Prior to 2018 any public mention of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would be cause for you to immediately lose your security clearance in government. However, by mid-2018 DC officials were not only openly discussing FISA in public settings, but the DOJ released a Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence Title-1 FISA warrant.

Why was a TSCI Title-1 FISA warrant made public in 2018?

The Carter Page FISA application and subsequent warrant would have been the easiest document to keep hidden from the public. You cannot FOIA classified documents. However, someone in the DOJ released their exclusive national security equity. I am certain it was Andrew Weissmann who made the call.

Additionally, when the DOJ FISA application was made public, few people noticed the date stamp on the application itself [copy from FISC 3/17/17].

Why was the DOJ releasing the warrant to the public, and why did they use that specific copy that came from the FISC on March 17, 2017. Why not release their own copies from their own DOJ-NSD files? What was it about the FISC copy that made it the option of their choice?

Just as the Atkinson transcript, whistleblower report and IC IG investigative material showed a fraudulent and corrupt impeachment effort, the background details of the FISA application being made public shows the fraudulent and corrupt intent of the Robert Mueller investigation that preceded it.

You will remember the massive media debate in early 2018 about the FISA application deployed against former short-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  The DOJ, at the time under the control of the Mueller special counsel for all things Trump-Russia related, wouldn’t let congress see the FISA application. Devin Nunes complained to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Eventually a deal was struck and two members from the House Intelligence committee (democrats and republicans) and two members from the House Judiciary Committee, were allowed to go to Main Justice and read the FISA application, but not copy it.  Four congressmen were allowed to go read and take notes. Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe represented the two republicans, and their notes formed the basis for what later was called “The Nunes Memo.”

The Democrats were not happy with the claims in the Nunes memo, and subsequently HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff wrote the democrat version.

Both of those sets of memos then needed to be declassified, more delays, before they could be made public.  For weeks and weeks, the Nunes -vs- Schiff memos were debated by both sides, with each saying their version was the truth and the other party’s version was spin and/or false.   All of this was happening in January, February and March 2018.

Then, later in the summer, something really weird happened.  On July 21, 2018, Main Justice completely reversed position on keeping the FISA application secret, and for the first time in U.S. history a top secret classified Title-1 FISA application was released to the public (with redactions).

People were so filled with curiosity about the Carter Page FISA application that few, heck, almost no one, stopped to ask why it was released?

Why the sudden secrecy reversal by the DOJ?

(more…)

FN 107, 108, 109 and 110 are all in the redacted paragraph top of page 25, pertaining to Carter Page. However, the footnotes are NOT redacted.

I have long said, the FISA Application that was released to the public (by Mueller/Weissman in 2018) is NOT the same as the FISA Application that sits at the DOJ-NSD/FISC.

I told John Durham in August 2020 I suspected the publicly released FISA was *NOT* the same as the one with the court.

[*Initial and first renewal had FISC stamps (March 17, 2017). The second and third renewals did not have FISC stamps at all when released.]

Former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said during Senate hearing (Ted Cruz question), he did not release the FISA; the special counsel team did. They held authority over DOJ/FBI on all things Russiagate.

When Mueller/Weissmann released the FISA application, July 2018 (it was part of a set of timed releases including the Warner texts) under the ridiculous auspices of releasing a Top Secret TSCI document to fulfill a FOIA request…. the first ever in history of the IC… few people stopped to ask why was this ok’d to release?

They had to release the FISA because it was already public (Warner/Wolfe illegal leak), and the underpinning of several outcomes of evidence for the Mueller indictments (fruit of the poisonous tree). But there were some aspects Mueller/Weissmann could not risk in the release.

(more…)

This is a good strategic move.  Security Clearances are the credentialed currency of those who work in the DC administrative state.  Specifically, a lawyer inside the DC machine is essentially of no value without a security clearance.

Additionally, the absence of a security clearance opens up both parties in DC to legal exposure from discussing or receiving information that is defined by the apparatus as NSI (national security information). And the cherry on the top of the proverbial cake is that Lawfare uses their definitions of NSI in an attempt to stop sunlight on their corrupt activity.

Revocation of security clearances is a win, win, win; a triple winnamin.

President Donald Trump decided Saturday to remove security clearances for several Democrats, including former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom are vocal Trump critics, Fox News has learned. (more)

Additional names include, Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen, Lisa Monaco, Jake Sullivan and Mark Zaid, who also had their clearances revoked.

(more…)

Sometimes DC is a fishbowl, and they don’t realize the background of what we know, when they are speaking.  Testimony today is a case study of one bubble within that fishbowl.

