The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General review of DOJ and FBI conduct in the Clinton investigation has been ongoing for over 17 months. That’s a long time for a single investigation, and with good reason. The scale of the misconduct is staggering.
John Spiropoulos, a former TV news reporter at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, has created a series of video reports as a reminder on the background on the crime, the coverup and the corruption. Here’s the series:
In rather stunning news this morning, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes informs the listening audience he plans to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. According to comments within a Fox News interview (see below) there is something important to Chairman Nunes the FBI and DOJ are intentionally withholding.
The issue is a little clouded because Chairman Nunes sent a classified letter to the DOJ requesting a specific response about the status of a specific person, and their engagement within issues of the DOJ and FBI conducting a counterintelligence operation. No-one knows who this “individual” might be. However the DOJ did write back to Chairman Nunes last Thursday and said they would not comply.
.
We have no way of knowing if the DOJ refusal relates to withholding evidence for a valid reason, or if the FBI/DOJ is refusing to comply because they are part of a cover-up of malicious conduct. Like many issues in this ongoing dynamic you can read valid and invalid motives into current action. The response letter from the DOJ is below:
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing issues with the special counsel appointed by Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Mr. Mukasey’s largest point of concern is how the Special Counsel was initiated, and the lack of public knowledge of the investigative intent.
The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below). The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.
As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue. This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.
It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016. Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.
Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel the counterintelligence investigation and also gave them FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant authority; which allowed Robert Mueller to retrieve all communications (e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g) belonging to any person, entity or group, within two-hops of former unofficial campaign aide Carter Page. By extension this covered almost all the campaign officials, and also most of the Trump administration.
This is a critical point often misunderstood. When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, they began a criminal investigation (Title 3) by taking over the FBI counterintelligence investigation (Title 1). By design the counter-intel structure meant the special counsel had access to the entire gamut of active surveillance on almost every official in the Trump Administration; and every official in congress – without having to get a search warrant.
Andrew McCarthy discusses the origin of the feces. Specifically, how Robert Mueller was not assigned a criminal investigation, but instead given instructions to continue the FBI counterintelligence investigation originated by FBI Agent Peter Strzok in 2016.
This investigative framework is what Judge T.S. Ellis III (EDVA) challenged on Friday morning. The special counsel originated their Russian conspiracy investigation through exploitation of a Title-1 FISA warrant against Carter Page. The special counsel then seeks to merge the results of that 2017 Russia investigation authority into Title-3 criminal cases that have absolutely nothing to do with Russian investigations; see: Paul Manafort and 2004 and 2007 banking and tax issues(?). None of it makes a lick of sense.
The New York Times is now reporting former FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker has resigned from the FBI. This follows a similar announcement for Lisa Page.
James Baker and Lisa Page were part of the “fab five” (Baker, Page, Strzok, Ohr, Priestap) previously suspected as cooperating with IG and FBI INSD investigators in exchange for some form of process leniency. James Baker was removed from his position as FBI Chief Legal Counsel on December 21st, 2017. He has been holding down some previously unknown position inside the FBI until today.
WASHINGTON — Two top F.B.I. aides who worked alongside the former director James B. Comey as he navigated one of the most politically tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history resigned on Friday.
One of them, James A. Baker, served as the F.B.I.’s top lawyer until December when he was reassigned as the new director, Christopher A. Wray, began installing his own advisers. Mr. Baker had been investigated by the Justice Department on suspicion of sharing classified information with reporters. He has not been charged.
The Daily Caller is reporting Lisa Page has resigned from the FBI. If accurate this would indicate her internal investigative usefulness has run its course. This would align with those who expect the IG report to come out soon [likely May 18].
DAILY CALLER: The FBI attorney who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with another bureau official resigned on Friday, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
The FBI confirmed that the lawyer, Lisa Page, tendered her resignation.
Page has faced months of scrutiny over the text messages, which she exchanged with Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. (more)
Lisa Page was assigned to be Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe in 2015. It was Lisa Page’s testimony to FBI Inspection Division (INSD) investigators and the DOJ Inspector General that ended up delivering her text messages on July 20th, 2017.
Page was instrumental in the initial phases of the internal investigation. During mid-summer questioning about leaks to media former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said he did not authorize Lisa Page to talk to media. This contradicted Mrs. page. To prove her side of the story Lisa Page provided the text messages. Thus the first investigative thread was pulled, eventually revealing massive internal corruption at the top levels of the DOJ and FBI.
In broad measure the DOJ-OIG investigation into the politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI has three basic frames of reference:
♦The internal investigation of intelligence leaks to media by FBI and DOJ officials.
♦The internal investigation into the politicization of the Clinton email investigation, and the results therein. This is the central investigation.
♦The internal investigation of politically motivated abuse/fraud upon the FISA court.
•The first outcome ended with an OIG report and criminal referral of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his leaks to media. •The next outcome will be the long-awaited IG report on the Clinton investigation. •The last IG release in this series will encompass the DOJ-OIG internal review of applications to the FISA court.
Today, there is some new information: the congressional testimony of Inspector General Horowitz has been postponed due to new discoveries in relationship to the Clinton investigation. It is our suspicion the ‘new investigative review‘ specifically pertains to the how DOJ and FBI officials handled the issues stemming from the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner laptop; and how Andrew McCabe took specific action to hide the content therein between September 28th, 2016 and the eventual re-opening of the investigation on October 28th, 2016. In essence the background of the “non-investigation”.
Those new IG discoveries would most certainly encompass FBI and U.S. Attorney contacts from New York to Main Justice and FBI HQ in Washington DC; and include what actions each of the participants took therein.
Well, well, well…. they say timing is everything.
Today U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III appears to have caught on to an explosive issue CTH noted yesterday. In building the case against Paul Manafort, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team used the pre-existing FISA Title-1 warrant that was originally applied to U.S. person Carter Page and the Trump campaign.
Under normal criminal investigation any search warrant or surveillance warrant would normally proceed through U.S. courts, under Title-3, where the Mueller team would need to show probable cause for a warrant. However, by using the Title-1 warrant from the FBI counterintelligence operation, as extended by AAG Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller was able to use far more intrusive and unchecked searches and seizures for his criminal probe.
The media, and broad media-consumption public, are currently unaware the Mueller probe was simply a continuance of the 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation. Most people think the special counsel investigation is a separate issue. It’s not.
However, in addition to a scathing rebuke of the underlying prosecutorial premise, ie. Mueller trying to keep the originating structure hidden, Judge Ellis demanded today that Mueller unredact the August 2, 2017, instructions from AAG Rosenstein. That removal will expose the use of the FISA Title-1 warrant use that drove the investigative origin.
One of the most frequent questions about Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein circles around his decision to reauthorize the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used against Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign. In this outline we take the timeline and overlay new information that helps to understand what was going on:
To understand the dynamic we must remind ourselves what was known at key dates in the investigative decision-making. None of this is intended to exhibit an opinion toward the motives of those making decisions; however, in hindsight we can clearly outline what was known and what was not known at the time these decisions were made.
Recently we have gained clarity toward the scope of investigative evidence held by Robert Mueller. Thanks to some debriefing interviews by ‘witness’ Michael Caputo we more thoroughly understand what evidence is held by Robert Mueller; and, more importantly the scale of that evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion about how it was obtained.
It appears Special Counsel Robert Mueller began his investigation of Russian interference and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion, right where the FBI counterintelligence operation left-off. This is additionally supported by reviewing the original investigative instructions as outlined by Rod Rosenstein the day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel: