The tangled web of corruption, deception and manipulation within the DOJ National Security Division (Lynch, Yates, Carlin, Ohr) and FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, Page and Baker), continues to pose issues of complexity when trying to outline the story. Best advice is to ignore voices who position themselves too far ahead of known evidence. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation.
Unlike some, we will not get ahead of the primary focus. For over a year CTH has focused on the demonstrable and provable foundation of the fraud; because the foundation brings down the entire apparatus.
Following that investigative path we have found ourselves paralleling a strategic plan as outlined by actions of congressional officials (Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz), and the Trump intelligence community [Mike Rogers (NSA), Dan Coats (ODNI), Chris Wray (FBI) and Rod Rosenstein (DOJ)].
Four Corners of the demonstrable justice dept. conspiracy:
- Exonerate Clinton
- Investigate/execute, IC surveillance of Trump.
- Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump.
- The Insurance Policy.
Following the exoneration of Hillary Clinton, the next phase, the “Trump Operation”, was the need for the DOJ/FBI “small group” to have access to surveillance of Hillary Clinton’s political opposition, Donald Trump. This was the U.S. government conducting political opposition research through a weaponized intelligence apparatus (DOJ and FBI).
Within the context of #2 and #3 you’ll note the entry and exit timeline of people connected to the same task is identical. Christopher Steele, hired by Fusion-GPS, enters the timeline at the same time Nellie Ohr is hired by Fusion-GPS (May 2016). Both Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr exit the activity timeline at the same time as the FBI gets FISA Court “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page, October 21st, 2016.
Everything after October 21st, 2016, when the FBI has “Title 1” surveillance authority over Carter Page and the Trump Campaign, is part of the “insurance policy”. The Title 1 surveillance authority gave the “small group” the tools needed to execute #4, which included the 2017 “Russian Narrative” and the appointment of SC Robert Mueller.
That’s the rough outline. Within the rough outline there are sub-chapters of how it all took place. How it all came together: The ‘dossier’ is a sub-chapter. The FISA warrant is a sub-chapter. Establishing Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a sub-chapter. Etc.
♦Nellie Ohr was needed because she was a go-between from Team Clinton (Fusion GPS) to her husband Bruce Ohr inside the DOJ. Nellie Ohr relayed information into the DOJ and she extracted information from the DOJ that was passed back to Fusion-GPS and by extension Christopher Steele.
Nellie Ohr was a communication transfer hub.
A) the Clinton Team (Fusion GPS) needed to wash their opposition research and have it come out as “Intelligence Product”; and B) the DOJ and FBI needed to present intelligence product to further their insurance policy goal.
The Clinton ‘opposition research’, turned ‘intelligence product’, was carried by Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, the FBI and DOJ and was leaked to the media, as needed, to script the Russian narrative. Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (ODNI) could enhance the IC product as needed [See: ‘Russian Election’ – Joint Analysis Report].
One of their collaborative IC constructs was the Clinton-Steele Dossier. The FBI and DOJ used the Clinton-Steele Dossier, and leaks from those assembling the Clinton-Steele Dossier, as validation for an October 21st Title I FISA surveillance warrant on Carter Page.
Three corners of the conspiracy construct relied upon the FISA “Title I” surveillance:
#2) Investigate, execute, IC surveillance of Trump; #3) Collect and redistribute opposition research of Trump; and #4) The Insurance Policy;
All three of those corners relied on the FISA surveillance warrant being granted.
Another example post-election use of the FISA surveillance was how the Intelligence Community positioned the story of Carter Page in April of 2017 to gain the Special Counsel appointment, ie. the Mueller investigation (another false construct.)
Expose the fraudulent construct of the “FISA Title I” surveillance and the tenuously sketchy narrative built upon it collapses. So, what is the weakest part of the FISA Title I construct? Answer: The Clinton-Steele dossier.
Expose the fraud behind the FISA “Title I” application and the entire scheme is revealed. Investigators expose the FISA application to disinfecting sunlight by going through the ‘Dossier’ it is built upon.
That’s why Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Chairman Bob Goodlatte are focused on exposing the Dossier (Grassley), and FISA application(Nunes and Goodlatte); each complements the other.
Here’s a related interview with Devin Nunes and Hugh Hewitt [ AUDIO HERE ]
(Transcript) […] Hugh Hewitt: All right, now the Carter Page surveillance that was authorized by the FISA warrant that has got a glaring omission in it, a material omission that I’ve written about for the Washington Post, have you seen any of the work product or summaries that resulted as a result of that FISA warrant?
Devin Nunes: Yes, we have seen, so our investigators and Trey Gowdy, and now two other members, John Ratcliffe from Texas and Bob Goodlatte. They have, they have went through and seen all of that.
Hewitt: To your knowledge, did the Carter Page FISA warrant yield intelligence or surveillance on any member of the President’s campaign staff or transition team?
Nunes: Not that I am aware of, no.
Hewitt: Were there any other warrants issued at that time that are in the category of the Carter Page warrant that raise your eyebrows about appropriateness?
Nunes: Not that I’m aware of.
Hewitt: Now the Chief Justice appoints the FISA judges. Have you had a chance to chat with him or any of the FISA judges about what went on at the FISA Court with regard to the Page application?
Nunes: This is something that we grappled with, that we’ve been grappling with all through this investigation. We decided that we wanted to complete the FISA abuse portion before we approached the courts. Our next step with the courts is to make them aware, if they’re not aware already, that this happened by watching the news, so we will be sending a letter to the court. There is a, there’s a debate now into whether just send it to the Supreme Court or to send it to the FISA Court, and here’s why. And Hugh, you’d be a good guy to actually get your opinion on this. If, somehow, this case ends up at the Supreme Court, somehow, some way, by sending a letter to Roberts, do you conflict the Court?
Hewitt: The answer to that is no.
Hewitt: They will not issue an advisory opinion. And since he appoints the judges and is the leader of Article III, I would think you would invite him to come and talk with the committee. ¹You can’t compel him to come, obviously, but since he appoints the FISA judges, perhaps he would accept your invitation to a closed session. Would you welcome such an appearance by the Chief Justice before a closed session to discuss the FISA process?
[¹That’s nonsense. If the House can impeach a SCOTUS Justice; the House of Representatives can most certainly compel one to testify.]
Nunes: So this is something that we have, like I said, we have thought a lot about this. And the answer is we don’t know the correct way to proceed because of the separation of powers issue. So as you know, you know, we have, I’m not aware of, I’m aware of members of Congress going to the Supreme Court and having coffee with the judges, just to shoot the bull. I’m aware of, you know, dinners where congressmen have been with Supreme Court justices. But I’m not aware of any time where a judge has, for lack of a better term, testified before the Congress.
Hewitt: It is perfectly appropriate to invite, though you ¹cannot compel the Chief Justice. And since he appoints the FISA judges, I doubt any of them would appear without his previous appearance and his warrant to do so. But I would encourage you to do that, because I would like to see if the Chief Justice would inform you of their reactions. I believe they are not going to be amused by this footnote. I believe it’s a material omission.
Hewitt: I had one former federal judge tell me that it is, it is proof, it is probative evidence of a government intent to deceive the court that they did not disclose the origin of the Steele dossier, but instead disguised it as political manufactured.
Nunes: Yeah, and I think you have a very good point, and that was our read of it, also, in that you know, so in the application, there’s, you know, you would think you would go to great lengths to say where you got this from. And then it’s almost like you had to go out of your way to put the footnote in at the end in order to disguise it so that you’ve basically said oh, no, I did say this, when the reality is you really didn’t, right?
Nunes: And what would be interesting to see, and I don’t know, I’m sure it doesn’t exist, but if you had the changes as the FISA application made its way through the process of being developed before it was submitted to the court, and when that was put in and how the wording was changed. (continue reading)