This outline is the story of how
the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were
weaponized. This outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman
Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the
biggest political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story
of how one man’s action likely saved our constitutional republic.
His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.
I’m calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA
702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration “Operation
Condor”. Those of you familiar with the film “Three Days of The Condor” will note how the real life
storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA
Director Admiral Mike Rogers plays the role of “Condor”.
I highly recommend the movie
Three Days of The Condor, it was way ahead of its time. YW
“SCIF” – a Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility. To
understand the larger FISA 702(16)(17) issues in 2016 it is important to focus
on the word “compartmented”.
Intelligence information is housed by compartments
within the larger intelligence community network. Each intelligence unit holds
intelligence unique to that compartment and task. The FBI Counterintelligence
unit would hold the intelligence information specific to their task or
assignment; the DOJ National Security Division would hold their own
compartmented intelligence; again, specific to their task and objectives. So
too would the DOJ, DoD (Pentagon), State Dept., or CIA.
This compartmented structure is what led to the
creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. The 911
commission recommended the office to serve as a hub able to ensure intelligence
sharing; that is – to ensure intelligence was not intentionally withheld from
other compartments when needed.
In 2016 the
ODNI for President Obama was James “Lyin” Clapper.
It is doubtful the 911 commission ever gave thought to
what might happen when intelligence is weaponized as a political tool. The DNI
is a political appointment, a cabinet member, of the President. If the
executive branch, the President, wanted to weaponize intelligence as a
political tool, he/she would have control over such weaponization as an outcome
of their political appointees within the: FBI (Comey, McCabe), DOJ
(Lynch/Yates), CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), or DoD (Ash Carter), etc.
The civilian
(representative) oversight into the compartmented intelligence falls to a very
select group known as the Intelligence Gang of Eight.
Four Democrats and Four Republicans (four minority
party and four majority party political leaders) for a total of eight. Four
from the House and Four from the Senate. –Understand the Gang of
Eight Here– The Gang-of-Eight can, if they choose, interact with the
intelligence product with the same level of security clearance as the
compartment being reviewed.
Only these eight members can interact with the
intelligence product in this way. This ensures their ability to conduct
oversight.
It is critical to understand the difference between
the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the
Gang of Eight. Only two members from the House Intelligence Committee (chair
and minority), and two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (chair and
vice-chair) are participants. The other four are Speaker of the House, minority
leader of House, Leader of Senate and Minority leader of Senate. The latter
four are not part of any other intel committee.
On March 20th 2017 congressional
testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional
oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director
Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating
presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence
suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*Watchman
comment: yeah, blame the other guy!
I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY*
important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use FBI
Counterintelligence Director WH “Bill” Priestap’s actual name, but refers to
his position and title. Again, watch the first three minutes:
FBI Director James Comey was
caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of
that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it. Oversight protocol requires
the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any
counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the
highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:
1. Ryan
2. Pelosi
3. McConnell
4. Schumer
5. Nunes
6. Schiff
7. Burr
8. Feinstein
Obviously, based on what we have
learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why
the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a
counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as
FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance
policy”.
REMINDER –
FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:
“I want to believe the path you
threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets
elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy
in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
FBI
Director James Comey told congress on March 20th, 2017, the reason he didn’t
inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of
Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.
The originating intelligence agency, in these
examples the DOJ National Security Division and/or FBI Counterintelligence
Division, holds the proprietary intelligence they create in their SCIF.
They may also receive intelligence products created for them, which they will
also host in their unique SCIF. Thus, intelligence is compartmentalized.
In 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general
oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE
Pdf HERE). The Office of Inspector General. Michael Horowitz, requested
oversight over the DOJ National Security Division and it was Sally Yates who
responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope
– not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to
oversight, except
the NSD.
The White House -the executive branch- is also
a host of intelligence information and consequently the White House has their
own SCIF which holds intelligence products they would create (very little), or
intelligence products created for them (the vast majority).
An example of a product created for the
executive branch would be the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB).
The PDB as a whole product would only exist in
the White House SCIF. Parts of the PDB would be hosted by the originating
participant, ex. NSA, FBI, DOJ, DoD, CIA State Dept. etc., but only the White
House would have the fully assembled product. After all, it’s assembled for the
President.
Putting the “Oversight” structure together with
the “Compartmented” intelligence security you will note that only a few people
‘could’ traditionally access the full PDB. However, under President Obama the President’s Daily
Brief went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.
Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…]
But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the
President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most
restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to
President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national
security adviser and secretary of state.
In
other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice
president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients,
including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter,
and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Pay attention to that last part.
According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s
PDB’s were going to more than 30 recipients including: “Deputy
Secretaries of national security departments”.
During an MSNBC interview about her unmasking
U.S. citizens within intelligence reports,in April 2017,
President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, defined the Obama
national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon
includes NSA) and “CIA”….
So under President Obama’s watch Deputy
Asst. Secretaries of Defense had daily access to the
PDB. An example of an Obama Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.
