There are ongoing consequential election battles taking place in multiple states that are far more urgent than my meager outlines; and it is not my intent to distract from the more pressing matters of our political surrounding. However, there is a strong possibility the current election events are symptoms of a larger battle within government.

An enigma:

You see, there’s a bunch of ‘unofficial’ evidence, or data-points, that no-one can explain how or why they came to be visible. The data did not surface sequentially; but it surely surfaced purposefully from within the apparatus of government. Putting the evidence into a sequence that clarifies the picture is not easy. As a respected person recently shared:

“It’s almost like a separate discipline, sort of like textual forensics or document historiography; I don’t know how to describe it yet.”

In an earlier outline I shared the following questions:

How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages?

Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application?

Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from?

Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? Why?

Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information?

Why be so specific details within the Wolfe indictment; then dismiss them?

Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp?

Where is all of this “unofficial” evidence coming from?

Well, here’s my answers.

In the James Wolfe indictment, released June 8th, 2018, we find out the Senate Select Committee on intelligence was sent the FISA application on Carter Page. We don’t find out from the indictment, we only see a description: [Source Link]

Now, keep in mind this indictment as written ends without any charges of leaking classified documents. The indictment [Read Here] ends with three counts of giving “false statements to a government agency”, ie. lying to the FBI [18 USC 1001 violation]

If you read the indictment, and the subsequent charges within the indictment, there is absolutely NO REASON, for the extent of the specificity within page #6, lines 17 through 20. As pictured above. Wolfe was not charged with leaking “classified information”, yet the specific details describe the “top secret” document that was leaked.

A month later, on a Saturday, July 21st, 2018, the redacted FISA Title-1 application used against U.S. person Carter Page is released. At the time of its release, no-one was looking for it and no-one was requesting the release.

On page #54, 63, 65, 66, and 83 of the heavily redacted FISA application – the FISC Clerk copy stamp appears, drawing attention to the date of distribution, March 17th, 2017. [Source Link]

All dates within the FISA application are redacted, except for the FISC Clerk stamp dates. Curiously, this March 17, 2017, clerk stamp date is what connects that document to the description of the “top secret” document outlined in the Wolfe indictment.

Against the refusal of the DOJ and FBI to declassify supporting documents to the Nunes memo, this unanticipated weekend release of the FISA application was that much more interesting. FISA documents are not foia-able; consider the painstaking effort to get the Nunes memo released; in essence this FISA application would have been the easiest document to keep hidden. Yet, it appeared.

Additionally, another curious unanticipated and never explained document release from February 9th, 2018, overlays with both the Wolfe indictment and the Carter Page FISA application.

In February, 2018, someone, for some reason, released the text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, and a lobbyist/lawyer named Adam Waldman. [Source Link] The resulting sunlight showed Senator Warner seeking Waldman’s assistance in setting up a private meeting/interview with Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.

On page #5 of the Warner text messages, we see the date March 17th, 2017, again. The same date the Senate received the FISA application. This time we see that Warner was going into the Senate “skif” (SCIF) shortly after 4:00pm; (presumably to review the document):

Using 2018 hindsight and putting together the three documents, released six months apart [Feb (Warner), June (Wolfe), July (FISA)] the picture emerges that the Senate Intelligence Committee received the Carter Page FISA application on March 17th, 2017, delivered to James Wolfe and reviewed by Vice-Chairman Mark Warner. From the indictment, we discover the content of this document production was leaked by James Wolfe, to his reporter/girlfriend, Ali Watkins the same day.

The important notations here are: (1) two of the three sets of data were released without any specific purpose (FISA App and Warner texts); (2) no-one knows why two data points were released; (3) no-one knows who released them; (4) the FISC Clerk Stamp appears to have been intentionally left unredacted; (5) the specificity within the page #6 data within the Wolfe indictment was unnecessary for the direct purpose, yet important for the indirect purpose of connecting the data; (6) the Wolfe indictment was unsealed six months after the fact; and (7) NONE of these three sets of data were essential information at the time they were released.

This tells me, someone wanted this information into the bloodstream of public knowledge; yet non of this information was part of an official release; except the Wolfe indictment – yet it too contained unnecessary specificity within the page-6 details when unsealed.

This brings us to the critical question: Who? Who wanted this out there?

The answer to that question, is uniquely narrow when you think about the documents and the position the person would have to hold in order to influence the release.

