BREAKING: Dept of Justice Grants House and Senate Intel Committee Full Access To Review FISA Application…
Until today the only people allowed to review the full Title-1 FISA application were Trey Gowdy, Adam Schiff, Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Rep John Ratcliffe.
In an interesting development, the Department of Justice has responded to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes notifying him the DOJ will allow all members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees full access to review the unredacted FBI/DOJ FISA application used to gain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. citizen Carter Page.
♦This will be the first opportunity for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes to see the underlying highly classified documentary evidence that underpins his FISA Memo. Previously only one majority member (Gowdy), and one minority member (Schiff), from the HPSCI was permitted to review the heavily classified and unredacted FISA application.
♦Allowing the full House and Senate intelligence committee to review the FISA application is the first step in getting the application declassified. It would be enormously interesting if the public could see the full application as submitted by the FBI and DOJ. There is a significant public interest in knowing exactly how strong the underlying evidence was for the FISA Court to grant such extensive surveillance authority.
♦There has been some discussion of a possibility the FISA application held by the Department of Justice, and used to structurally create the Nunes memo, may not be the same FISA Title-1 application held by the FISA Court per Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has requested the FISA Court application. That issue remains unresolved. (link)
If, and this is a big “if”, there are actually two versions, the consequences are astronomical. Almost immediately Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey and Andrew McCabe would be indicted.
Lastly, the willingness of the DOJ (Sessions, Rosenstein) to allow expanded access to the FISA application, at the same time the IG has expanded his investigation therein, would indicate IG Michael Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor John Huber have completed their review of the evidentiary weight therein…. and this release exactly backs up what we previous noted:
Horowitz was not announcing this investigative avenue from a position of only just now starting to gather evidence; he already has the evidence. He was announcing the context for him to drop a report summarizing findings of content from the investigation; a report that has nothing to do with the original launch of the OIG investigation.
In essence he announced the need to write a report based on investigative material he has already gathered. Horowitz already has the FISA material, he needed a reason to include it.
. Or, Huber/Horowitz could also be setting a trap.
“WHY” – The first video highlights the historic backdrop of DOJ/FBI FISA court abuses:
“HOW” – The second video highlights the specific example of how the DOJ and FBI used false information to the FISA Court to secure a fraudulent ‘Title-1’ surveillance warrant:
WHO” – The third video highlights who the primary players were within the scheme:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy For Border Enforcement…
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011.
“The situation at our Southwest Border is unacceptable. Congress has failed to pass effective legislation that serves the national interest—that closes dangerous loopholes and fully funds a wall along our southern border. As a result, a crisis has erupted at our Southwest Border that necessitates an escalated effort to prosecute those who choose to illegally cross our border,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety, national security, and the rule of law, I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice. To the Department’s prosecutors, I urge you: promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens. You play a critical part in fulfilling these goals, and I thank you for your continued efforts in seeing to it that our laws—and as a result, our nation—are respected.” (rea
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/06/john-brennans-contributions-to-fraud-upon-fisa-court/
← April 6th – 2018 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #442Sarah Sanders White House Press Briefing – Friday April 6th →
John Brennan’s Contributions to Fraud Upon FISA Court…
Posted on April 6, 2018 by sundance
Most of the ‘vast-Russian-conspiracy‘ media presentations seem to start with a discussion of intelligence gathering beginning in July of 2016. The GOP convention to nominate Donald Trump was July 18-21st of 2016.
Adding to the July 2016 origination narrative FBI Director James Comey stated the counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump began in July 2016. However, not a single MSM entity has looked at the FISA-702(16)(17) abuses by the FBI and DOJ-NSD outlined by the FISA court and NSA well before July 2016.
It is a matter of unclassified public record the FBI and DOJ-NSD were allowing “contractors” to conduct searches of the FBI and NSA databases, and extract raw intelligence, throughout 2015 until April 28th 2016 when NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers shut down all access and initiated a compliance review.
Any objective review of that time period indicates (strongest likelihood) the search activity was political ‘opposition research’ for the 2016 presidential election. With hindsight of the FBI and DOJ’s political intents, ‘opposition research’ was almost certainly the motive.
Surrounding the nomination that stunned the geo-political world almost every foreign government was trying to figure out who and what Donald J Trump was all about; and more specifically: how would his run for the presidency impact their specific interests.
2017- WASHINGTON NYT — American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.
