U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a 48 minute interview to CBS on a variety of issues related to recent events. The interview is packed with insight about the ongoing DOJ investigations of prior DOJ and FBI conduct in the 2016 election.
Rather than post the edited excerpts of the interview as broadcast, the full audio and transcript is below. Very interesting. [Hit orange play arrow to begin]:
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/629487828″ params=”color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
.
[Transcript] JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn’t make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel’s office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision but–
(more…)

CTH shared a prediction in September 2018 which bears repeating.  However, prior to revisiting the past let us overlay today’s events. Keep in mind, much of what is happening is downstream from predicate events that took place long before AG Bill Barr was confirmed to run the DOJ.  Actually, while not intending to defend Bill Barr, some of the recent events are beyond his control.  Here’s how:
First, if you remember when the 568 page IG report on FBI/DOJ conduct was delivered in June 2018, you might remember how the ‘executive summary and conclusions’ were disconnected from the main body of evidence within the report.  In 2018 CTH warned this “disconnect” was by design; essentially the corrupt officials were laying down a defense for any conduct, later outlined, that is connected to the body of the IG review.

When IG Horowitz announced last year he could find no evidence of actions taken as a result of political bias by FBI and DOJ officials; he also stated he could not rule out bias within their investigation.  Horowitz pointed to the lack of action by FBI Agent Peter Strzok -following the September 28th, 2016, notification of Clinton emails on Abedin laptop- as lacking reasonable explanation.  Essentially, despite suspicions, the summary conclusion was the IG could find “no evidence of intentional wrongdoing“.
The 568-pages contained a multitude of examples of FBI misconduct (media leaks etc.), but the same IG report summary said “no illegal activity was discovered.”  In the Sessions/Rosenstein led DOJ there was a disconnect between the summary/conclusions and the body of evidence.
With that in mind, how could the Bill Barr DOJ prosecute on evidence of behavior from within a report where the Rod Rosenstein DOJ conclusion was no evidence of “intentional wrongdoing”?
In short, he can’t.
(more…)

All of the same deep state actors/manipulators keep surfacing and resurfacing, like a game of whac-a-mole, as sunlight gets closer to revealing their corrupt behavior.
In the most recent example the familiar Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner pops his head-up to write a letter to the intelligence community telling them to defy the executive branch declassification directive, and turn to democrats in the legislative branch to defend them:

(Via AP) […] Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press, said he fears Trump is giving Barr “the right to selectively declassify certain information for purposes of political gain.” He asked that the leaders of the nation’s spy agencies contact lawmakers if Barr’s investigation threatens their work.  (read more)

Laughably, predictably, and certainly not coincidentally, former FBI Director James Comey jumps quick to the typeset and writes a supportive op-ed for the Washinton Post:
(more…)

A carefully redacted footnote within a report by FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer has always appeared to be a clue to a domestic surveillance program.  Now details behind the redactions tell a concerning story.

A brief refresher is needed for those new to the story. In April 2017 Judge Collyer wrote a highly critical FISA Court opinion following discoveries by Director Admiral Rogers of government contractors accessing the NSA database, and extracting illegal search results from the electronic records of every American.
The scale of abuse was incredible [SEE HERE] and the surveillance issues had been covered up for years.  Collyer cited the Obama administration as having “an institutional lack of candor” in their responses to her and the FISA court.  The judge focused her criticism after a review of the period 2012 through April 2016.
Using the non-compliant admissions by NSA Director Mike Rogers and the results of the compliance audit, Judge Collyer used the period of November 2015 through April 2016 to gauge the scale of abuse at 85 percent. Eighty-five percent of all database search queries were unlawful, and she extended her analysis to say:
(more…)

Former U.S. Attorney to the District of Columbia, Joe diGenova, discusses the declassification of intelligence documents relating to political surveillance; and the origin of the database abuses outlined by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer…

.
With President Trump returning from Japan tomorrow (5/28); and with the upcoming state visit to the U.K. coming June 3rd; a declassification “window of opportunity” opens between this Wednesday 5/29 and Saturday 6/2.
Given last weeks visit to Main Justice by congressman Mark Meadows; and considering the visit was specifically to review unredacted Page-Strzok-McCabe messages; it could be surmised the first series of declassified documents might be those communiques. Additionally, John Solomon has stated “Bucket Five” is likely the first release prior to the IG report:

Bucket Five – Intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA).

(more…)

Repost by Request – Considering the upcoming declassification window…between Trump’s state visit in Japan (5/25 – 5/28) and the state visit with the U.K (6/3 – 6/5).

Bucket Five – Intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA).

Now that we have significant research files on the 2015 and 2016 political surveillance program; which includes the trail evident within the Weissmann/Mueller report; in combination with the Obama-era DOJ “secret research project” (their words, not mine); we are able to overlay the entire objective and gain a full understanding of how political surveillance was conducted over a period of approximately four to six years.
This is why there’s panic.
Working with a timeline, but also referencing origination material in 2015/2016 – CTH hopes to show how the program operated. This explains an evolution from The IRS Files in 2010 to the FISA Files in 2016.
More importantly, research indicates the modern political exploitation of the NSA database, for weaponized intelligence surveillance of politicians, began mid 2012.
(more…)

Now that President Trump has officially designated the Declassification Memorandum we can review the specifics for process, content and timing.  Our previous research led to a set of expectations for the directive. Now, that we have the directive in hand, we gain increased clarity of purpose.

♦ First, President Trump has assigned ownership of the Directive to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. This part was predictable because the purpose of declassification would be to facilitate a DOJ review of how the intelligence apparatus was used in the 2016 election.
Additionally, because the DOJ review encompasses intelligence systems potentially weaponized in 2016 for political purposes and intents, President Trump carries: (a) declassification authority; but also: (b) an inherent conflict.  In this DOJ endeavor candidate Trump would have been the target of corrupt agency activity; and therefore would be considered the target/victim if weaponization were affirmed by evidence.
To avoid the conflict President Trump designates the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation:

…”The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information.” (link)

Additionally, AG Bill Barr does not need to assemble the intelligence product for approval by the executive (Trump).  Instead the office of the president is granting the AG full unilateral decision-making as to each product being considered for declassification.
This is a huge amount of trust from the President to the Attorney General, and a big responsibility for William Barr:
(more…)

Oh dear, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, is asking President Trump to question U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May:

(source)

(more…)

Journalist John Solomon reports the first batch of documents to be declassified in the next seven to eight days will surround “bucket five“:

Bucket Five – Intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.

Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA).

.
Note “7 to 8 days” would put the release in the short window between Trump’s state visit in Japan (5/25 – 5/28) and the state visit with the U.K (6/3 – 6/5).
No-one really knows the extent of the current documents and/or information that may be subject to a Trump declassification request.  However, this is the original list as outlined in September 2018, and the agencies who would be involved in the declassification process:
(more…)

Devin Nunes outlines his request to intelligence agencies to prove Joseph Mifsud is a Russian intelligence operative. Apparently the current FBI is avoiding a response.

.
Hell, it’s not difficult to predict where the Mifsud story ends up.  It’s likely to come out that Mifsud was working for British intelligence interests; on or off-the-books; and friendly with dossier author Chris Steele (Orbis etc.).
(more…)