There are obviously multiple investigative angles stemming from all the stories within investigations into the previous administration’s politicization of the FBI and DOJ.  One of those angles is the system of applying for FISA warrants and surveillance of U.S. persons.
Against the backdrop of FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras mysterious recusal from the Mike Flynn case; and against increasing sunlight upon FBI investigative agent Peter Strzok, yesterday House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, discussed his ongoing concerns about abuse within the FBI and DOJ process.

WASHINGTON DC – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News on Friday that his investigators have already uncovered evidence of “abuse” in the U.S. government’s surveillance practices.

“I believe there’s evidence that abuses have occurred,” Nunes said in his first interview since the House Ethics Committee dismissed allegations he had wrongly released classified information as part of the panel’s Russia investigation.

(more…)

It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out the October 2016 FISA warrant was gained by use of the Christopher Steele dossier. That’s a critical and key element to the sunlight upon the entire enterprise.
If the counterintelligence FISA warrant was obtained through deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant is what led to the wiretapping and surveillance of candidate Donald Trump and General Flynn; and that warrant was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras –who was the judge in Flynn’s case, and is now recused– the entire tenuous FBI and DOJ operation begins to collapse.
The back-story to the FISA warrant is the cornerstone. The back-story contains both the FBI and the DOJ scheme. Expose it, remove it, and the entire ‘muh Russia’ conspiracy fraud collapses under the weight of sunlight.

(more…)

Last night news broke that U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras “has been recused” from the case overseeing the prosecution of General Mike Flynn. Details are vague. According to Reuters, both the judge and the Flynn legal team have yet to comment.
Additionally, there is no concrete answer as to whether the recusal was done by the judge himself or was forced upon him. While the reasoning is the key, the difference between the two options adds another layer of consequence within the rest of this outline.  Reuters News Service puts it this way:

(Reuters) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.
Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned. Reuters could not immediately learn the reason for the recusal, or reach Contreras. An attorney for Flynn declined to comment. (Link)

Obviously, the customary reason for recusal is when there is a conflict of interest between the case as assigned and the judge overseeing it.  However, as you can clearly see, in this case it’s rather odd that if a conflict existed the judge would have even begun to oversee the case at the prior hearing.  Why wait until six days after the first hearing?
(more…)

“The Predicate”

FBI Director Christopher Wray appears before the House Judiciary Committee today to answer questions about the ongoing mission objectives of the FBI.  However, the opportunity for Wray’s appearance is being used to further investigate and unravel the ongoing issues surrounding the politicization of the FBI under the former leadership of Director James Comey.  Specifically how the FBI was weaponized against the campaign of candidate Donald Trump to the benefit of 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
In the questioning segment below Ohio Representative Jim Jordan questions Director Wray about the role of FBI Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok. Jim Jordan outlines the role of Strzok -as it is currently known- and asks if Agent Strzok then took information from Christopher Steele (author of the ‘Steele Russian Dossier’) and used that dossier as the predicate to organize the FISA application that began the surveillance of people associated with the Trump campaign:

.
This line of questioning is critical because when combined with a year of investigation by the Dept of Justice, Office of Inspector General, the sunlight takes a two-pronged approach:
♦The IG is working from the inside to investigate the politicization, a more apt term is ‘weaponization‘, of the FBI and DOJ within those organizations.  The IG is then identifying specific people and specific behavior.
♦The oversight committees (Judiciary, Intelligence) are working from the outside of the organizations to spotlight the consequences from those people and from that behavior.
(more…)

More evidence of the institutional bias amid the top-tier of the FBI and DOJ surfaces today when Judicial Watch receives emails sent from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputy Andrew Weissmann to former DOJ head Sally Yates.
On the night Acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates refused to uphold the President Trump travel and VISA restrictions Andrew Weissmann (pictured below) praised her insubordination and thanked her for undermining the President:

(email pdf link)

Sally Yates was fired that night for her refusal to defend the administration travel and VISA restrictions.  Andrew Weissmann is the top deputy for Robert Mueller’s current Russian Election Conspiracy investigation.
(more…)

