Posted on

OIG Report: Opening of Crossfire Hurricane

The OIG Report which Democrats are endorsing, destroys a variety of the Democratic Party narratives related to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. So lets dig into how this investigation started…

The Dems are celebrating the fact that the OIG Report found no documentary or testimonial evidence that proved that FBI Deputy Assistant Director Strzok & his team knowingly opened the investigation without an adequate predicate. Which is all the report says, Strzok didn’t confess…

FBI standard to open an investigation.

It is extremely easy to open either a Preliminary or Full Investigation, almost any allegation that may indicate a crime or threat to national security occurred. So a determination that the OIG could not prove that is not surprising. Essentially the tip off from Alexander Downer the Australian Ambassador was adequate predicate to initiate an investigation. It means little more than that Downer is a well known friend of the Clintons & their projects, don’t be surprised if USA Durham finds his referral was planted to help his friends trigger an investigation of the Trump Campaign.

So essentially this finding means very little, it is very easy to open an investigation. The agents involved failed to confess that they didn’t have a good reason to investigate the members of the Trump Campaign. But the Democratic narrative claiming that the FBI did not investigate the Trump Campaign is disproven by the report.

This quote shows that when Peter Strzok opened the case, he opened an umbrella investigation on the Trump Campaign, not on a specific individual. From 7/31/16-8/10/16 it was the campaign that was the subject of the investigation. Only on 8/10/16 did the FBI open up cases on individuals instead of the campaign. Then opened another case on LTG Flynn on 8/16/16. All were members of the Trump Campaign when these cases were opened.

There is one reveal in this, someone in the FBI’s New York Field Office opened an investigation on 4/4/16 into Carter Page’s contacts with suspected Russian intel officers. When FBI agent Gaeta received the Steel Report in July 2016, he sent it to the NY Field Office not to headquarters. There are Strzok texts indicating that these NY agents buried the information about Page making it hard for him to find evidence against Page. The FBI “tasked” CHS’s & UCE’s to wear wires in conversations with Papadopoulos, Page, & an unidentified high-level Trump Campaign official who was not under investigation! So if he was not a subject of the investigation for his own actions, was he spied upon because he was a Trump Campaign official?

THe FBI agents involved also used a defensive briefing to try & gather intelligence against candidate Donald J. Trump & Flynn during the briefing. Creating an FD-302 after the briefing to record information for the case. This is an FBI supervisor using the pretext of briefing the candidate to interview or interrogate the candidate.

The FBI’s Office of General Counsel rejected a request for a FISA on 8/15/17 because there was not probable cause that he was a foreign agent. The CH team addressed this by securing portions of Steele Dossier. The FISA App relied upon 3 sources of information about Carter Page. The Steele Dossier and information from the Evgeny Buryakov case in NYC. Most interesting is that it included information from Carter Page meeting with Stephan Halper in early July 2016, before the investigation was started. How can the CH team consensually monitor meetings BEFORE they opened the CH investigation?

This leaves a very big question to resolve. If the NYFO was hiding their investigation from the HQ team, why was the HQ team sending Stephan Halper to investigate Carter Page months before they opened the investigation. Only 429 pages to go!

Posted on

OIG FISA Report: Methodology

In order to understand OIG Reports you have to understand the process, they do not look to second-guess discretionary decisions made by FBI agents or DOJ attorneys. They don’t try to determine if they got the right answer, only that they followed policy in arriving at that answer. So the OIG will not say Peter Strzok made the wrong decision in opening the case, they will only note if he made the decision in accordance with policy.

The OIG also assumes any testimony given by FBI or DOJ personnel are truthful unless proven otherwise by evidence. When they want to know why an agent made a decision, they ask them why they did it. If they claim it was an honest mistake or a judgement call based upon a legitimate reason the OIG takes their word for it. UNLESS the agent confesses or they find conclusive hard evidence to prove the agent is lying, they take their word. This is why you lead to such conflicting information. The OIG finds all of this questionable evidence, but the agent denies the allegation, so they report the facts but don’t conclude it was nefarious.

The agency can then take disciplinary or legal action against the employees if they don’t believe their story. Which is why most of these personnel have been terminated or resigned to avoid cooperating with the investigations. So don’t take Horowitz’s statement that they didn’t conclude something as confirmation that it didn’t exist. His statements always include the caveat that he did not receive testimony or documents to support that conclusion.

Then the Democrats & the media take his statement that no one confessed to the crime, as proof that the crime didn’t happen. While endorsing the evidence within the report that can easily prove the crimes to a fair jury. The Democrats are accepting the facts that will build to later conclusions. Enough of the process, my next several posts will get into the evidence within the report!

Posted on

OIG FISA Report Analysis: Introduction

This post will serve as an introduction to my coverage of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report on FISA abuse. This report is huge & detailed which will require multiple posts which I plan to link below as I add them.

Many were disappointed by the FISA Report by Inspector General Horowitz, they expected unrealistic revelations which made them miss the real revelations. The OIG is not in the big reveal game, his job is to identify the facts not to make judgement calls on what the facts mean. In our system, conflicted interpretations are to be determined by the officials with the authority to make those calls: Attorney General Barr, FBI Director Wray & US Attorney Durham. With judges & juries serving as the ultimate finders of fact.

I was guilty of this expectation with the June 2018 report on Mid Year Exam. Only after I recognized that President Trump & his allies were working to corner the Democrats into protecting the reputation of the FBI did it begin to make sense. The coup revolved around accusing former FBI Director Comey & the FBI of supporting Trump by announcing the Hillary investigations. Now the Dems are supporting Comey, the FBI & Horowitz as those agencies assemble the facts that are draining the Swamp.

What would have happened if the OIG Report directly attacked the Democrats’ or Deep State actors? They would attack IG Michael Horowitz & undermine his report the same way they attacked the Nunes Memo. By hedging his report slightly the Dems & the MSM have been tricked into endorsing the report & the facts within it. Horowitz is playing “Good Cop” to the “Bad Cop” of Durham, Nunes, & the Republicans. The Dems have endorsed multiple OIG reports that destroyed the coup, enabled the firing or resignations of many of the key players, & accepted facts that they denied for years.

In this report the Dems support, we have evidence that certain officials at the FBI committed massive misconduct, spied upon the Trump Campaign, committed fraud on the FISA court, and much more. So the Dems have supported the case that the bad actions happened. He just did not, with the tools available to the OIG, get the people to confess that they had bad motives. The Democrats are forced to point out that the Steele Dossier played no role in opening the investigation, but they then have to accept that the Steel Dossier was used in the FISA & the Intelligence Community Assessment. Which may show the start of the investigation was ‘legal’ the conduct of the investigation was not! That proof will be left to the FISA Court & US Attorney for Connecticut to address!

Now I will begin laying out in posts, the evidence the OIG found, that Democrats are foolishly endorsing, just to clutch onto a couple of nuggets that are irrelevant to the big picture! You can find the report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Links to additional posts on this topic:

OIG FISA Report: Methodology
OIG Report: Opening of Crossfire Hurricane