Merry Christmas.  The intercept is reporting that former NSA Director, Admiral Mike Rogers, has been working with U.S. Attorney John Durham for several months during his investigation into the origin of the 2016 intelligence operation against candidate Trump.
This is particularly important because NSA Director Mike Rogers’ knowledge is at the epicenter of the origination of almost everything related to the FBI data-surveillance that was happening in 2015 and 2016.
(Via Intercept) Retired Adm. Michael Rogers, former director of the National Security Agency, has been cooperating with the Justice Department’s probe into the origins of the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump presidential campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, according to four people familiar with Rogers’s participation.
Rogers has met the prosecutor leading the probe, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, on multiple occasions, according to two people familiar with Rogers’s cooperation.

While the substance of those meetings is not clear, Rogers has cooperated voluntarily, several people with knowledge of the matter said.
Rogers, who retired in May 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.

(more…)

The DOJ-NatSec Division and FBI reported issues of fraud upon the FISA court in October and November prior to the IG FISA report release.  Specifically the DOJ notified the FISC that OGC Kevin Clinesmith had manipulated and falsified evidence. On December 5th, Judge Coller responded to that series of notifications with an order.
On December 9th, when the IG FISA report was made public, the FISC was given a declassified version of the report and was able to review for the first time. It was from that IG review that Collyer was able to establish the full context of the fraud upon the court. The court was given no advanced notification as to the totality of fraud upon the FISC other than a preliminary ‘head’s up’ on the OGC Clinesmith compromise.
As a result of the IG report, Collyer told the DOJ to declassify her response of December 5th, because she was going to make it public. Today Collyer released that order.
(more…)

Attorney General Bill Barr had an extensive sit down interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum on Wednesday, December 18th.  The interview was broadcast this evening.

.
On August 30th, 2019, Devin Nunes submitted eight criminal referrals to the DOJ.
Five of those referrals were for specific people who participated in the political scheme against candidate, president-elect and President Trump. The remaining three referrals were not person specific, but rather outlines of “conspiracy”:
(more…)

…and CTH has a pretty good idea exactly what “communications” Durham is looking for. It sounds like U.S. Attorney Durham is looking for what Comey outlined in the “crown material” discussion.  First, the article from the New York Times (emphasis mine):

WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates. (more)

U.S. Attorney John Durham appears to be looking for a very specific email written by John Brennan to James Comey.  Because Comey wrote another email saying: ..”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

Do you remember the “crown material“?

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.
(more…)

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office.   Senator Graham states President Trump is “mad as hell” and “demanding his day in court” in the Senate.

(more…)

As expected the House of Representatives has passed the USMCA trade agreement with an overwhelming 385 to 41 vote.  Pelosi’s political objective was to use USMCA to water down the toxic political environment created by her impeachment fiasco:

Also as expected, after passing the USMCA the House went into immediate recess for the Christmas holiday without any movement on the fraudulent impeachment articles.
In the time-frame between today and the return to the next congressional session in January, House lawyers will attempt to use the passage of the articles to support their background court cases: (1) McGahn forced deposition; (2) access to Mueller 6(e) grand jury information; and (3) possible access to Trump family financial records.
[PREDICTION for bookmark: Upon return in January Speaker Pelosi will refuse to allow impeached President Trump to deliver a State of the Union address in the House.]
(more…)

After the House of Representatives passed two partisan articles of impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rises to deliver a speech from the upper chamber of congress.

Last night, House Democrats passed the thinnest, weakest presidential impeachment in American history. Now they’re suggesting they are too afraid to even submit their accusations to the Senate and go to trial. The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country.  ~ Mitch McConnell

.
[Transcript] – Last night House Democrats finally did what they decided to do long ago: They voted to impeach President Trump.
‘Over the last 12 weeks, House Democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.
(more…)

It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the  arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee.

[Go DEEP HERE]

It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.
Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.
The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.
There is an argument to be made the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)

The entire House effort to impeach President Donald Trump has been a one-sided partisan effort; built upon a foundation of manipulation of process and dismissal of the minority rights throughout.
After the House voted along party lines, and in an act of stunning hubris, Speaker Pelosi now declares she will withhold the articles of impeachment until the Senate makes rules that she determines will be “fair” to the prosecution.  [Video at 09:00 prompted]

.

(more…)

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.
Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.
It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.
As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)