With dozens of people having access to
President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of names within the intelligence
product gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence –
including Obama officials who could, likely did, use the PDB for specific and
intentional political purposes. This political outcome was essentially confirmed by Evelyn Farkas who
was one of the downstream recipients of the unmasked intelligence.
If the House Intelligence Committee, or Senate
Intelligence Committee, as a whole – wanted to see the
President’s Daily Briefing, they would have to request the individual
components from the individual intelligence agencies because the PDB product
was not created for them; it was created for the Office of The President.
Only the Chairman and Minority leader from each
Intel committee could go to the White House to see the PDB end product.
[Remember, they alone are four of the Gang-of-Eight.]
This is why Devin Nunes, who is a Go8 member,
has to request the intelligence from each department (NSA, DOJ, FBI etc.) in
order to share it with the oversight committee. Nunes can review the ‘executive
SCIF product’ but cannot export or import intelligence product he did not
create.
The Congressional SCIF would then hold the
compartmented information after delivery for the committee members to review
under very tight controls. The intelligence is removed/deleted after review. No
systems are connected.
Our research indicates that in February and
March 2017 Chairman Devin Nunes, a gang of eight member, reviewed intelligence
reports (most likely PDB’s) that were assembled exclusively for the office of
the former President (Obama). That is why he went to the Eisenhower Executive
Office Building (EEOB) Information Facility to review.
The intelligence product would be delivered to
that SCIF system for his review, most likely by the ODNI (Dan Coats) or NSA (Mike Rogers).
It would be removed from that SCIF system after Nunes review, (no systems are
connected). It is important to note here that President Trump nominated Senator Dan
Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 –
however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.
It is not coincidental that immediately
following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide that information Chairman Devin
Nunes first reported his concerns. After Devin Nunes review the information
March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the
intelligence product he reviewed was “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian
counter-intelligence investigation”.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin
Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he
has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that
include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his
transition team.
WATCH:
1.)
…”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally
collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
2.) “Details about
U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little
or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in
intelligence community reporting.”
3.) “Third, I have
confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”
4.) “Fourth and finally, I
want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the
investigation of Russian activities.
“The House Intelligence
Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent
dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”
•“Who
was aware of it?”
•“Why
it was not disclosed to congress?”
•“Who
requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”
•“Whether
anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”
•“And
whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”
“I have asked the Directors
of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017)
letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full
account of these surveillance activities.”
Again, this is why the
intelligence reports seem likely to have been political opposition research
-that was part of Obama’s PDB– unless it was a separate intelligence product,
apart from the PDB, which was created for the Office of the President. [I
view the latter as highly doubtful because it would be too risky for the
President to be asking for specific ‘stand alone’ intelligence against
political adversaries, ie candidate Donald Trump.]
…Here’s
where all the dots connect:
Fast forward to 2018 –
Aside from the larger Russian conspiracy narrative, up to now the controversial
media story has been around the origin of the 2016 FISA warrant(s).
As previously stated by all reporting there was a June 2016 FISA
application that was denied,
and an October 2016 application that was approved.
The current line of congressional inquiry surrounds the underlying content of
the requested FISA warrant, and whether it was built upon fraud and manipulated
content (the ‘Steele Dossier’) presented to the FISA Court (FISC).
Recently the media have been working frantically, against an entire
year of prior support for the Steele Dossier, to distance the origin of the FBI
counterintelligence operation from the dossier. The reason why
reveals the bigger underlying story.
When Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes explained his concern in
March 2017 about what he saw from a review of 2016 intelligence gathering,
reporting and subsequent unmasking, the issue behind his concern was clouded in
mystery. Indeed the larger headlines at the time were about demanding a special
prosecutor and driving the Russia conspiracy narrative.
In hindsight, and with information from our assembled timelines of
2016 though today, we can now revisit that concern expressed by Chairman Nunes
with a great deal more perspective and information. Understanding the latest
information will help us all understand the totality of Nunes original frame of
reference.
As
many of you are aware, immediately following the 2016 presidential election NSA
Director Admiral Mike Rogers traveled to Trump Tower to
meet with president-elect Donald Trump. The day AFTER the Rogers visit, President-elect
Trump moved his transition
team out of Trump Tower to Bedminister New Jersey.
We always suspected NSA Director Rogers gave President-elect Trump a
head’s up of sorts.
Later, during the December 2016 and Jan, Feb, March, April 2017
Russian Conspiracy frenzy, when the entire intelligence community seemed to be
collectively leaking against Trump’s interests, those suspicions gained even
greater likelihood. However, what we learned in 2017 about the activity in 2016
almost guarantees that was exactly what happened. That back-story also ties
into both the FISA issue and the Devin Nunes concern.
Admiral Mike Rogers became
NSA director in April 2014.
Sometime in early 2016 Admiral
Rogers became aware of “ongoing” and “intentional” violations of Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702 surveillance. Specifically
item #17 which includes the unauthorized upstream data collection of U.S. individuals
within NSA surveillance.
Section 702 – Item #17 “About Queries” is specifically the
collection of emails, and phone call surveillance of U.S. persons.
