Oh what a tangled web is weaved…. Apparently, the FBI used the Jeb Bush/DNC Commissioned opposition research dossier on candidate Trump as evidence to the FISA court to gain a warrant for surveillance. Things just got more interesting.

If this report via CNN is factual in its baseline accuracy, methinks the motive for the stuttering obfuscation of FBI Director James Comey just gained some sunlight.

Washington (CNN) – The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump’s campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security. (read more)

Remember the comments from Chairman Devin Nunes when he shared: Mike Rogers (NSA) was very willing to provide the intelligence committee with evidence; however, James Comey (FBI) was not forthcoming with the requests made by the committee.

Why would FBI Director James Comey be vested in keeping information withheld from the oversight committee? Ah, now it’s time to bring back the public hearings.

FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.

Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.

Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.

In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.

The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.

With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:

…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?

BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

.

Watch it again.

Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:

…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey

Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.

The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.

Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.

The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.

There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.

As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.

Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:

No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House? ….. then it would get a little ugly: Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?

With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:

There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.

FBI Director Comey states his organization is “investigating”. Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he is the source of the unmasking or leaks.

♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don’t know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?

♦ Wouldn’t the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?

Think.

Avoid the shiny things.

Why wouldn’t congress ask this simple question?

Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media. Fair enough.

♦ Wouldn’t the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?

♦ Wouldn’t the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers: if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?

If Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for leak activity (expressly known illegal behavior)… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?

And why didn’t congress ask them?

Think.

There is NO PEA in this shell game of distraction.

Why didn’t congress ask them?

Occam’s Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up: If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A) How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing”? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…

The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.

If they were not merely giving an illusion…. Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it’s unfathomable no-one see it.

Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.

“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey

Didn’t Comey further claim in this hearing that lying about the content of (or even the existence of) a counter-intelligence investigation was not itself a criminal act? Hello?

That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists (even if it doesn’t) just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of “an ongoing investigation”. Comey says: “Because of the sensitivity of the matter”.. Where “the matter” is the politicized and entirely false information from the White House.

FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no “oversight” of his claims.

…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey

See how that works?

At one point in his political life Comey may have been a White Hat, but there’s no doubt his behavior is exactly what a black hat operative would be doing to shield his connection to the black hat activity of the prior administration.

Summary: Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere. The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus. Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.

“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.” “Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.” “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.” ~ Evelyn Farkas

.