[Paragraph #5] The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is continuing. It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election. (link)
The New York Times should win a Pulitzer for undermining their own ‘Russian Conspiracy’ headline narrative within the fifth paragraph. [It’s a trend] I digress.
Obviously, attempting to understand the policies of outsider Donald Trump, Russia would be asking these same questions along with China, France, England, the larger EU and every nation in every continent. It would be silly to claim otherwise.
Ergo a diplomatic mission by Russian governmental officials surrounding the GOP convention to understand the Trump orbit is no different than a Chinese, European or Arab-Asian effort for the same reason.
However, the international interest did necessarily initiate a bunch of foreign officials making contact with anyone and everyone who would be associated with Trump-world regardless of concentric circle distance from the epicenter. That intellectually honest understanding highlights how much of the post convention (July 2016) raw intelligence gathering began so easily.
The CIA simply monitoring chatter amid foreign diplomats, their customary job, turns into raw data provided to the FBI which in turn becomes the subject matter of frequent FISA searches/warrants to explore the U.S. contacts on the other side of that chatter.
The FISA searches/warrants turn into intelligence reports and that begins the entire process now known as “unmasking” etc. Nothing within this process so far is even in question. However, this is also the backdrop for intelligence reports to be weaponized for political purposes. In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan testified to this exact process before congress.
What was not reported by any media outline is John Brennan, understanding actions taken by the Obama administration in 2016 created his own exit from the controversy.
Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP. Where “fullstop” directly and immediately indicates Brennan’s throwing the responsibility for all that came next upon FBI Director James Comey.
John Brennan structured his self-defense with great specificity: (@13:35)
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”… (link)
Shorter version: don’t try pinning this unsubstantiated Russia investigation to no-where, and the illegal leaks, on me; I just provided the raw intelligence.
It is important to emphasize here the possibly illegal “unmasking“, and the certainly illegal “leaking“, were all based on intelligence reports generated from raw intelligence, and not the raw intelligence itself.
It was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating the intel reports, including the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB).
The CIA provided raw intel, and the NSA generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. After the November election, those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were eventually leaked to the media in a coordinated effort to undermine the incoming administration.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his may 2017 testimony John Brennan tried to take himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper, while rubbing his face and scratching his head, had taken the same route earlier. That left the majority of scrutiny for the anti-Trump intelligence operation upon James Comey.
This explained why Comey changed his mind on testifying to congress until he had the opportunity to talk to newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.
Former FBI Director James Comey is not stupid. He is, however, intensely political.
James Comey completely understood the legal risks he was facing within the faux “Russian conspiracy story” and the “subsequent leaking” of his political FBI reports.
← President Trump Proposes Additional $100 Billion in Chinese Trade Tariffs…Friday April 6th – Open Thread →
Important – Catherine Herridge Confirms Lisa Page Statements Contradicted Andrew McCabe, Ultimately Leading to His Firing…
Posted on April 5, 2018 by sundance
Fox News Catherine Herridge reports today, per her FBI investigative sources, it was an investigative interview with FBI Attorney Lisa Page, in July 2017, that contradicted FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and ultimately led to his firing.
That revelation is exactly what we anticipated was the origin to Inspector General Michael Horowitz gaining the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. The issue is actually more stunning than presented. However, first here’s the report from Herridge (emphasis mine):
Fox News – Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired last month for committing three violations of the bureau’s ethics code, an investigative source told Fox News on Thursday.
The violations initially were uncovered by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General and confirmed by the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. They included lack of candor under oath, lack of candor when not under oath, and the improper disclosure of non-public information to the media about the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The violations stemmed from McCabe’s response to an October 2016 Wall Street Journal report about sizeable campaign donations from Democrats to McCabe’s wife, Jill, during her campaign for the Virginia State Senate. The investigation found that McCabe instructed FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI public affairs chief Michael Kortan to work with the Journal’s reporter to set the record straight.
The source said Page’s statements to investigators were “critical” because they directly contradicted her boss, McCabe.
According to the source, McCabe’s lack of candor about the contact with the Journal reporter led to his firing. The source added that Page’s testimony about the matter contradicted McCabe’s. Then-FBI Director James Comey claimed he never authorized the leak to the Journal. (read more)
A picture was initially clear in March once we had the full timeline of the interviews with Andrew McCabe that led to his firing. This Fox News report only confirms the obvious; however, it’s important to review the events to fully understand the scope of McCabe’s lying and also understand the reason for Lisa Page to be so angry.
