The New York Times has essentially outed the CIA and FBI informant as Stefan Halper tonight in yet another lengthy justification article citing the reasoning from the perspective of the corrupt intelligence officers who conducted the surveillance and spying operation against the Trump campaign.

Guess what?…. After 18 months of denials, their justification framework isn’t selling.  It isn’t selling even amid the barking moonbats who normally defend the left-wing crazy.  If you want to gauge the level of fail, just read the comments section of the New York Times justification article.   D’oh… the awakening is here like a DNC party during the ALS ice-bucket challenge.

According to The Times, the FBI and CIA were using Halper to protect candidate Trump from the Russians.  Yes, that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.  However, from that angle: Are they currently investigating candidate Trump for failing to collude in the Russian efforts they were attempting to protect him from?  {{{D’oh}}}  Yup, the special counsel is an ongoing effort to keep protecting President Trump… or something.

Wait,… what?.. Huh?

Oh, ya just gotta read the NYT snippets.

Two things to remember: First, they denied all of this for eighteen months.  Second, these are their leaks, their story, their version; delivered via their spin, from the people who were conducting the scheme against the Trump campaign:

(more…)

Hmmmm….  this is interesting.  The Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, is demanding the FBI and DOJ must keep records from congress.

(Source Link)

According to Mark Warner, it would be “irresponsible” and “potentially illegal” for congressional oversight to keep demanding records from the FBI and DOJ about their spying and surveillance activity against the campaign of Donald Trump… wait, what?

Hmm?… Methinks Senator Mark Warner has a conflict here.

You see, when Dianne Feinstein stepped down as Vice-Chair from the Senate Intel Committee after the 2016 election, it was Mark Warner who took her place.  This puts Warner on the Gang-of-Eight.  Coincidentally, the Gang-of-Eight conduct all oversight over DOJ and FBI covert and counterintelligence operations…. including those covert actions that took place in 2016.   But wait, it gets better….

(more…)

Buried in paragraph 40 of the FBI/DOJ justification article presented by the New York Times on behalf of contributing editors James Comey, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, John Brennan and James Clapper, the oft-used intelligence propaganda outlet attempted to bury the lede:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.  (read more)

In essence what the Deep State apparatchik was/is doing is admitting they conducted a large-scale surveillance operation against their political opposition by weaponizing the most intrusive intelligence gathering capabilities of the federal government.  An admission they denied for the previous 18 months….

And somehow, we are supposed to be ok with this.  Well, that’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.  Ultimately they have no choice.  If the participating members don’t justify their endeavors there’s a strong likelihood of shiny new steel bracelets.

(more…)

I might be wrong, but this is the first prime-time mention of Stefan Halper I’m aware of:

.

Two days prior to the New York Times article outlining an FBI counterintelligence sting operation to infiltrate the Trump campaign I wrote the following:

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing.  There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

Well, buckle up, I think today we are going to see and hear much, much more.

(more…)

Real Clear Investigations journalist Paul Sperry has noted that Inspector General Michael Horowitz found “reasonable grounds” for criminal prosecution and referred his findings to U.S. Attorney John Huber for possible criminal prosecution.

(Tweet Link)

Hopefully, this does not come as a surprise to CTH readers.  Remember, the IG draft report has just been sent to the principals for review.  Generally speaking IG draft reviews take around two weeks.  The final IG report is on target for release by the end of May.

While the terms “reasonable grounds” and “criminal prosecution” gain additional emphasis against the draft submission, months ago it was transparently obvious OIG Michael Horowitz discovered criminal conduct and submitted his request.  AG Jeff Sessions informed everyone of U.S. Attorney John Huber in March.

(more…)

Last week, in an effort to target President Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, sketchy porn-lawyer Michael Avenatti received and released stolen financial records for a group of people who held the name Michael Cohen.  At least two of the people who had their records released were the wrong Michael Cohen.

In a New Yorker article today, far-left playtime ‘journalist’ Ronan Farrow writes about his contact with the law-enforcement official who stole the Cohen financial records and gave them to the sketchy porn lawyer.

From the timing it appears the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General is close to catching the criminal leaker.  As such, Farrow writes a sympathetic outline attempting to shape a narrative of a “law-enforcement official” as a wounded ‘whistleblower‘.

New Yorker – Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration.

(more…)

U.S. intelligence officials who participated in the 2016 Russian interference narrative/scheme are now attempting to justify their conspiratorial conduct with leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.  Their leaks are a transparent effort to justify prior conduct. This cover-up endeavor has been their primary focus since congress started demanding documentary evidence from the DOJ, FBI, State Department and intelligence participants in the scheme.

Before breaking-down and explaining the recent obfuscations allow me to posit one simple but central example that highlights the gross intelligence misconduct.

On October 21st, 2016, the DOJ and FBI used the Steele Dossier as the foundation for their FISA Title-1 Surveillance application against Carter Page.  Surveillance was a key part of the FBI counterintelligence operation to investigate Russian interferance in the 2016 election.  However, almost three months later, on January 4th, 2017, when John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey produced their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the same individuals who created the FISA application did not include the Steele Dossier in their ICA report.

Think about the contradiction in this example. It is within this contradiction, and many more, where we discover the origin of the feces. If the Dossier was valid enough to present to a FISA court as evidence of Russian involvement; then why wouldn’t that same Dossier be valid enough evidence to include in their January Intelligence Community Assessment?

When you start asking these irreconcilable common sense questions, you begin to realize -and expose- how insufferably corrupt the entire intelligence scheme really was.  The entire scheme was an assembly of individual lies; each lie a thread rolled into a bigger ball of entwined nonsense.  Look at it from a distance and it looks like a vast Russian conspiracy ball; however, pull any single strand out, look at it, and there’s no truth to it.

It’s all an illusion.

(more…)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz has submitted the “Draft Report” of his OIG investigation to the principals involved. The IG investigation encompasses the FBI and DOJ conduct during the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton investigation. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.

The Draft Report review is the last review phase prior to the Final report being released. The Draft Report review allows the principals to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.

Responses from the principals about the facts outlined in the draft report are then reviewed, cleared for addition if appropriate, and included in the Final Report. The Draft Report is the first time the DOJ and FBI Principals (only those officials who remain inside the DOJ and FBI) get to see the underlying documentary evidenced gathered in the 17-month-long investigation.

Wall Street Journal – Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling t he long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

(more…)

Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[…]  A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein.  There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort  undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

(more…)

John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications.   (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier.  The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support.  Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help.  This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin.  Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd.  He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

Several issues make this interesting:

(more…)