Former House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff organized the first impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.  Schiff is now a Senator.  Schiff’s former lead staff in the impeachment investigation was Mary McCord.

Today, during the question session for AG Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.

I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:

Mary McCord says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort. Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort? Mary McCord.

Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint? Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.

In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

(more…)

A recent soundbite shared on the Twitter platform aligns with so many aspects about how the IC targets their enemies, and how the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) then weaponizes the opportunities provided by the U.S intelligence apparatus.

Notice in this short video how Mary McCord positions the power structure of the DOJ-NSD silo in deference to the Intelligence Community (IC). This is a critical path within the next step to American’s “great awakening.” In the past we have outlined how the DOJ-NSD weaponizes their Lawfare by using “National Security Information,” or what the insiders call “NSI.”

As an outcome of the way our checks and balances have been modified against our interests, the judicial branch has repeatedly deferred to the DOJ around the issue of “national security.” In fact, if the DOJ labels any Lawfare approach as a national security matter the subsequent evidence therein, the NSI (even when not seen) is accepted by the judicial branch without question. The judicial branch defers to the executive on all matters defined by the executive as “national security.”

This is the area of exploit being discussed by Mary McCord in this segment. However, notice there is one apparatus that can supercede the DOJ-NSD’s ability to weaponize Nat Sec Information, that’s the power of the intelligence apparatus. WATCH:

Lawfare coordinator Mary McCord admits that she and another lawfare coordinator, Andrew Weissmann, worked with the DOJ and intelligence losers on what bogus charges to bring against Trump. pic.twitter.com/4jqgetvURZ

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) October 4, 2024

McCord notes how she and Andrew Weissmann navigate through the process of using NSI as they move toward their target; the most common reference is their political opposition, Donald J Trump.

If there is one Lawfare operative who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord. More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook; he was the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts when the Dobbs decision was leaked.

(more…)

The overall prosecution attempt by Jack Smith was fundamentally deconstructed when the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of President Trump carrying ‘presidential immunity’ for officials acts while in office.  The ruling meant Smith had to go back to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court and work through a process of outlining what is and is not an ‘official act’ according to the DOJ.

The result of that approach was made public yesterday, when Judge Chutkan revealed a new 165-page indictment [SEE HERE], essentially a list of evidence the DOJ claims as proof of “unofficial acts” allowing them to jump the hurdle of “official acts.”  However, the reality of Jack Smith’s filing is a story without much legal value. Instead, it is a 165-page Lawfare story created for media promotion.

Many followers have accepted that Jack Smith is not necessarily the person constructing the legal filings. There is a solid argument to be made that Andrew Weissmann, Norm Eisen and Mary McCord are the Lawfare allies tasked with writing the material.  When you read the filing, the manipulation of legalese to shape a narrative story is clear.

As former DOJ Asst AG Jeffrey Clark has noted, the filing attempts to obfuscate the legal requirements of “state of mind” by projecting what President Trump must have thought, as expressed by the opinion of unknown advisors.  Jack Smith says President Trump thought this, without actually providing any evidence of what President Trump thought. Additionally, this Lawfare approach toward including redacted quotes amounts to written testimony, which would never pass muster in any court.

The accused has a right to confront witnesses; however, in written text that questioning becomes impossible.  In essence, Jack Smith violates the principle and stated purpose of the sixth amendment.  This is one of the ways you can tell the filing itself is not intended to outline evidence, but rather to outline a story.  The claimed “evidence” is simply a story the Lawfare team want to deliver in October of an election year.

(more…)

It’s really not Jack Smith, so we should drop the pretenses.  Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann have recrafted a new DC indictment against President Trump by dropping around 10 pages of fraudulent evidence from the prior indictment and labeling it a “superseding indictment.”

The 36-page indictment is available HERE.  Essentially, after the supreme court decision on immunity, the majority of the previous case against President Trump was likely to fail, so Mary, Norm and Andrew went back and modified the previously lawfare to fit a narrower scale as requested by the supreme court.

The Lawfare crew then hand off the indictment to Jack Smith who runs it through a Grand Jury, and re-files it as a new set of issues; however, the majority of the case is structurally the same, they just took out the evidence they were using.  This fiasco does not appear to be any better than the previous pages of Lawfare.

(Via Politico) – […] The new indictment removes some specific allegations against Trump but contains the same four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. It’s a signal that Smith believes the high court’s immunity decision doesn’t pose a major impediment to convicting the former president.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” Smith’s team wrote in an accompanying court filing.

(more…)

UPDATED by Request: /SD

The tip of the Lawfare spear consists of a small group of former DOJ attorneys and Main Justice leftists who helped AG Eric Holder create the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) when it was formed on behalf of President Obama.

Lawfare, writ large, are a tribe of leftists who strategically weaponize the justice systems within the DOJ.  They are also the main guides, strategists and legal analysts who previously used Robert Mueller and currently use Jack Smith.

The tribe is led by a trio of fellow travelers: Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann.

If you research the group, you will discover that Mary McCord sits at the center of every attack approach deployed against President Trump {CITATION}.  The influence of McCord cannot be overstated, while gender fluid leftists like Eisen, Weissmann (and others), wax philosophically about which statutes can be twisted and interpreted to assist their Lawfare strategy du jour.

Everything we have watched unfold, from using “The Logan Act” against Michael Flynn, to using “Obstruction” against President Trump and the “Insurrection Act” against J-6 targets, comes from this small crew of effeminate leftists.

The similarity of the behavioral proclivities is an outcome of their tribal synchronicity.  Much like the McClintock or Wellesley effect, when you isolate Lawfare individuals into a small tribe, their collective behaviors replicate. These travelers were incubated in the DOJ-NSD.

This crew of Brookings funded Lawfare ideologues was also described by Christine Blasey-Ford as her “Beach Friends.”

Since leaving official government positions, the main trio of Lawfare leadership congregate professionally on MSNBC and feed the leftists in media and politics from their primary cable outlet.

I noted, during a recent flight filled with DC bureaucrats and IC officials (United Airlines), how the drones all watched MSNBC on their seat monitors as if it was a religious service that needed to be attended.  It really was a sight to see.  Every bureaucrat, active or retired, seated with their laptop under the headrest monitor while typing, texting and DM’ing in unison like synchronized swimmers.

That experience was the first time I realized how the term “NPC’s” or non-Player Characters might have originated as a meme, but the label was eerily accurate.

(more…)

This is not going to be a surprise for regular CTH readers; however, Politico is outlining how a group of Lawfare ideologues meet every Friday to discuss their constructed legal filings and the next week of attack angles against President Donald Trump.

In essence, the core group inside the meeting are what Christine Blasey-Ford called the “beach friends” when discussing who constructed the legal avenues for the ridiculous attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

As we have noted for the past several years, it’s this same group of Lawfare ideologues, mostly former DOJ administrators and lawyers, who are behind every anti-Trump effort.   The primary trio is Mary McCord, Norm Eisen (left in red tie), and Andrew Weissmann.

These are the three members who write the briefs and court motions that Jack Smith then files.

Mary McCord worked in the DOJ-NSD to secure the first Title-1 warrant against the Trump campaign; then she created the Logan Act violation to use against Michael Flynn; then she went to work with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on both impeachment efforts; then McCord went to work for Bennie Thompson on the J6 committee; then she worked as the liaison between the J6 Committee and Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and now Mary McCord currently works for Jack Smith on the special counsel effort.

Politico outlines how Lawfare operative Norm Eisen organizes the weekly Lawfare meeting and lists the participants who also join in.  Remember, Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann are the primary Lawfare agents.

Via POLITICO – […] Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.

The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts.

The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic and CNN legal analyst, who has been convening the group since 2022 as Trump’s legal woes ramped up. Eisen was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.

(more…)

Before getting into the weeds, here’s the big picture baseline.  All documents and records created within the executive branch are created for the benefit of the head of the Executive Branch, the president.

There is no entity, organization, assembly, institution, person or individual, above the President of the United States. The president holds absolute power and absolute immunity. Everyone within the executive branch works at the pleasure of the president, and all work products are created for his administration. This is the plenary power of the president.

The entire documents case in Florida rests on the principle that another entity supersedes the president within the executive branch.  Some unknown, unnamed bureaucracy can override the president and decide for themselves what would be called a “presidential record” and what would be called “classified information.”

Jack Smith, Norm Eisen (pictured left, red tie) and Andrew Weissmann each argue that some other entity rests atop the president and can make this decision.

Judge Aileen Cannon has not determined which constitutional argument is correct, and has told the parties to create jury instructions both ways. The Lawfare crew of Smith, Eisen and Weissmann are going bananas.

[…] Cannon’s first scenario would allow the jury to make a factual determination about whether a former president deemed a record to be personal or official under the PRA. That is nonsensical – presidents are not allowed to designate official records as personal ones, so there is no factual issue for a jury to resolve.

A different set of laws govern the classification process and the rules for handling highly sensitive classified documents — not the PRA. They include Executive Order 13526. One of the authors of this column (Eisen) helped write that executive order. The 11th Circuit has already established that those rules fully apply to former presidents.

(more…)