Remember, Lisa Page was a DOJ attorney assigned to the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe specifically to provide legal guidance. Imagine how pissed off she was when she discovered (July 2017) the Deputy FBI Director who told her to leak a story -on his behalf- to the Wall Street Journal, denied ever telling her to leak the story.
It’s no wonder why Ms. Page told FBI Agent Peter Strzok to “never text her again”, and she quit working for the Mueller team several weeks before IG Horowitz informed Mueller about the conspiracy issues (which led to Strzok’s removal).
Here’s the timeline from an assembly of media reporting and investigative releases to congress.
Andrew McCabe was first interviewed about the media leaks in May 2017. He denied. “A couple of months later” he was interviewed by Inspector General Horowitz, and he again denied. On July 20th of 2017 Inspector General Horowitz gained the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages.
•May 2017 McCabe denies leaking for WSJ story to FBI investigators (link).
•July 2017 McCabe denies again; to Inspector General Horowitz.
•July 2017 Lisa Page admits to Horowitz she was told to construct the Wall Street Journal story (Devlin Barrett, journalist). This conflicts with McCabes repeated denials. (link)
•July 20th 2017 Horowitz gets Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages (link). Proving McCabe constructed the WSJ story.
•August 2017: After Horowitz gets the proof McCabe was lying – McCabe follows up on the two denials saying “he may have allowed FBI officials to speak with the newspaper”. (link)
•August 2017: FBI re-interviews McCabe based on new admissions.
•November 29th 2017: One day before SC Mueller indicts Michael Flynn, IG Horowitz interviews McCabe again. Apparently this time McCabe admitted to constructing the leak. (link)
In May, June and July 2017, while FBI Deputy Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe was lying to FBI investigators and the Inspector General, Lisa Page was working for McCabe as his legal counsel.
Therein lies the heart and origin of the motive for Lisa Page to flip against the conspiracy group when she discovered Andrew McCabe lying to investigators about his instructions to her. IG Horowitz then interviews Page in July and she tells the truth, thereby contradicting McCabe.
However, Ms. Page had the evidence – The Text Messages delivered July 20th.
← President Trump Remarks During Tax Reform Roundtable, West Virginia – 2:25pm EST LivestreamQuick NAFTA Update… →
It’s Complicated – Chairman Devin Nunes Demand Letter to FBI Director Wray and AAG Rosenstein…
Posted on April 5, 2018 by sundance
It was noted –and reported– yesterday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter (full pdf below) to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Nunes is demanding un-redacted FBI documents surrounding the origination of the July 2016 counterintelligence operation against candidate Donald Trump, and the FISA application stemming from within the FBI investigation.
The issue(s) surrounding the declassification of the FISA application and subsequent FISA warrant against Carter Page are not new. The new aspect within the Nunes demand relates to a request for the intelligence community “electronic communication” (EC) that kicked off the initial FBI counterintelligence op. Within that new line of inquiry the subject of interest is ultimately former CIA Director John Brennan.
However, there are issues here; serious issues. There are VERY valid reasons why the FBI (Wray) and DOJ (Rosenstein) would push back against HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes. It’s complicated, and we’ll try to unpack.
Begin by noting on page two of the Nunes request, Paragraph #3, something all media writing about the Nunes demand seem to overlook. Screengrab below:
Chariman Nunes takes exception to the origination documents being redacted for his committee review while noting: “multiple members of other committees have been the beneficiaries of such access.” This is a key aspect that outlines a motive for the FBI and DOJ to proceed cautiously with the HPSCI.
From earlier research and congressional letters we know House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, holding direct statutory oversight over the DOJ, is working closely with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. It is almost certain the committee Nunes refers to is Goodlatte’s Judiciary Committee. However, while the DOJ/FBI are sharing information with Chairman Goodlatte, they same DOJ/FBI are reluctant to share unredacted inormation with Chairman Nunes HPSCI committee.
Remember, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor John Huber to investigate the DOJ (National Security Division) and FBI (counterintelligence unit: Priestap/Strzok) insofar as their conduct toward the FISA court; and the potential for unlawful abuse of the process therein.
As such, the FISA material (application and Title-1 surveillance warrant) is now much more than a controversial political matter; the FISA aspect is now in the purview of an ongoing criminal investigation (Huber).
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the origination documents [“electronic communication” (EC)] surround another aspect that directly relates to CIA Director John Brennan and his earlier testimony to congress regarding the origination of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Operation against Trump.
Most media and pundits have likely forgotten how John Brennan explained his role on May 23rd, 2017. THIS IS CRITICAL.
On March 20th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey stated he did not inform congressional oversight about the FBI counterintelligence operation against Trump, that began in July 2016, at the recommendation of his counterintelligence division head Bill Priestap, and due to “the sensitivity of the matter”. {GO DEEP}
Two months later, May 23rd, 2017, former CIA Director John Brennan testified in his opening statement to congress that, in addition to providing intelligence to the FBI, he personally informed the “Congressional Gang of Eight” of the underlying raw intelligence.
Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
← President Trump Remarks During Tax Reform Roundtable, West Virginia – 2:25pm EST LivestreamQuick NAFTA Update… →
It’s Complicated – Chairman Devin Nunes Demand Letter to FBI Director Wray and AAG Rosenstein…
Posted on April 5, 2018 by sundance
It was noted –and reported– yesterday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter (full pdf below) to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Nunes is demanding un-redacted FBI documents surrounding the origination of the July 2016 counterintelligence operation against candidate Donald Trump, and the FISA application stemming from within the FBI investigation.
The issue(s) surrounding the declassification of the FISA application and subsequent FISA warrant against Carter Page are not new. The new aspect within the Nunes demand relates to a request for the intelligence community “electronic communication” (EC) that kicked off the initial FBI counterintelligence op. Within that new line of inquiry the subject of interest is ultimately former CIA Director John Brennan.
However, there are issues here; serious issues. There are VERY valid reasons why the FBI (Wray) and DOJ (Rosenstein) would push back against HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes. It’s complicated, and we’ll try to unpack.
Begin by noting on page two of the Nunes request, Paragraph #3, something all media writing about the Nunes demand seem to overlook. Screengrab below:
(full pdf here)
Chariman Nunes takes exception to the origination documents being redacted for his committee review while noting: “multiple members of other committees have been the beneficiaries of such access.” This is a key aspect that outlines a motive for the FBI and DOJ to proceed cautiously with the HPSCI.
From earlier research and congressional letters we know House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, holding direct statutory oversight over the DOJ, is working closely with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. It is almost certain the committee Nunes refers to is Goodlatte’s Judiciary Committee. However, while the DOJ/FBI are sharing information with Chairman Goodlatte, they same DOJ/FBI are reluctant to share unredacted inormation with Chairman Nunes HPSCI committee.
Remember, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor John Huber to investigate the DOJ (National Security Division) and FBI (counterintelligence unit: Priestap/Strzok) insofar as their conduct toward the FISA court; and the potential for unlawful abuse of the process therein.
As such, the FISA material (application and Title-1 surveillance warrant) is now much more than a controversial political matter; the FISA aspect is now in the purview of an ongoing criminal investigation (Huber).
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the origination documents [“electronic communication” (EC)] surround another aspect that directly relates to CIA Director John Brennan and his earlier testimony to congress regarding the origination of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Operation against Trump.
Most media and pundits have likely forgotten how John Brennan explained his role on May 23rd, 2017. THIS IS CRITICAL.
On March 20th, 2017, FBI Director James Comey stated he did not inform congressional oversight about the FBI counterintelligence operation against Trump, that began in July 2016, at the recommendation of his counterintelligence division head Bill Priestap, and due to “the sensitivity of the matter”. {GO DEEP}
Two months later, May 23rd, 2017, former CIA Director John Brennan testified in his opening statement to congress that, in addition to providing intelligence to the FBI, he personally informed the “Congressional Gang of Eight” of the underlying raw intelligence.
Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In essence John Brennan told congress he informed: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr of the same intelligence information he delivered to FBI Director James Comey and ODNI James Clapper. According to his testimony those briefings were between the 11th of August and 6th of September 2016.
So Devin Nunes is asking for the “electronic communication” (EC) documents that initiated the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence operation, while seemingly having been briefed by CIA Director John Brennan on the substance of the material in Aug/Sept 2016?
And the FBI/DOJ are reluctant to share with the HPSCI (Nunes) the same information they are willing to share with the House Judiciary (Goodlatte).
Why would that be?
Simple answer, the HPSCI is compromised.
Remember, ranking member Adam Schiff and Representative Eric Swalwell are also targets of ongoing FBI leak investigations; and notably (with that self-interest in mind) they have been working to undermine -and politicize- the outcomes of the Inspector General Horowitz investigation.
Additionally, the HPSCI is where the Awan Brothers scandal (investigation and indictments) comes into play and the Democrats on the HPSCI committee who waived the background checks for their use as IT support staff.
There are very good reasons for the FBI and DOJ to keep potentially devastating criminal evidence away from the HPSCI until Huber is prepared to use it. The HPSCI membership are inherently tied up inside multiple facets of the soft-coup plot and supportive ideology within the conspiracy against candidate Trump; and later President-elect and President Donald Trump.
Lastly, remember the Chief Legal Counsel for the FBI is now Dana Boente. The origin of the operation against Trump began within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD). That’s where the small group was operating.
We know from the recent text messages of Strzok/Page and from the critical last days of the Obama administration’s action they viewed Eastern District of Virginia Attorney General Dana Boente as a threat with President-elect Trump taking office.
After the top-tier of the corrupt DOJ-NSD officials were removed, Dana Boente became the head of the DOJ-NSD and subsequently IG Horowitz was granted full oversight authority (previously denied by Sally Yates).
In April 2017, Dana Boente, a perceived risk from the Obama “small group” perspective, goes into the DOJ-NSD as the rats run out… Boente grants IG oversight access… and then remains inside the division for a year prior to exit. Upon leaving the DOJ-NSD he goes into the FBI as Chief Legal Counsel (replacing corrupt James Baker). There’s no better authority, with inside information into the heart of the conspiracy group effort, than the current chief legal counsel of the FBI, Dana Boente.
That’s why the investigative White Hats are going to keep the HPSCI at a distance.
Here’s Nunes letter:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/06/john-brennans-contributions-to-fraud-upon-fisa-court/#8592;
April 6th – 2018 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #442Sarah Sanders White House Press Briefing – Friday April 6th →
John Brennan’s Contributions to Fraud Upon FISA Court…
Posted on April 6, 2018 by sundance
Most of the ‘vast-Russian-conspiracy‘ media presentations seem to start with a discussion of intelligence gathering beginning in July of 2016. The GOP convention to nominate Donald Trump was July 18-21st of 2016.
Adding to the July 2016 origination narrative FBI Director James Comey stated the counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump began in July 2016. However, not a single MSM entity has looked at the FISA-702(16)(17) abuses by the FBI and DOJ-NSD outlined by the FISA court and NSA well before July 2016.
It is a matter of unclassified public record the FBI and DOJ-NSD were allowing “contractors” to conduct searches of the FBI and NSA databases, and extract raw intelligence, throughout 2015 until April 28th 2016 when NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers shut down all access and initiated a compliance review.
Any objective review of that time period indicates (strongest likelihood) the search activity was political ‘opposition research’ for the 2016 presidential election. With hindsight of the FBI and DOJ’s political intents, ‘opposition research’ was almost certainly the motive.tributions-to-fraud-upon-fisa-court/
Surrounding the nomination that stunned the geo-political world almost every foreign government was trying to figure out who and what Donald J Trump was all about; and more specifically: how would his run for the presidency impact their specific interests.
2017- WASHINGTON NYT — American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.
[Paragraph #5] The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is continuing. It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election. (link)
The New York Times should win a Pulitzer for undermining their own ‘Russian Conspiracy’ headline narrative within the fifth paragraph. [It’s a trend] I digress.
Obviously, attempting to understand the policies of outsider Donald Trump, Russia would be asking these same questions along with China, France, England, the larger EU and every nation in every continent. It would be silly to claim otherwise.
Ergo a diplomatic mission by Russian governmental officials surrounding the GOP convention to understand the Trump orbit is no different than a Chinese, European or Arab-Asian effort for the same reason.
However, the international interest did necessarily initiate a bunch of foreign officials making contact with anyone and everyone who would be associated with Trump-world regardless of concentric circle distance from the epicenter. That intellectually honest understanding highlights how much of the post convention (July 2016) raw intelligence gathering began so easily.
The CIA simply monitoring chatter amid foreign diplomats, their customary job, turns into raw data provided to the FBI which in turn becomes the subject matter of frequent FISA searches/warrants to explore the U.S. contacts on the other side of that chatter.
