Following leaked revelations that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page to conduct political espionage against the Trump campaign, former AAG Matthew Whitaker discusses the IG investigation and upcoming IG report.
Whitaker notes the bigger issues are how the FISA process generally has been abused and potentially long-term ramifications.  It is also worth remembering it wasn’t just “wiretaps” that were gained, the FBI requested and received full Title-1 surveillance authority including: wiretaps, electronic surveillance, the use of bugs and tracking devices, physical surveillance, electronic and satellite geolocation surveillance and much more.  The FBI requested a type of surveillance generally reserved for tracking suspected terrorists.
When Mr. Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain the warrant he was working under the guidance of FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok.  “Political Espionage“.

The New York Times is confirming that Kevin Clinesmith is the “low-level lawyer” within the FBI who doctored evidence within the Carter Page FISA application.
As anticipated, the DOJ and FBI ‘small group’ leaks are from their individual review of a heavily compartmented IG report; and now they are being selectively shaped by the favorite ‘small group’ media network: NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Politico et al.
Remember, each of the principals only was able to see the draft of the IG report specific to their outline therein.  All principal reviews were very compartmented.  No principal has any idea what the bottom line conclusions are from the totality of the assembled compartments.  An example of this is in the very first paragraph.
The New York Times article is purposefully heavy on narrative engineering.  However, given how the accountability trends are identified by the specifics of the narrative construction, that’s not a bad thing.  As CTH outlined in anticipation of this phase, take the first wave of media justification with a grain-of-salt. There are two clear angles visible in the narrative assembly.   First, here is the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft.

One can read that from the perspective of accountability and become frustrated.  However, notice the construction closely: “to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump”… or put another way, there was an “abuse of power”, but that abuse cannot specifically be attributed to bias against the President.  Key point: there was an “abuse of power”, it is in the motive for that abuse where narratives step in.
(more…)

Earlier this morning President Trump called in to Fox and Friends for an hour-long  interview about the breaking story of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulating FISA documents to gain surveillance on the 2016 Trump campaign.
President Trump notes the current trickle of information is only the beginning and the background story could be the biggest political scandal in modern U.S. history.  President Trump awaits the final reports showing the full scope of the investigations and the likelihood of FBI spying and surveillance on his campaign and administration.
Additionally, President Trump discusses the frustrating political agenda behind the Pelosi and Schiff partisan impeachment effort at great length.  WATCH:

TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HERE

(more…)

At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.
The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrett noted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”
At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline.  Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.

~ Above: 8:15pm Washington Post Screen Grab prior to 12:15am edit ~

However, that said, the edit(s) help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer.  The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:

[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)

If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.
(more…)

Former foreign policy adviser to President Trump Carter Page discusses the breaking reports of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altering documents in the 2016 Russia probe to gain a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant on him and the Trump campaign.

Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.
Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race.  Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.
Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.  CNN is reporting:

The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th.  That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.
Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done.  We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020.  So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.
But that is not all that is inside this window.
(more…)

Here we go.  Today is the day the inspector general closed the “Principal Review” phase of the upcoming IG report.  Now is when the small group of corrupt DOJ and FBI officials -spotlighted by the IG investigation- begin trying to shape the narrative; and the leaks start with a whopper:

….An FBI official was caught altering documents within the 2016 surveillance operation against President Trump…

Keep in mind which FBI officials are now working for the media outlet, CNN, that is providing the leaks; ie. former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe; the spokesman for James Comey, Josh Campbell; a former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa; or the former FBI chief legal counsel, James Baker.  All now work for CNN.
It’s important to note the media source aspect because normally this type of leak would go to the Washington Post or New York Times first; ergo, it likely stems as a personal leak to one of the former allied FBI officials now working for CNN.

Washington (CNN) – An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.
[…] Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham.

(more…)

As an outcome of the ridiculous wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the DOJ provides the internal Office of Professional Responsibility report as part of their responsive filing.
The OPR report is the culmination of a two-month long internal investigation conducted in 2018. The OPR report contains several embarrassing details, including new text messages, about Peter Strzok during his FBI employment. The report is only public because it is part of a filing connected to his public lawsuit.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Here’s the report:
[scribd id=435752237 key=key-XgzGu1GsbpQb1PiB5BEl mode=scroll]
After Strzok was suspended and removed from his position, FBI Agent David Archey assumed the lead role in the Mueller investigation, August 2018.

There is a lot of rapid information about events worth putting into a calendar context to see the democrat mapping.   David Holmes has just been added to Thursday’s public impeachment testimony (Nov 21st); he will join Fiona Hill.  In essence this rapid addition highlights Schiff on a tight schedule, and his portion ends November 21st, this week.

Additionally today, as expected, it is now reported that Pelosi will take up a short-term continuing resolution (CR) tomorrow to fund government; that will push govt funding to December 20th aligning with the mid-December budget vote plans: Impeach, USMCA and budget).  This intentionally designed delay aligns with Pelosi and House counsel Doug Letter requesting a delay in SCOTUS review of arguments for Trump Taxes.  Everything gets punted to after Thanksgiving; then mid-December they will flood the zone.
However, outside of the House control, Lindsey Graham has announced Dec 11th as the date for Horowitz to testify, which makes the likely FISA report on/around Dec. 2nd.
It’s worth putting it all into a calendar to see how the end of the year is shaping up.
(more…)

As a reminder John Ratcliffe is one of only four members of congress who has reviewed all of the classified documents that surrounds the current background for the Inspector General report on FISA abuse.  That said, the quoted comment from Ratcliffe, while it will be overlooked by most, is the first visible sign reconciling a fundamental challenge previously highlighted.
In the 2018 IG report on FBI conduct in the 2016 election, the IG stated there was no evidence of any FBI activity being taken for political intents.  Yes, there was a tremendous amount of politically motivated evidence noted within the report; but the top-line statement by Horowitz was counter to the underlying evidence.
A year ago that led us to ask: how could the IG outline political motives in the FISA investigation, if he previously stated there was no politically motivated action by the FBI?
The statement today by Rep. John Ratcliffe seems to speak to this issue.  The implication within the words is that the evidence is so overwhelming the IG has few options.