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…)

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…)

Maria Bartiromo had initially reported the IG report on the Carter Page FISA situation was going to be released around the end of this week.  Ms. Bartiromo is now reporting a delay:

It’s the “classifications being made” part that raises concern.  President Trump granted Attorney General Bill Barr with declassification authority on May 23rd, 2019, so that any classification issues could be minimized and maximum transparency afforded.
(more…)

There are times during research when searching for details leaves the obviously immediate questions unanswered.  This is one of those examples.  Judicial Watch is hot on the trail of a State Department effort to monitor domestic political opposition.
Specifically former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, initiated a request for State Dept. officials to conduct surveillance on: Jack Posobiec, Donald Trump Jr., Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia), Dan Bongino, Ryan Saavedra, Rudy Giuliani, Sebastian Gorka, John Solomon, Lou Dobbs, Pamella Geller and Sara Carter.
More details:

(Via JW) Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources.
Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.

(more…)

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

Lots of people, lots of analysis, lots of obfuscation, and lots of pundits stuck deep in the forest losing perspective…..  This interview with Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t help.  If you are cynical of politicians, avoid the confirmation bias and don’t watch this interview.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can impeach a president for just about anything, because impeachment is a political process.  The offenses are supposed to entail “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” However, ultimately a majority House vote is all that’s needed for a technical impeachment. If Speaker Pelosi wants an impeachment vote against President Trump because he’s OrangeManBad, she can do that.  All she technically needs for any impeachment vote is a majority agreement.
Technically, Speaker Pelosi can tear the country apart, and destroy her political party with a brutally obvious political ploy to defend life in the swamp.   As a result Speaker Pelosi can also hold an impeachment vote framing an impeachment resolution, based on manufactured ‘articles of impeachment’, created by hearsay, rumors, gossip and innuendo.
However, a President should not be “removed from office” because some anonymous complaint makes an accusation.  The removal from office is another kettle-o-fish entirely…. Unless, well, unless the Senate concurs with Speaker Pelosi.
Anyone who thinks Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get his hands dirty amid this highly partisan political process is very much mistaken. Watch Graham hoping the entire impeachment operation collapses before it reaches a UniParty Senate… Wait for Barr…. Wait for Durham…. Wait for Horowitz…. Wait, Wait, Wait, bottom line, for 2020:
[wpvideo yRHVmjNS]
(more…)

When reports first surfaced that AG Bill Barr had traveled to Italy recently, we surmised the trip was likely related to Joseph Mifsud; specifically related to an audio-taped deposition that Mifsud gave to Italian police about being a western intelligence asset who was enlisted by the CIA (Brennan) to run a covert intelligence operation against the Donald Trump campaign in 2016.
If accurate, well, there’s the motive for the latest “CIA whistle-blower” approach.

The Daily Beast is now reporting that Bill Barr’s visit to Italy was exactly for that reason:

ROME–When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita on Rome’s tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who would be sitting at his right hand side.

(more…)

In the same way the 2016-2019 Trump-Russia Collusion Conspiracy was a vehicle; a tool toward the end goal of an “obstruction” impeachment; so too is the 2019 Trump-Ukraine narrative a vehicle; a means to an end: “corruption of office”, impeachment
Both Trump-Russia (obstruction) and Trump-Ukraine (corruption) have similar footprints because they both held the same end-goal purpose, impeachment. [BACKGROUND]
Trump was framed for stealing a horse; Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on his efforts to avoid hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.

We would be well served to avoid focusing on the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, and subsequent anonymous whistle-blower complaint narrative, to understand their objective.
The background facts are not the priority for those who are constructing the impeachment articles.  Like the Russian horse, the Ukraine horse never existed. Pelosi’s political committee needs center around exploiting a manufactured corruption narrative.
We see this today in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Engel, and the demands upon Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.  Last Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.
(more…)

The DOJ responds today to the Flynn motion for additional evidence; ie. Brady material requested by Flynn’s defense.   In the governments’ response filing (full pdf below), the DOJ rejects any additional efforts to provide evidence, and requests Judge Emmet Sullivan proceed directly to sentencing:
[scribd id=428288771 key=key-xp0SvMBoJg7zKvd7Swgj mode=scroll]
.
Additionally, the government filed a weird appendix, intended to highlight the amount of Brady material the prosecution has turned over to the defense team.  However, it is notable the appendix is full of “summaries of” instead of the raw underlying evidence.
(more…)