
Here’s the letter:

(more…)