Representative John Ratcliffe is one of only four House members who have reviewed every known classified document surrounding the 2016 political surveillance, Spygate and the use of the FISA court; including John Brennan’s two-page ‘electronic communication’ that started the FBI investigation.  So when John Ratcliffe is discussing what potential criminal activity John Durham is investigating and he says “FISA act and court“, that specific use of wording is subtle like a brick through a window to those who follow closely.
Everyone is aware that IG Michael Horowitz is looking at the Carter Page FISA application and potential misrepresentations to the FISC; that’s the “FISA court” part.  However, no-one has even hinted that anyone in government might be looking at the FBI abuse of the NSA database; and/or the outlined surveillance violations by Judge Rosemary Collyer; which would fall under the “FISA act” part.   Interesting word choices.  WATCH:

In a lengthy court filing surrounding the issues of Brady discovery material, Mike Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, drops some serious evidentiary bombshells on the court.  Ms. Powell brings Lady Justice to the courtroom, and her revelations are stunning. [Full pdf’s below]

We’re going to go through the primary filing and four exhibits to the evidence Attorney Sidney Powell is delivering to Judge Emmet Sullivan which contain some explosive discoveries.  Toplines including:
(1) Lisa Page edited the Flynn 302’s, then forgot when questioned by DOJ officials, then re-remembered when shown her texts. (2) The 302’s themselves were written with lies that do not match notes taken during the interview. (3) The felony leaker of the Flynn-Kislyak phone call is named (James Baker). (4) New texts from Page and Strzok that highlight the entrapment plan. (5) ODNI James Clapper telling WaPo reporter Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn“. (6) The purposeful use of Judge Contreras to take the December 1st 2017 plea agreement; and much, much more.

(more…)

This would appear to be one of the few positive indicators that AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are indeed doing more than bondo.  The New York Times is reporting the Durham “review” has now officially moved into a full “criminal investigation”.  [All emphasis mine]

WASHINGTON — For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began.

Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

(more…)

A letter from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz provides both good news and bad news.   The goods news is Horowitz letter says likely no need for a “classified version” which means AG Bill Barr likely declassifying a lot of it.
However, the bad news is on page #2 where Horowitz says the final draft assembly is still ongoing, and the “review phase” has not yet begun.  Which means the report is not likely to be made public before Thanksgiving.
(more…)

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley sent a forboding tweet a few days ago outlining the possibility of the FISA investigation would result in a “deep six” cover-up.

Grassley has a unique perspective on a very specific element to the construct of the FISA application, and the political use therein, that most have forgotten.  Back in 2018 when Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley was hot on the trail of a very specific individual that has had almost no attention since. The election clock ran out on Grassley; the mid-terms took place; and Grassley was never able to get to his target.
The background to this tweet needs a little context {GO DEEP} and surrounds two individuals who have NOT been identified as being questioned by either IG Michael Horowitz or U.S. Attorney John Durham.
Those two individuals are: Daniel Jones, former lead staffer for former SSCI Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein; and a lawyer for Christopher Steele named Adam Waldman.
(more…)

After the DOJ/FBI advanced their defensive efforts last weekend via the New York Times and NBC, now the CIA/ODNI faction step forth with the same intents and purposes.
CIA defending journalist Natasha Bertrand has been participating in the multi-year PR effort which helped frame the CIA/ODNI talking points against President Trump, and she is deployed again in the latest effort within Politico.   The timing here is predictable.

(Via Politico) President Donald Trump’s obsession with former CIA director John Brennan could be on a collision course with an ongoing Justice Department probe as Attorney General Bill Barr takes a more hands-on approach to examining the intelligence community’s actions in 2016.
[…] Durham’s report is likely to land well after the results of an inquiry by the Justice Department’s Inspector General, who is examining the FBI’s applications to a secret court in 2016 and 2017 to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign aide.

(more…)

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…)

Well produced video highlighting the connective sentiment behind Brexit and President Trump.