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…)

The ¹Scheme Team always had a central problem. Their plan needed to utilize the Weissmann-Mueller report, and standing testimonial support therein, as a launching platform for impeachment proceedings.  However, they also couldn’t have Mueller appear before congress because he would face questions that would expose & collapse the fraud.
After several weeks of “negotiations” (ie. discussions and planning sessions) by Chairman Jerry Nadler and the “small DOJ/FBI group” of political usurpers, they decided to have Mueller deliver an opening statement to congress, and then immediately leave without facing questions.  Today, Mueller did exactly that…

.
¹Scheme Team: Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings, Weissmann, Mueller, Rosenstein, Brennan, Clapper, Wray, Bowditch, Boente, Comey, McCabe, Baker, Yates, McCord, Carlin, Strzok, Page, Archey, Warner, Feinstein, et al.
(more…)

Now that we are aware Trey Gowdy had written a letter to AG Eric Holder about the DOJ assembling research files on political targets in 2012, and then seemingly did nothing about it, his downstream commentary is even more, well, interesting.
In this interview, Trey Gowdy is discussing the current self-interested positioning of former FBI Director James Comey; and contrasts Comey’s current sanctimony against the reality of what FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok expressed.

(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…)