The public doesn’t discover this issue, and NSA Director Rogers
action, until May 2017
when we learn that Rogers told the FISA court he became aware of unlawful
surveillance and collection of U.S. persons. Put into context, with the full
back-story, it appears that 2016 surveillance was the political surveillance
now in the headlines; the stuff Chairman Nunes is currently questioning.
The dates here are important as they tell a story.
As a result of Rogers suspecting [FISA 702 (#17 – email and phone
calls)] surveillance activity was being used for reasons he deemed unlawful, in
mid 2016 Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702
NSA compliance.
Again, 702 is basically
spying on Americans; the actual “spying” part is 702. Item 17 is “About Queries“,
which allows queries or searches of content of email and phone conversations
based on any subject matter put into the search field.
The NSA compliance officer identified several strange 702 “About
Queries” that were being conducted. These were violations of the fourth
amendment (search and seizure), ie. unlawful surveillance and gathering.
Admiral Rogers was briefed by the compliance officer on October 20th, 2016.
Admiral Mike Rogers ordered the
“About Query” activity to stop, reported the activity to the DOJ, and then went
to the FISA court.
On October
26th, 2016, full FISC assembly, NSA Director Rogers personally
informed the court of the 702(17) violations. Additionally, Rogers also stopped
“About Query”
permanently.
[Things
to note: Note the sequencing; note that Rogers a career
military person, followed the chain of command; note the dates as they
align with the Trump FISA application from
the FBI and DOJ-NSD, (ie. early October
2016); and note amid this
sequence/time-line the head of DOJ-National Security Divsion, John P
Carlin resigns.]
IMPORTANT – WATCH The first two and a half minutes of this
video:
.
The DOJ National Security Division set Admiral
Mike Rogers up to take the fall for their unlawful conduct. They preempted
Rogers by filing a notification with the FISA Court on 26th
September 2016 (look at the pdf).
DOJ-NSD head John P Carlin
was setting up Rogers as the scapegoat while knowing the NSA FISA compliance
officer was still reviewing their conduct. Carlin wouldn’t notify the court
unless he was trying to cover something. Carlin then announced his resignation.
The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th
Oct 2016. Admiral Rogers notified the FISC on 26th
Oct 2016.
October 2016 is
a very important month:
DOJ Deputy
Attorney Bruce Ohr was “demoted” in the summer of 2017
after the Inspector General discovered unreported 2016 contacts between
Ohr and Russian Dossier author Christopher Steele, as well as contact with
Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, in October 2016.
Also in October 2016 the
DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI
information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the Trump FISA
application; the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job.
It would have specifically been John Carlin’s responsibility to ensure a valid
legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC).
In
October 2016 the NSA compliance officer completes a review and briefs
Rogers of FISA(17) violations, email collection and phone surveillance. Rogers
informs FISC – [FISA Court Ruling Link]
Now Look At This – October
2016: On Friday November 18th, 2016, The Washington Post
reported on a recommendation in “October” that
Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
The
heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended
to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm.
Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
The recommendation, delivered to the White
House last month, was made by Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R.
Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with
the matter.
[…]
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers,
without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on
Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior
levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters. (link)
Important reminder. Remember, in 2015 Sally Yates
blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division
(SEE
Pdf HERE). The OIG,
Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who
responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope
– not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to
oversight, except
the NSD.
There’s a pretty clear picture here.
Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA
702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver email and phone
communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit was working in
coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.). In an effort to
stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance
review. However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough
information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make
the prior FBI surveillance (began in July ’16 per James Comey) lawful. Rogers
stopped the process on October 26th 2016. As a result of his not going along,
Rogers became a risk; Clapper demanded he be fired.
Ten days after the election, November 17th 2016,
Admiral Rogers travels to Trump Tower without telling ODNI James Clapper.
Rogers likely informs President-elect Trump of the prior activity by the FBI
and DOJ, including the probability that all of Trump Tower’s email and phone
communication was being collected.
On
November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went
to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York. –SEE HERE–
Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.
On November 18th, 2016,
the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to
Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where
they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill.
Defense, State, CIA, ODNI.
The transition team was set up in Trump Tower. The very next
day, November 18th 2016, Trump moves the entire transition
team to Bedminister New Jersey?
Does this make more sense now?
It would appear Obama’s Director of National
Intelligence, James Clapper, is up to his eyeballs in this; though he denies participating. The FBI
counterintelligence unit was monitoring Trump through FISA 702(17) upstream
surveillance collected by a DOJ National Security Division that had no oversight.
The information the FBI collected, and the
stuff Fusion GPS was creating via Christopher Steele, was used to create the
Russian Narrative and also to manipulate the FISC into giving them a FISA
warrant. ie. “The Insurance Policy”.
Ultimately, the people within all of these
intercepts is what Devin Nunes discovered when
he looked at the “unmasking requests” which were a result of those FISA 702(17)
collections on Team Trump. That’s why Devin Nunes was so stunned at what he
saw in February and March 2017.
This is why Chairman Devin Nunes is currently
gathering evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment