The background context has already been outlined –SEE HERE– so we won’t repeat.  Instead, we look at today’s defensive narrative engineering from the New York Times with a similar perspective, but a different set of reminders.
Content and distribution tells us this information is from the DOJ and FBI faction of the “Small Group“.  Not accidentally, and VERY importantly, this is the same faction under the microscope of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his pending IG report.  Additionally, and again very importantly, the principles within the IG report have already had an opportunity to review the part of the upcoming report that highlights their conduct.

So this New York Times reporting, from conversations with the DOJ and FBI small group participants, is coming out in advance of the IG report and with their review in mind.
Here’s the article, emphasis mine:

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.

[Note “prosecutors” is plural; more than one.  “prosecutors” also implies a shift from investigative review, to a likelihood of criminal conduct.  The media presentation of John Durham has gone from a single U.S. Attorney with a mandate from his boss, to a group of people, ‘prosecutors’, working with the U.S. Attorney.]
(more…)

Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:
Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(more…)

The activity of the “small group” of coup plotters consists of three generalized subsidiary agencies: (1) DOJ/FBI, (2) CIA/ODNI, and (3) The State Department.
Within each “small group faction” a years-long review of their narrative constructs shows the groups have specific and unique media outlets for their offensive (’16, ’17) and defensive (’18, ’19) propaganda efforts.
•The DOJ/FBI faction of the “small group” leaks to narrative engineers at the New York Times and NBC. •The CIA/ODNI faction utilize the Washington Post and ABC; and •the State Dept. faction use CNN and CBS. Each faction uses the same reporters & pundits for their distribution. This pattern, albeit generalized, has been consistent for several years.

The originating media entity -utilizing the leaks, opinions and agenda of the faction most concerned- starts the process. The secondary media groups come in for support – reporting on the reporting; and then reporting on the reporting of the reporting… and so on. This process provides a concentric distribution effort to bolster the originating premise.
Similar to the Journ-o-list effort of Ezra Klein, all of the ideologically aligned reporters share information for the larger process of defending the prior activity and advancing a unified narrative. [Reference Buzzfeed’s Ali Watkins sharing leaks from SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to her peers at WaPo and New York Times while she had sex with the source to keep the information pipeline open.]
It is important to remember this concerted process whenever we are reviewing media articles concerning the matters of interest to each of the “small group” factions.
In essence, the propagandists within the media are the same; and the sources for the positions reflected in the articles are the same. Wash, rinse and repeat depending on the identified risk.
So today we see NBC and the New York Times going “out front” on behalf of their interests. Referencing the faction each outlet represents we see the *reporting* is to defend the interests of the DOJ and FBI.
(more…)

Inside an otherwise innocuous court filing (full pdf below), General Mike Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, files a motion to compel (MTC) in an effort to gain discovery of the content from two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud.   [Hat Tip Techno Fog]
Apparently, according to the information within the filing, the DOJ has somehow gained custody of two cell phones belonging to Mr. Mifsud:

(Source Link)

The filing notes that “western intelligence” likely tasked Mr. Mifsud against General Flynn as early as 2014 in order to set up “connections with certain Russians” for later use against him.  Essentially, an intelligence entrapment scheme.
Unfortunately the filing only identifies the cell phones along with the request for production of the content therein.  However, the fact the DOJ has two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud opens up a whole bunch of questions:
(more…)

North Carolina republican Mark Meadows has been one of the key republican leaders who have remained in Washington DC during the recess break so that he can quickly attend the secret back-room hearings being held by Chairman Adam Schiff.  In this interview Mr. Meadows discusses the current status of the impeachment effort.
Additionally, Meadows discusses what he knows of the documents provided to Inspector General Horowitz for his pending release of the FISA investigation.   Meadows predicts the IG report will be a “scathing rebuke” of the FBI; however, Meadows also predicts the accountability aspect will only end with recommendations for FISA process changes.
[wpvideo DikGDx5w]
(more…)

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-frame for this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.
If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.
A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…
If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.
(more…)

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]
The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.
Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.
As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein.  However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation.  First watch this:

.
Setting aside the common mistake in part of that report by John Roberts, the fact that Durham is looking into the Mueller phase of the coup (early 2017); in combination with White House officials now sharing documents surrounding the Mueller-Rosenstein White House visit; and accepting the ongoing redactions by the DOJ on material that touches Rosenstein; there is a moderate possibility Rosenstein is now a Durham target.
(more…)

There is a lot to unpack in a decision today by the Director of National Intelligence to declassify (with redactions) a 2018 FISA court ruling about ongoing unauthorized database search queries by FBI agents/”contractors” in the period covering 2017/2018.
BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the DNI released a FISA report written by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collery that showed massive abuse, via unauthorized searches of the NSA database, in the period of November 2015 through May 2016. Judge Collyer’s report specifically identified search query increases tied to the 2016 presidential primary.  Two years of research identified this process as the DOJ/FBI and IC using the NSA database to query information related to political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.
Now we fast-forward to Judge Boasberg in a similar review (full pdf below), looking at the time-period of 2017 through March 2018.
The timing here is an important aspect.
It is within this time-period where ongoing DOJ and FBI activity transfers from the Obama administration (Collyer report) into the Trump administration (Boasberg report).
It cannot be overemphasized as you read the Boasberg opinion, or any reporting on the Boasberg opinion, that officials within DOJ and FBI are/were on a continuum.  Meaning the “small group” activity didn’t stop after the election but rather continued with the Mueller and Weissmann impeachment agenda.
Remember, the 2016 ‘insurance policy’ was to hand Mueller the 2016 FBI investigation so they could turn it into the 2017 special counsel investigation. Mueller, Weissmann and the group then used the ‘Steele Dossier’ as the cornerstone for the special counsel review.  The goal of the Mueller investigation was to construct impeachment via obstruction. The same players transferred from “crossfire hurricane” into the Mueller ‘obstruction‘ plan.
(more…)

Lots of people, lots of analysis, lots of obfuscation, and lots of pundits stuck deep in the forest losing perspective…..  This interview with Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t help.  If you are cynical of politicians, avoid the confirmation bias and don’t watch this interview.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can impeach a president for just about anything, because impeachment is a political process.  The offenses are supposed to entail “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” However, ultimately a majority House vote is all that’s needed for a technical impeachment. If Speaker Pelosi wants an impeachment vote against President Trump because he’s OrangeManBad, she can do that.  All she technically needs for any impeachment vote is a majority agreement.
Technically, Speaker Pelosi can tear the country apart, and destroy her political party with a brutally obvious political ploy to defend life in the swamp.   As a result Speaker Pelosi can also hold an impeachment vote framing an impeachment resolution, based on manufactured ‘articles of impeachment’, created by hearsay, rumors, gossip and innuendo.
However, a President should not be “removed from office” because some anonymous complaint makes an accusation.  The removal from office is another kettle-o-fish entirely…. Unless, well, unless the Senate concurs with Speaker Pelosi.
Anyone who thinks Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get his hands dirty amid this highly partisan political process is very much mistaken. Watch Graham hoping the entire impeachment operation collapses before it reaches a UniParty Senate… Wait for Barr…. Wait for Durham…. Wait for Horowitz…. Wait, Wait, Wait, bottom line, for 2020:
[wpvideo yRHVmjNS]
(more…)