Because of the documents in question, the person would need to be inside the DOJ. Because of the content of the documents, the person would have to be important enough to have access and knowledge of the bigger dynamic at play. This person would also need to be high enough in the food chain to authorize the FISA release and have some control over the redaction process (leaving the FISC Clerk stamp date visible). This person would have to be high enough to ‘unofficially’ release the Warner text messages, and yet not be in fear after doing it.

In my opinion, that describes Matt Whitaker – AG Jeff Sessions Chief of Staff.

Additionally, when considering another set of unsourced and very consequential data that followed the plea of Michael Flynn as demanded by the prosecution from Robert Mueller November 30th, 2017. The public releases on December 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, immediately following the Flynn plea (Strzok FISC buddy Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras), were massive in consequence, and appeared reactionary.

Those early December 2017 releases revealed: the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok removals and suspensions; the text messaging; the connections to Bruce Ohr activity (demotion 1); and the connections to Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS. No-one ever asked who was the source of that mountain of evidence against the conspiracy group.

Again, in my opinion, that information could only come from someone with deep knowledge of what was going on; and tends to point toward Matt Whitaker.

In short, I think Matt Whitaker was our behind-the-scenes ‘deep throat’; pushing information into the public consciousness that would paint a picture being hidden by opposing voices within the administrative state. All of the countermeasures became visible after Whitaker was hired in October 2017.

Again, apply common sense, what interests were served; and whose interests were undermined by this information being released?

Whitaker joined Sessions in October 2017; immediately before the FBI investigators zeroed in on the SSCI leaking [See Indictment].

Whitaker came in after the leak task force was in place and investigating. I believe it was Matt Whitaker who left the disparate breadcrumb trail for us to follow.

Given the nature of how hard Rosenstein and Mueller are/were working to block sunlight and the release of information, as evidenced within their recent threats against declassification by President Trump, these data/evidence points certainly did not come from their collective DOJ camp or the ‘small group’ within the Special Counsel. Factually the sunlight from the mysterious media information was adverse to their interests.

So here’s my summary:

How do we find out about the Mark Warner text messages? – Matt Whitaker

Who publicly released the Carter Page FISA application? – Matt Whitaker

Where did the four day flood of information (Dec 1st – 4th, 2017) about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok come from? – Matt Whitaker

Who released that Page/Strzok information to the media? – Matt Whitaker

Why? – Push back against the sketchy Mueller framework within the Flynn plea.

Who made the decision not to indict James Wolfe for leaking classified information? – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in an effort to protect the interests of corrupt elements within the SSCI. [ Despite the leak task force identifying the leaker, the content of the Wolfe leak meant Sessions could not be the decision-maker; the recusal firewall was crossed.]

Who wrote the initial Wolfe indictment to contain such specific evidence as to outline how he had leaked classified information? – The task force [Whitaker allies].

Who made the decision NOT TO redact the key FISC clerk stamp? – Matt Whitaker as push-back against, and evidence toward, the corrupt elements within the SSCI.

Where did all of this “unofficial” evidence come from? – Matt Whitaker, current Acting Attorney General.

Additionally, the Office of the President is not an individual, it is an institution. There are people, mostly lawyers, responsible for the office of the president who are there specifically to protect the executive office and not necessarily the person within it. By protecting the Office of The President, they protect the president.

Part of that protection involves NOT allowing the President to posses information that could put him in a position of compromise or legal jeopardy. Therefore, in my opinion, President Trump does not have direct knowledge, nor has he been informed, of any of this.

In my humble opinion, those near the President are telling him to keep publicly expressing his distance from Matt Whitaker specifically because Whitaker is “the cleaner” for the DOJ and FBI. That’s why we are seeing this:

The President needs factual and honest deniability of knowledge, and or any involvement, in what Matt Whitaker has done (as CoS) and/or will do (as AAG) internally.

That scenario doesn’t make former AG Jeff Sessions out to be good or bad, just recused and unable to deal with the issues over the past 20 months – prior to exit.

The conflict and compromise carried by Rod Rosenstein makes him a risk to the office; that’s why Whitaker was recommended as the ‘cleaner’.

I suspect one of Whitaker’s key tools will be to oversee and then utilize the IG report on FISA abuse to expel those within the DOJ and FBI who participated. [See Here]

The deepest elements of the DC swamp will go bananas to get rid of Whitaker specifically because he is positioned to be the cleaner.

Who has given Whitaker counsel? Likely Senate Judicary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Will this effort work? I have no idea.

There you have it. That’s my take.

“Matthew Whitaker”

.

.

Graphic = h/t Rosie