When previously questioned by Catherine Herridge about timing for declassification of documents President Trump noted “when they need them“.  Within the response, who “they” were was never clarified; but the later directive to empower executive branch cabinet member AG Bill Barr provided a more clear reference.
In the legislative branch representatives Mark Meadows, Doug Collins and John Ratcliffe are the primary House members who were clearly helping to organize timing and distribution.  Additionally, AG Barr has appointed a prosecutor in John H Durham to review the overall DOJ, FBI and intelligence community activity.  Obviously Durham along with Inspector General Horowitz would benefit from declassification of documents in both of their reviews.

Earlier today John Ratcliffe outlined his view of U.S. Attorney John Durham as a benefactor of the declassification insofar as he would gain information for his review.  Interestingly Ratcliffe noted Durham was essentially a ‘special counsel’ and could use access to documents as a tool toward a grand jury review [ergo DOJ declassification would be needed].
Along with noting the likelihood of Durham’s intent, Ratcliffe seemed to temper expectations of any upcoming publicly visible declassification.
The possibility of Durham exploiting/using documents declassified by his boss, AG Bill Barr, would suggest some of the material may not be made public; indeed that’s the inference from Ratcliffe earlier today as he outlined to Maria Bartiromo.
(more…)

Representative John Ratcliffe is one of the few (only 3 or 4) who has seen all of the known classified documents surrounding the corrupt DOJ and FBI effort.  In this interview Mr. Ratcliffe discusses the ongoing issues within the review of the corrupt DOJ/FBI activity.
Interestingly Ratcliffe uses specific wording in his notation of the appointment of John H Durham; akin to Attorney General Bill Barr appointing a “special counsel”.

(more…)

Not enough people understand the role of the Lawfare group in the corruption and political weaponization of the DOJ, FBI and larger intelligence community.
What Media Matters is to corrupt left-wing media, the Lawfare group is to the corrupt DOJ and FBI.
All of the headline names around the seditious conspiracy against Donald Trump assemble within the network of the Lawfare group.
Three days after the October 21st, 2016, FISA warrant was obtained, Benjamin Wittes outlined the insurance policy approach.
FBI Director James Comey, FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, Comey memo recepient Daniel Richman, Deputy AG Sally Yates, Comey friend Benjamin Wittes, FBI lead agent Peter Strzok, FBI counsel Lisa Page, Mueller lead Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller team of lawyers, all of them -and more- are connected to the Lawfare group; and this network provides the sounding board for all of the weaponized approaches, including the various new legal theories as outlined within the Weissmann-Mueller Report.
The Lawfare continuum is very simple.  The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan.  Weissmann and Mueller delivering their report evolved the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting.  Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal.
The current “impeachment strategy” is planned-out within the Lawfare group.
(more…)

In the Michael Flynn sentencing phase Judge Emmet Sullivan requested the Mueller prosecution team provide records related to the case. [Backstory Here]
Among other evidence, the judge ordered the government to file on the public docket “the transcript of the voicemail recording” from President Trump’s attorney John Dowd to Michael Flynn.  The transcript of that voicemail recording was cited in the Mueller report as evidence that team Trump was trying to obstruct justice by shaping witness testimony. 
Today, the Mueller team released the transcript of the call (full pdf below). However, as originally noticed by RosieMemos the released transcript clearly shows the Mueller team  selectively edited the transcript to weaponized their portrayal of the contact. 
Compare the actual transcript [Source] to the Mueller Report [source]:

[Mueller Report, Volume II, pg 121]

Notice how Mueller leaves out (via edits) the context of the call, and the important qualifier: “without you having to give up any confidential information.”   Clearly Dowd does not want to interfere in Flynn’s cooperation with the special counsel, which is opposite to the twisted claim presented by Weissmann and Mueller’s report.
After attorney Techno Fog shared the new information with Mr. Dowd, Trump’s former attorney provided the following reply:

(more…)

Oh, this is rich….  Shifty and hyper-partisan Adam Schiff, quite possibly the world’s slimiest human, writes a letter (as below) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, demanding legislative branch authority over executive branch declassification.  The scale of obtuse, hypocritical and self-serving protestation is off-the-charts.
First, the executive branch controls the declassification process unilaterally.  The legislative branch can request briefings; and customarily the executive informs the ‘gang of eight’ (when needed) on matters of intelligence releases.  However, the legislative branch has no authority over the independent decisions/purposes of the executive in that regard.
Second, Shiff-for-brains, claims the Declassification Directive is inappropriate because President Trump has empowered the U.S. Attorney General with discretionary decision-making; while Schiff simultaneously avoids/manipulates the inherent conflict avoided by President Trump in granting discretionary decision-making authority to the AG.
In material fact, President Trump is likely the target/victim of the underlying extra-constitutional and corrupt overreach by a seditious “small group” within the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community; and as a consequence prudence would dictate the abdication of declassification decision to the investigative agency, that’s Barr.  If Trump didn’t grant AG Barr the unilateral decision-making authority, the same Adam Schiff would start shouting that President Trump carried a conflict.  [Also, Schiff knows this – he’s playing politics.]
(more…)

This is rather stunning.  In letters from Representative Doug Collins to Inspector General Horowitz and AG Bill Barr, Collins identifies Deputy Asst. Director Peter Strzok as the official who leaked grand jury information to the media and yet the DOJ refused to prosecute.  Incredible.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today sent letters to the attorney general [HERE]  and inspector general [HERE] regarding the Office of the Inspector General’s investigation summary into misconduct by a former FBI deputy assistant director. The letter to the inspector general raises questions about the identity of the deputy assistant director in question, and the letter to the attorney general inquires about the status of criminal referrals made by the inspector general to the Justice Department. (link)

(more…)

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…)

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Representative Devin Nunes responds to Robert Mueller’s national impeachment address:

.
It sure would be great if someone, anyone, could get Robert Mueller to publicly testify and face questioning… Unfortunately the UniParty rules the swamp.
(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…)

Citing the ongoing internal investigation of FBI leaks to media, from the 2018 OIG report on FBI conduct, today the Office of Inspector General outlined a preponderance of evidence against a corrupt FBI Deputy Asst. Director.  However, the DOJ is refusing to prosecute:

(Source)

The most alarming aspect is the OIG finding of the Deputy Asst. Director leaking grand jury information to the media, and yet the DOJ is declining to prosecute.
Incredibly, the inspector general (IG) indicated, without explanation, that “prosecution of the DAD [deputy assistant director] was declined.”  Instead, the investigation’s findings will be referred to the FBI for “appropriate action”.   What the hell is going on?
(more…)