With media reporting that U.S. Attorney John Durham has expanded the timeline and scope of his investigation into U.S. government and intelligence community activity during the 2016 election, there’s an interesting quote from NBC:

…”Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.”…

The expanded investigative timeline is now into May 2017 when Mueller was appointed special counsel, and would mean all of the preceding (and surrounding) activity leading up to Mueller would be reviewed.   With that carefully in mind….
During the 2016 effort to weaponize the institutions of government against the outside candidacy of Donald Trump, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was headed by Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein.  After the 2016 election Senator Feinstein abdicated her vice-chair position to Senator Mark Warner in January 2017.
While the SSCI was engaged in their part of the 2016 effort Vice-Chair Feinstein’s lead staffer was a man named Daniel Jones. Dan Jones was the contact point between the SSCI and Fusion-GPS.
After the election, and after Feinstein abdicated, Dan Jones left the committee to continue paying Fusion-GPS (Glenn Simpson) for ongoing efforts toward the impeachment insurance policy angle.
Feinstein appears to have left because she didn’t want to deal with the consequences of a President Trump, IF he discovered the SSCI involvement. Dan Jones left because with a Trump presidency the SSCI, now co-chaired by Senator Mark Warner, needed arms-length plausible deniability amid their 2017 operations to continue the removal effort (soft coup).
The trail for this plausible deniability process and ongoing soft-coup effort first surfaces with Dan Jones appearing in the early 2017 text messages between Senator Warner and the liaison for Christopher Steele, lawyer and lobbyist Adam Waldman:
(more…)

The background context has already been outlined –SEE HERE– so we won’t repeat.  Instead, we look at today’s defensive narrative engineering from the New York Times with a similar perspective, but a different set of reminders.
Content and distribution tells us this information is from the DOJ and FBI faction of the “Small Group“.  Not accidentally, and VERY importantly, this is the same faction under the microscope of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his pending IG report.  Additionally, and again very importantly, the principles within the IG report have already had an opportunity to review the part of the upcoming report that highlights their conduct.

So this New York Times reporting, from conversations with the DOJ and FBI small group participants, is coming out in advance of the IG report and with their review in mind.
Here’s the article, emphasis mine:

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.

[Note “prosecutors” is plural; more than one.  “prosecutors” also implies a shift from investigative review, to a likelihood of criminal conduct.  The media presentation of John Durham has gone from a single U.S. Attorney with a mandate from his boss, to a group of people, ‘prosecutors’, working with the U.S. Attorney.]
(more…)

Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:
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. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  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 activity of the “small group” of coup plotters consists of three generalized subsidiary agencies: (1) DOJ/FBI, (2) CIA/ODNI, and (3) The State Department.
Within each “small group faction” a years-long review of their narrative constructs shows the groups have specific and unique media outlets for their offensive (’16, ’17) and defensive (’18, ’19) propaganda efforts.
•The DOJ/FBI faction of the “small group” leaks to narrative engineers at the New York Times and NBC. •The CIA/ODNI faction utilize the Washington Post and ABC; and •the State Dept. faction use CNN and CBS. Each faction uses the same reporters & pundits for their distribution. This pattern, albeit generalized, has been consistent for several years.

The originating media entity -utilizing the leaks, opinions and agenda of the faction most concerned- starts the process. The secondary media groups come in for support – reporting on the reporting; and then reporting on the reporting of the reporting… and so on. This process provides a concentric distribution effort to bolster the originating premise.
Similar to the Journ-o-list effort of Ezra Klein, all of the ideologically aligned reporters share information for the larger process of defending the prior activity and advancing a unified narrative. [Reference Buzzfeed’s Ali Watkins sharing leaks from SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to her peers at WaPo and New York Times while she had sex with the source to keep the information pipeline open.]
It is important to remember this concerted process whenever we are reviewing media articles concerning the matters of interest to each of the “small group” factions.
In essence, the propagandists within the media are the same; and the sources for the positions reflected in the articles are the same. Wash, rinse and repeat depending on the identified risk.
So today we see NBC and the New York Times going “out front” on behalf of their interests. Referencing the faction each outlet represents we see the *reporting* is to defend the interests of the DOJ and FBI.
(more…)

Despite the abject nuttery, there is good news here.  Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing current Democrat Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a secret Russian agent:

“[Tulsi Gabbard is] the favorite of the Russians, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” (link)

The insufferable Mrs. Clinton re-initiated her vast Russian conspiracy theory during an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.  Yes, THAT David Plouffe.
However, Clinton nuttery aside, this level of political quackery -as expressed- is not all bad news.  Clinton’s tendency to make herself stupid and small is a strong indicator: (A) she’s not stable; (B) she’s not viable; and (C) she knows she could never re-enter the race.
(more…)

“Nation Building” is a very lucrative enterprise in/around Washington DC.   Here’s what happens when that business opportunity is removed from the UniParty financial portfolio:
(more…)

Inside an otherwise innocuous court filing (full pdf below), General Mike Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, files a motion to compel (MTC) in an effort to gain discovery of the content from two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud.   [Hat Tip Techno Fog]
Apparently, according to the information within the filing, the DOJ has somehow gained custody of two cell phones belonging to Mr. Mifsud:

(Source Link)

The filing notes that “western intelligence” likely tasked Mr. Mifsud against General Flynn as early as 2014 in order to set up “connections with certain Russians” for later use against him.  Essentially, an intelligence entrapment scheme.
Unfortunately the filing only identifies the cell phones along with the request for production of the content therein.  However, the fact the DOJ has two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud opens up a whole bunch of questions:
(more…)

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff has changed the proceedings from “interviews” to “depositions” in an effort to block republicans from discussing witness testimony.  While the minority is blocked from discussing the democrats are leaking to the New York Times and DC media. This is part of the political strategy to frame the impeachment narrative.
During an interview on Capitol Hill today Representatives Mark Meadows, Lee Zeldin and Jim Jordan outline how the Democrats now want to drop any discussion or use of the whistleblower.  Jordan righteously outlines to an antagonistic media how the ‘whistleblower’ has a right to protection, but no right to anonymity.

.
Meanwhile today Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent is participating in a closed-door deposition with House Intel, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight & Reform Committees.
(more…)

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan reacts to Hunter Biden’s interview, and then outlines how Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff have structured the ‘impeachment inquiry’ to hide testimony that supports the administration and leak testimony to frame a narrative.

(more…)

Amid the scandal of Joe Biden’s son receiving payments from business deals in Ukraine and China related to his family influence, ABC steps in to run defense with an exceptionally obtuse interview with Hunter Biden.
Either the interviewer doesn’t know anything about how Corporate Boards pay members and the structure of business ventures, partnerships, capital fee repayment, board fees etc; or the interviewer intentionally didn’t challenge some of these ridiculous obfuscations by Hunter Biden; perhaps both.
During the Chinese deal Hunter Biden was in a partnership. Hunter Biden paid $420,000 for a ten percent equity position (a “capital call”) in the new venture AFTER the Chinese invested $1.5 billion [a 10% equity purchase would be worth $150 million]. The partnership could then pay the board members “board fees” or “capital investment fees” as the investment matures. The big payout doesn’t come until after the investment matures and Biden -as a partner- then sells his equity position back. That payoff is coming.
So when Hunter Biden says he “hasn’t made a dime” off the China deal, that’s because the investment fund hasn’t matured yet. In essence, he’s fibbing; and counting on people not to know how this stuff works.

(more…)