Adam Schiff Demands Authority Over Executive Branch Declassification, and Advanced Warning of Investigative Content…

Oh, this is rich….  Shifty and hyper-partisan Adam Schiff, quite possibly the world’s slimiest human, writes a letter (as below) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, demanding legislative branch authority over executive branch declassification.  The scale of obtuse, hypocritical and self-serving protestation is off-the-charts.
First, the executive branch controls the declassification process unilaterally.  The legislative branch can request briefings; and customarily the executive informs the ‘gang of eight’ (when needed) on matters of intelligence releases.  However, the legislative branch has no authority over the independent decisions/purposes of the executive in that regard.
Second, Shiff-for-brains, claims the Declassification Directive is inappropriate because President Trump has empowered the U.S. Attorney General with discretionary decision-making; while Schiff simultaneously avoids/manipulates the inherent conflict avoided by President Trump in granting discretionary decision-making authority to the AG.
In material fact, President Trump is likely the target/victim of the underlying extra-constitutional and corrupt overreach by a seditious “small group” within the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community; and as a consequence prudence would dictate the abdication of declassification decision to the investigative agency, that’s Barr.  If Trump didn’t grant AG Barr the unilateral decision-making authority, the same Adam Schiff would start shouting that President Trump carried a conflict.  [Also, Schiff knows this – he’s playing politics.]
(more…)

Two-Tiered Justice and Professional Escape Artists – Prior IG Conclusions Impede Current AG Barr…

CTH shared a prediction in September 2018 which bears repeating.  However, prior to revisiting the past let us overlay today’s events. Keep in mind, much of what is happening is downstream from predicate events that took place long before AG Bill Barr was confirmed to run the DOJ.  Actually, while not intending to defend Bill Barr, some of the recent events are beyond his control.  Here’s how:
First, if you remember when the 568 page IG report on FBI/DOJ conduct was delivered in June 2018, you might remember how the ‘executive summary and conclusions’ were disconnected from the main body of evidence within the report.  In 2018 CTH warned this “disconnect” was by design; essentially the corrupt officials were laying down a defense for any conduct, later outlined, that is connected to the body of the IG review.

When IG Horowitz announced last year he could find no evidence of actions taken as a result of political bias by FBI and DOJ officials; he also stated he could not rule out bias within their investigation.  Horowitz pointed to the lack of action by FBI Agent Peter Strzok -following the September 28th, 2016, notification of Clinton emails on Abedin laptop- as lacking reasonable explanation.  Essentially, despite suspicions, the summary conclusion was the IG could find “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing“.
The 568-pages contained a multitude of examples of FBI misconduct (media leaks etc.), but the same IG report summary said “no illegal activity was discovered.”  In the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ there was a disconnect between the summary/conclusions and the body of evidence.
With that in mind, how could the Bill Barr DOJ prosecute on evidence of behavior from within a report where the Rod Rosenstein DOJ conclusion was no evidence of “intentional wrongdoing”?
In short, he can’t.
(more…)

Evidence of Obama Administration Political Surveillance Beginning Mid-2012….

Repost by Request – Considering the upcoming declassification window…between Trump’s state visit in Japan (5/25 – 5/28) and the state visit with the U.K (6/3 – 6/5).

Bucket FiveIntelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA).

Now that we have significant research files on the 2015 and 2016 political surveillance program; which includes the trail evident within the Weissmann/Mueller report; in combination with the Obama-era DOJ “secret research project” (their words, not mine); we are able to overlay the entire objective and gain a full understanding of how political surveillance was conducted over a period of approximately four to six years.
This is why there’s panic.
Working with a timeline, but also referencing origination material in 2015/2016 – CTH hopes to show how the program operated. This explains an evolution from The IRS Files in 2010 to the FISA Files in 2016.
More importantly, research indicates the modern political exploitation of the NSA database, for weaponized intelligence surveillance of politicians, began mid 2012.
(more…)

President Trump's Declassification Directive Outlines Specific Process and Direction….

Now that President Trump has officially designated the Declassification Memorandum we can review the specifics for process, content and timing.  Our previous research led to a set of expectations for the directive. Now, that we have the directive in hand, we gain increased clarity of purpose.

♦ First, President Trump has assigned ownership of the Directive to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. This part was predictable because the purpose of declassification would be to facilitate a DOJ review of how the intelligence apparatus was used in the 2016 election.
Additionally, because the DOJ review encompasses intelligence systems potentially weaponized in 2016 for political purposes and intents, President Trump carries: (a) declassification authority; but also: (b) an inherent conflict.  In this DOJ endeavor candidate Trump would have been the target of corrupt agency activity; and therefore would be considered the target/victim if weaponization were affirmed by evidence.
To avoid the conflict President Trump designates the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation:

…”The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information.” (link)

Additionally, AG Bill Barr does not need to assemble the intelligence product for approval by the executive (Trump).  Instead the office of the president is granting the AG full unilateral decision-making as to each product being considered for declassification.
This is a huge amount of trust from the President to the Attorney General, and a big responsibility for William Barr:
(more…)

BOOM! – Process Started – President Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification….

There was a DC rumor that “a website” was “surprisingly spot-on” when CTH posted the likely declassification structure, agency process and timing… [Here and Here and  Here]
Tonight, President Trump signs a declassification memo that identifies the intelligence units, and issues guidelines therein:

WHITE HOUSE: “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.

The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” (read more)

Memorandum for Agency Guidance below:
(more…)

Mueller "Team" Does Not Want Special Counsel to Testify…

Can you imagine the questions:

Q: Mr. Mueller, did you go to Oval Office on May 16, 2017, because you wanted to apply for the job of FBI Director?
A: No.
Q: Mr. Mueller, was the mysterious cell phone you left behind in the oval office that day actually yours?
A: No.

And then, as Rod Rosenstein takes a hard and uncomfortable swallow, the Weissmann constructed house-of-cards starts to collapse….

(CNN) Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has expressed reluctance to him testifying publicly in front of the House Judiciary Committee, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has conveyed the notion that Mueller does not want to appear political after staying behind the scenes for two years and not speaking as he conducted his investigation into President Donald Trump.

(more…)

John Solomon Reports: Bucket Five Release Within 7 to 8 Days…

Journalist John Solomon reports the first batch of documents to be declassified in the next seven to eight days will surround “bucket five“:

Bucket Five – Intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.

Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA).


.
Note “7 to 8 days” would put the release in the short window between Trump’s state visit in Japan (5/25 – 5/28) and the state visit with the U.K (6/3 – 6/5).
No-one really knows the extent of the current documents and/or information that may be subject to a Trump declassification request.  However, this is the original list as outlined in September 2018, and the agencies who would be involved in the declassification process:
(more…)

Sally Moyer Transcript…

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.
Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:
[scribd id=411004527 key=key-MV1XTw9YPfPUa7ZOaXdp mode=scroll]
(more…)

Bill Whittle Describes "Cold Anger" – Fear and Justice…

Bill Whittle summarizes a decade of corruption and presents it against current events.  Mr. Whittle doesn’t use the term “Cold Anger” specifically, but the resounding sentiment he outlines, a combination of anger, frustration and resolve, is exactly that.
Often videos are inaccurately described as “must watch”, but this one is accurate:


(more…)

Comey and Brennan Contradict Each Other on "Crown Material" (ie. Dossier)…

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

Recently, former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.
Specifically -as outlined by Gowdy- the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don’t.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.

(more…)