What do the following four points have in common?

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to need to protect politicians. (House of Representatives) The sweetheart plea deal.

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clear from the outset how he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians. (SSCI, Senate) The sweetheart plea deal.

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig; and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians (Obama White House). Sweetheart double standards.

The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018); Status?… Oh, wait for it….

If you note the common thread is: U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie K Liu, well, you would be entirely accurate. Oh, but wait, we’ve only just begun.

Pay attention to the timelines.

While newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr was/is “getting his arms” around ongoing corruption within the organization he is now attempting to lead, there was an announcement on March 5th, about U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu becoming the #3 official at the DOJ.

Three weeks later, on March 28th, there was an announcement about a change of plans, and U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu’s name was withdrawn from consideration.

In addition to AG Bill Barr “getting his arms around” issues within the department, what else happened between March 5th and March 28th that would so drastically change plans for Ms. Liu?:

On March 21st Representatives Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows send a letter (full pdf available here) to Attorney General William Barr wanting to know what is the status of the year-old (April 19th, 2018) criminal referral for fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. (link)

.

Answering the letter from Jordan and Meadows would be easy. The AG picks up the phone, calls Ms. Liu, asks the question and then sends back a response. Except, well, there was no response. Instead, a week after receiving the letter Ms. Liu’s name is withdrawn from consideration for promotion…. and later AG Barr admits there was ‘spying’.

Keep in mind Meadows and Jordan obviously suspected –as did we– that no DOJ case against McCabe was being pursued; after all, the evidence was previously gathered, it doesn’t take a year. Additionally, when Mark Meadows is directly asked about the status of this specific issue today with Maria Bartiromo what does he answer? He doesn’t… [watch the interview] he avoids the question completely.

Put it all together and be intellectually honest…. McCabe’s current non-worried book-tour status is directly in-line with the politically convenient Awan, Wolfe and Craig approach.

See the picture?

Obviously we don’t yet have a solid history to reference AG Barr’s motive and intentions (cautious optimism). However, granting benefit of doubt, CTH can imagine an eyes-wide-open diplomatic response from any Bill Barr ‘hands-around-it‘ line of inquiry….

Hence, Liu withdrawn.

Now some might ask why Barr would simultaneously make Jessie Liu the chair of the Attorney General Advisory Committee on the same day her name is withdrawn (March 28th announcement); however, Barr doesn’t have a choice about the DC U.S. Attorney sitting on the AGAC. By law [28 CFR § 0.10] the Attorney General can pick all of the AGAC members, with one exception. The DC U.S. Attorney is required to be a member.

[Nice little deep state continuity trick]

Given that Barr is bringing in people from outside the DOJ –specifically from his prior law practice- that he knows he can trust, CTH suspects Barr made Liu Chairwoman of the AGAC for two reasons: (1) keep eyes on her; and (2) busy her with administrative work.

But wait…. it gets better.

Accepting that Ms. Jessie Liu is a career participant in the DOJ aspects of deep state preservation; even acting in a role as Deputy Chief of Staff for the DOJ National Security Division (yes, the DOJ-NSD division at the heart of the FISA issues); and remembering that Ms. Liu was also a member of the Trump transition team…. well, who the hell recommended her for those roles?

Someone ‘inside’ the Trump operation had to recommend Jessie Liu as a member of the transition team knowing full well her ideology would protect the administrative state. Who was that person who recommended her, and brought her in?

Additionally, regarding the recent March 5th, 2019, recommendation for Associate Attorney General (position #3), there has to be a point-of-contact between the DOJ and the inner circle of the White House. A person who would carry a recommendation from the DOJ institution, internally, to President Trump. Who was/is that person specifically?

If the 2016/2017 recommending transition member is the same as the 2019 recommending administration member… well, that’s the person who is directly working to the detriment of President Trump’s agenda.

Again, for those who might prefer to look-away from cold data, go back to the four points of specific reference we started with and research:

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to need to protect politicians. (House of Representatives) The sweetheart plea deal.

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clear from the outset how he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians. (SSCI, Senate) The sweetheart plea deal.

The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig; and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians (Obama White House). Sweetheart double standards.

The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018); Status?…

Look up those specific backstories.

Right there, in combination with the non-accountability outcomes of the two previous inspector general reports, is a big part of the corruption problem. If AG Bill Barr intends to save these institutions, he has his work cut out for him.

QUESTION: If the DOJ Office of Inspector General found no intentional DOJ and FBI malfeasance in the June ’18 report covering the totality of the 2016 election; and no direct evidence of political bias within the decision-making of the officials being reviewed; what’s the likelihood of the same OIG finding malfeasance as it relates to DOJ/FBI *FISA activity* and the exact same people?

The extensive OIG election-period report found no DOJ/FBI misconduct (only some bad judgement). There were no criminal referrals. There were recommendations for internal improvement, which FBI Director Wray said the FBI would implement (link).

It’s important to note the Office of Inspector General FISA review/investigation of potential FISA abuses (opened March 28th, 2018) was launched three months prior to the “Election Activity” final report in June 14th 2018. There was obvious investigative overlap; however, the June report said “no evidence of intentional misconduct.”

The time frame covered by the “Election Activity” review (OIG report 2) and the “FISA Activity” review (OIG report 3) are the same. The topics are different (FISA being more specific), but the people under review and time-frame therein are identical.

If the OIG found no intentional corrupt activity in the June ’18 report (only bad judgement); no referrals were made; and time period and people are exactly the same; how can the OIG produce a post-facto FISA review report with substantively different conclusions? It seems unlikely.

However, that said, there is a narrow window of potential optimism for those seeking some measure of accountability inside report #3.

DOJ Official Bruce Ohr is likely still employed for the same reason the dispatch of Peter Strzok and James Baker was delayed prior to the finalization of IG report #2. The OIG and INSD (inspection division) can only reach those still inside the system.

On the narrow issue of how the DOJ and FBI assembled, handled and used the FISA application (and subsequent Title-1 surveillance warrant), against the Trump campaign and officials therein, Bruce Ohr is a key and central witness for the OIG (link).

Mr. Ohr has testified (transcript here) that he was interviewed by IG Horowitz about his role in assembling the information that was later used in gaining a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant without following the Woods Procedure. [Note: Mr. Ohr was never interviewed by John Huber]

Unlike the previous OIG report #2 (Election-era Issues) if the OIG can find direct and intentional “gross misconduct” (by referencing traditional and historic FISA application assembly therein), toward those officials who participated in the FISA assembly, then it becomes possible the OIG report could potentially outline that the FISA application resulted in serious fourth amendment civil rights violations. And that perspective could be a narrow opening toward legal issues for DOJ and FBI officials who participated in assembling an *intentional* and fraudulently-based application to the FISA court.

Unfortunately, that approach is a very high bar for the OIG to reach. Again, the OIG would have to find “direct evidence” of “gross misconduct” resulting in civil rights violations. The defensive arguments by the corrupt group would be filled with legal justification(s) and internal process discussion. Lots of room for reasonable doubt.

Also unfortunate, any finding of “fourth amendment” FISA-abuse would be adverse to the interests of the larger U.S. intelligence apparatus and institutional participants who rely on the current use of the FISA process. Current officials would want to protect it.

I suspect the team of DOJ/FBI officials who abused the FISA court, and are now watching things unfold, are also relying upon the institutional necessity of the FISA process to protect themselves from too much scrutiny and sunlight. An example of that unfortunate reality is found with HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes advocating for FISA reauthorization on January 11th, 2018 (link); right in the middle of the explosive revelations and discoveries of potential abuse.

As HPSCI Chairman, Devin Nunes knew back in 2017 the FISA process was abused for corrupt political intent. However, he also knows FISA is a critical component and tool for the U.S. intelligence system and national security.

Currently Mr. Nunes is advocating for a much larger conversation about FISA and “Title-1” authority before any further congressional re-authorization.

We can only imagine the downstream political chaos if IG Horowitz started cracking open the doors to possible civil rights violations from Obama-era FISA abuse.

♦ Prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane operation originated from fraud by exposing the CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr?]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter. Squeeze this bastard’s nuts in the proverbial legal vice.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified.

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella]

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation.

Yes, they were spying.

Release this material, and the entire corrupt construct is exposed….