The anti-Trump media jumped into a level of gleeful frenzy today amid a required security filing noticing that Senior Trump Adviser Steve Bannon was no longer a member of the “principals committee” on the National Security Council.

The hilarity cemented itself when competing media outlets were arguing about Steve Bannon being on the NSC, or being kicked-off the NSC, while Bannon walked past them en route to today’s NSC meeting.  Wait, wha… huh?   Yeah -{Insert Laugh Track HERE}-

Nothing ever happens in a vacuum, and today is no exception.   No, Steve Bannon is not being removed from the Senior advisory role to President Trump and will attend NSC meetings with the President.  Bannon’s security clearance therein remains unchanged.

However, Bannon is removing himself from the Principal’s Committee of the H.R. McMaster NSC (*note* he never attended the committee meetings, well, that is, he did, once), now that the political weaponization of NSC intelligence operations has been removed; and McMaster has recalibrated the incoming intelligence agencies to remove the political intelligence they were previously used to sending.

What does that prior paragraph mean?

(more…)

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice only needed to confirm one aspect of the intelligence unmasking story for all of the dots to connect.  She made that confirmation within two minutes of her interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

From the MSNBC transcript, emphasis mine:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

Note, right there.  STOP. No need to go any further.  There it is – Susan Rice is describing the Presidents’ Daily Briefing, aka the “PDB”.  She continues:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

This is the important detail.  Susan Rice was requesting unmasking of U.S. person’s names, which she moments later describes as “U.S. official[s]”, to understand the context and importance for the intelligence being given within the Presidents’ Daily Brief.

(more…)

With a general set of narrative ‘talking points’ in hand President Obama’s Former National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared this morning on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell.  This is the ‘We-Have-To-Respond-phase‘,  which necessitates the optic.

Andrea Mitchell is considered a trustworthy ally of the Clinton/Obama political networks; as such, it is not a surprise to see Mitchell selected as the interviewer.  Mitchell’s use of wording carefully guides Susan Rice through the narrow path of self-incrimination by providing plausible deniability for verbal missteps.

You already know the routine.  MSNBC is the favorable proprietary venue. Mitchell plays the role of media-legal-adviser, her client is Susan Rice.  Live interviews are always the greatest risk (see: Evelyn Farkas)  The full interview is below:

However, that said, there are some interesting aspects to the interview:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

OK, so right there, in the very beginning of the forward narrative, Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

(more…)

Fox News, The Daily Mail and Bloomberg News are all reporting the unmaking requests of collected surveillance activity was made by President Obama’s former National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

However, it remains unclear if Rice just made the unmasking requests, or if she herself did the unmasking.  Additionally, reporting by all three media outlets claims the surveillance of the Trump campaign encompassed more than a year.

(Via Fox News) Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

(more…)

• Part 1 – Understanding Devin Nunes Paradox
• Part 2 – Deep State UniParty Positions Against Nunes
• Part 3 – Adam Schiff Attempts Deflection and Obfuscation
• Part 4 – White House Plays Trump Card –  [“The Reverse Castellanos“]
• Part 5 –  Schiff Responds to White House Intel Invite – A Controlled SCIF
• Part 6 – Media Frames Surveillance Excuse – Depth of Obama Spying Grows

LATEST –  Adam Schiff downplays intelligence reports, and falls back on same strategy deployed in Part 3.

Ranking Intel Member Adam Schiff releases a statement that is fraught with parseltongue and obfuscation in the hopes that average voters/Americans don’t know the difference between executive level intelligence (highest security level), used by President and only available to Oversight Gang-of-Eight, and committee level intelligence (lower security threshold) which can be reviewed by the entire House Intelligence Committee.

Even a public official openly discussing the various levels of “compartmented” intelligence and various differences within the authorized use of SCIF facilities, is itself a violation of classified intelligence rules.  This makes it easy for deceivers to manipulate their words knowing they cannot be publicly challenged.

If you are paying close attention, you’ll note this strategy is what Adam Schiff is using in the statement he released below: (more…)

Mrs. Evelyn Farkas appeared on a Boston am news broadcast to explain her previous March 2nd comments about leaking intelligence information, gathered by the Obama administration, to “people on the Hill”.

Today’s attempt to obfuscate her prior revealing commentary is demonstrably false against the actual words she used in her prior statements.  Here’s her attempt at deflection along with the prior transcript of her words on MSNBC:

When you review her actual statements to MSNBC you can see how weak her current denials are:

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

“So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to [Democrat politicians].  That’s why you had the leaking.”

In the White House letter today from Chief-Counsel Don McGahn to Democrat Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff, attorney McGahn queries the discovery and admissions of former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas during her March 2nd MSNBC interview.

Remember, the letter to Adam Schiff and Senator Mark Warner was delivered at the exact moment Sean Spicer was giving his press conference:

Oh, sorry, I can’t stop laughing.  She is so busted.

In addition President Trump’s White House Chief-of-Staff, Reince Priebus, was discussing it earlier in the day –SEE HERE–  McGahn’s Letter Is Below:

(more…)

Many people were wondering why the White House was holding back on calling out the congressional intelligence oversight gang-of-eight regarding their political unwillingness to review the same executive intelligence previously reviewed by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.
Today, you just got the answer.
White House Deputy Chief-of-Staff Katie Walsh was fired today immediately following a New York Times report which outed two National Security Council members as the source for Devin Nunes “tip” to review a specific batch of President Obama’s executive intelligence. The transparent sequence of events reveals that Walsh was the source of NYT reporter Maggie Haberman’s article; (Walsh and Haberman are “friends”).

And with the White House Leaker now identified and fired, the White House challenges the congressional intelligence committee leaders, four members of the oversight ‘gang-of-eight,’ to come and review the Obama intelligence report. That review request paints Intel Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff, and Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Senator Mark Warner into a corner.
President Trump is now challenging the House and Senate intel committee heads to review the evidence of President Obama’s surveillance. How can they refuse to see the truth without exposing their political agenda?
Well played, Team Trump, well played.
Here’s the play – FIRST THE LEAKER: (more…)

“SCIF” – Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To understand the larger Devin Nunes briefing issues it is important to focus on the word “compartmented”.
Intelligence information is housed by compartments. Each intelligence unit holds intelligence unique to that compartment. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Unit would hold the intel information specific to their task or assignment. The CIA would hold their own compartmented intel; again, specific to their task and objectives. So too would the NSA or Pentagon.

This compartmented structure is what led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. The 911 commission recommended the position to serve as a hub able to ensure intelligence sharing; that is – to ensure intelligence was not intentionally withheld from other compartments when needed.
It is doubtful the 911 commission ever gave thought to what might happen when intelligence is weaponized as a political tool. The DNI is a political appointment, a cabinet member, of the President.
Thoughtful exposition – If the executive branch, the President, wanted to weaponize intelligence as a political tool, he/she would have control over such weaponization as an outcome of their political appointees within the: CIA (Brennan), NSA (Rogers), FBI (Comey), DNI (Clapper), DoD (Ash Carter), etc.
However, understandably the key figure would be the DNI hub – James Clapper.
(more…)

If you listen to Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes public interviews in the exact time-line sequence, from March 22nd to now, a clear picture emerges.
The “tipster” source is unknown. However, the actual intelligence report(s) he reviewed, which contained the unmasked surveillance information, was simply President Obama’s daily intelligence Briefing(s).
It appears, most likely, someone (aka mysterious tipster), simply told Nunes which dates to review.  Hence the Executive Branch SCIF was utilized.  The ACTUAL intelligence product itself was the Executive Office Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing.
Most likely a Clapper (ODNI), Rogers (NSA), Comey (FBI Counter Intel), and Brennan (CIA) work product.  Remember, President Obama preferred written intel briefings which he reviewed from his secure iPad.
Reconciling the intelligence report that Nunes reviewed was actually the Presidential Daily Briefing (intel work product) also explains all the variant political concern angles.