The FISA searches/warrants turn into intelligence reports and that begins the entire process now known as “unmasking” etc. Nothing within this process so far is even in question. However, this is also the backdrop for intelligence reports to be weaponized for political purposes. In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan testified to this exact process before congress.
What was not reported by any media outline is John Brennan, understanding actions taken by the Obama administration in 2016 created his own exit from the controversy.
Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP. Where “fullstop” directly and immediately indicates Brennan’s throwing the responsibility for all that came next upon FBI Director James Comey.
John Brennan structured his self-defense with great specificity: (@13:35)
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”… (link)
Shorter version: don’t try pinning this unsubstantiated Russia investigation to no-where, and the illegal leaks, on me; I just provided the raw intelligence.
It is important to emphasize here the possibly illegal “unmasking“, and the certainly illegal “leaking“, were all based on intelligence reports generated from raw intelligence, and not the raw intelligence itself.
It was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating the intel reports, including the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB).
The CIA provided raw intel, and the NSA generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. After the November election, those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were eventually leaked to the media in a coordinated effort to undermine the incoming administration.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his may 2017 testimony John Brennan tried to take himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper, while rubbing his face and scratching his head, had taken the same route earlier. That left the majority of scrutiny for the anti-Trump intelligence operation upon James Comey.
This explained why Comey changed his mind on testifying to congress until he had the opportunity to talk to newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.
Former FBI Director James Comey is not stupid. He is, however, intensely political.
James Comey completely understood the legal risks he was facing within the faux “Russian conspiracy story” and the “subsequent leaking” of his political FBI reports.
NAFTA Watch – No “Agreement on Major Issues” After Three Days of Discussion Between Principals…
Posted on April 7, 2018 by sundance
After three days of discussions between U.S Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo they were not able to develop any consensus on the major issues within the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.
← Mailboxes and Old BarnsIntellectual Froglegs – Liberal Farm →
NAFTA Watch – No “Agreement on Major Issues” After Three Days of Discussion Between Principals…
Posted on April 7, 2018 by sundance
After three days of discussions between U.S Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo they were not able to develop any consensus on the major issues within the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.
The likely outcome of the upcoming Mexican national election on July 1st brought the principals together for non-scheduled talks, as U.S. President Trump instructed Ambassador Lighthizer to explore whether the three nations could find common ground on the ‘big picture’ issues behind the largest schism. The auto sector and rules of origin is the epicenter of the biggest difference between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
The U.S. auto-sector NAFTA position is that North American content of vehicles made in NAFTA countries be increased to 85 percent from 62.5 percent. The Canadian and Mexican position is for lower North American content.
Canada is not arguing for higher Canadian content. Mexico is not arguing for higher Mexican content… Instead both Canada and Mexico are arguing for higher imported content (China and Asia). Honestly, I cannot fathom why more people don’t see the inherent ridiculousness of NAFTA against the reality of Canada and Mexico arguing for more Chinese imports.
The reason Can/Mex are arguing for more imported material content is because both of their trade economies exploit the NAFTA loophole that allows European and Asian parts to be shipped into Can/Mex, assembled, and shipped into the U.S. market without duty.
It’s bizarre; yet this is the reality.
NAFTA is so completely flawed, it is against Canada and Mexico’s financial interest for them to agree to a North American trade agreement that is structured around North American trade.
When you ask a pro-NAFTA advocate why Canada and Mexico are arguing for less Canadian and Mexican manufacturing in their NAFTA position the advocate cannot answer with any intelligence…. because their pro-NAFTA entire premise is ridiculous, and based on structural falsehoods. Very frustrating.
Depending on which ideological broadcast or print media you review, there is a massive disconnect in their projected framework of optimism that a deal can be reached. Canadian media are desperate to find hope that any deal can be reached. Mexican media is ambivalent; and U.S. media is mostly driven by the position of multinational corporations who demand the exploitative nature of NAFTA be retained.
My gut, and the ongoing deep reviews of nuance therein, still lean heavily toward the inability of any deal to be possible because the underlying dynamic is so structurally flawed. It is against U.S. interests to stay in NAFTA. It is against Mexico and Canada’s interests to exit NAFTA. There is a massive amount of media manipulation between those polar opposite positions.
Princess Rainbow Sparkles continues selling the Canadian position based on ‘feelings’ and ’emotion’…
AC