Deputy Head of Counterintelligence – FBI Agent Peter Strzok is either the hardest working politically-biased FBI investigator in the history of the agency, or he’s being set-up as a scapegoat.
Consider:  •Peter Strzok was the lead FBI agent in charge of the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation. •Agent Strzok was one of a small group who actually interviewed Hillary Clinton. •Agent Strzok was also the person who interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, granting them immunity. •Agent Strzok created the wording for the Comey/Clinton exoneration
•Strzok was the counterintelligence investigator for the 2016 ‘vast Russian conspiracy’, narrative. •Agent Strzok was also the FBI contact person to receive the Russian Dossier and interview the author Christopher Steele.
•Agent Peter Strzok was then hired by Robert Mueller to lead the FBI investigative efforts into  the “Russian Election Collusion/Conspiracy.” •Agent Strzok was the person who interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
•Agent Strzok was then removed from the Mueller Team after the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton content of his internal communications were discovered by the ongoing Inspector General investigation.
The structure of this narrative surrounding Peter Strzok is discussed by Tucker Carlson:
(more…)

OK, before going further, we need to step back and take a look at how deeply enmeshed Deputy Head of Counterintelligence FBI Agent Peter Strzok was to this entire FBI investigative enterprise.

•Peter Strzok was the lead FBI agent in charge of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. •Agent Peter Strzok was one of a small group who interviewed Hillary Clinton. •Agent Strzok was also the FBI contact person to receive the Russian Dossier and interview the author Christopher Steele.  [Remember, Hillary Clinton’s team paid Christopher Steele (via Fusion GPS) to create the dossier.] •Agent Strzok was the primary counterintelligence investigator for the ‘vast Russian conspiracy’, narrative.  •Agent Strzok was then hired by Robert Mueller to lead the FBI investigative efforts into  the “Russian Election Collusion/Conspiracy.”  •Agent Strzok was removed from the Mueller Team after the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton content of his internal communications were discovered by the current Inspector General investigation….

…and today we discover that Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was the person who interviewed National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn on January 24th, 2017.  An interview, that blindsided Flynn because there was no advanced notification…. And an interview that was the basis for the recent Robert Mueller charging of Flynn.
Good grief, it’s no wonder why the FBI desperately tried to control a pending IG release by advance-scripting a narrative, via leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.
If FBI Agent Strzok can be shown to have conflicting political and institutional bias, then every aspect of the investigation he was involved in comes into question… and Agent Strzok is at the EPICENTER of every angle, within every aspect, of EVERY investigation.

SARA CARTER – A supervisory special agent who is now under scrutiny after being removed from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office for alleged bias against President Trump also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, this reporter has learned.

(more…)

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn releases a statement following his plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller:

It would appear, as CTH has predicted for well over a year, that Flynn brokered a deal with Robert Mueller to admit to misleading statements to the FBI in exchange for Mueller agreeing not to prosecute Flynn for his FARA (lobbying) violations.
As CTH warned in November of 2016 Flynn was involved in lobbying efforts on behalf of the Turkish government.  The financial constructs surrounding the payments to Flynn were sketchy, very sketchy.  CTH anticipated this sketchy behavior would come back to bite Flynn and -by extension- could be an issue for the White House if he took a high level position.  None of that had anything whatsoever to do with the fictitious vast Russian conspiracy story.
It is increasingly clear that Mueller used the sketchy financial arrangement between Turkey and Flynn -specifically how Flynn maneuvered the money- as the leverage in the unrelated Russian conspiracy investigation.
Giving Flynn a pass on his failure to register the arrangement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and the banking issues (possibly IRS trouble), gets Robert Mueller a dual benefit.
Benefit #1 – Robert Mueller gets Flynn as a notch on his political belt and; Benefit #2 simultaneously sets up a scenario where he can allow Tony Podesta et al, to skate prosecution for similar illegal and sketchy lobbying activity.
(more…)

“Deep State”? – Charles McCullough Story

What a tangled web is weaved….  Hillary Clinton paid her lawyers at Perkins Coie for opposition research on candidate Donald Trump.  In turn Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS to gather information.  Fusion GPS paid Christopher Steele to write the “Russian Dossier”.
The FBI also paid Christopher Steele.  Additionally, prior evidence surfaced suggesting the FBI used the dossier to get FISA warrants against the Trump campaign. And NOW we discover that Fusion GPS paid journalists and five media companies to participate.
Oh, if this ain’t just sketchy as all hell:

WASHINGTON – Newly filed court documents confirm that Fusion GPS, the company mostly responsible for the controversial “Trump dossier” on presidential candidate Donald Trump, made payments to three journalists between June 2016 until February 2017.
The revelation could be a breakthrough for House Republicans, who are exploring whether Fusion GPS used the dossier, which was later criticized for having inaccurate information on Trump, to feed anti-Trump stories to the press during and after the presidential campaign. The three journalists who were paid by Fusion GPS are known to have reported on “Russia issues relevant to [the committee’s] investigation,” the House Intelligence Committee said in a court filing.

(more…)