Seen on the internet: bad news for Pelosi and the Schiff-meister

Some nice job numbers, nice for most folks, but for swampers in DC, a disaster.

Comey and his leaking tactics on Jan. 4 and 5, 2017

I have been trying to savvy what Comey was doing with all his leaking, especially the January 2017 leak of the Flynn phone call to Ambassador Kislyak. I am assuming it was Comey who leaked it, but he could’ve manipulated McCabe or Clapper to do it. In any case, my guess is that Comey was the mastermind of it. His signature traits:

1. Monumental ego on the scale of a NY or California politician
2. “Savior of America” delusion of grandeur
3. Practitioner of “Ethics for thee but not for me!” ← ← lying, “weasel moves,” etc.

Comey’s view of himself. [PHOTOGRAPHER: AL DRAGO/THE NEW YORK TIMES]

In early January, Comey has the Flynn/Kislyak transcript in some form. In order to infect Obama with it, he sends it to DNI Clapper. Clapper obliges and briefs Obama about Flynn and Kislyak. The next day, Obama is obliged to call a meeting of his intelligence types, followed by a small group “meeting after the meeting.” In that small meeting, Obama tries to distance himself from Comey, “by the book.” This interpretation of Obama’s motive comes from the Susan Rice CYA memo and Sally Yates testimony in Congress: Yates is surprised about the phone call and that Obama knows about it, but Comey reacts calmly — he knew all about the phone call. But it’s too late for Obama. Comey has “touched” Obama.

From The Untouchables (1987)

Other Comey leaks

1. Leak to Wall Street Journal about Midyear Exam (MYE) investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email obstruction. McCabe was the leaker, the inspector general nailed him for it, but he claimed Comey knew. Comey claims he did not know. My guess is that Comey knew and forced McCabe to take it, with Comey knowing he could count on McCabe being declined. Motive for the leak: protect McCabe and perhaps protect something else in Comey’s MYE schemes.
2. Leak to Washington press corp that President-elect Trump had been briefed on the Steele dossier. Clapper was the leaker. Motive for leak: bootstrap a criminal or counterintelligence investigation of President-elect Trump. Secondary motive: blackmail the incoming president.
3. Leak to NY Times of several of his memoranda concerning President Trump. Daniel Richman was the leaker. Motive for the leak: con his sub-weasel colleague Rod Rosenstein into the Special Counsel investigation.
4. Probably other leaks, TBA.

Who knows how many other anonymous sources were really Comey pulling the strings?

• 

So it appears, in this analysis, that in two days, Comey runs a lefthanded blackmail operation against a sitting president and a president-elect. His self-lubricating mind must have been shaking with anticipation.

In addition, the other evil genius is DCI John Brennan. My guess is that the Italian thing is mostly Brennan’s work, and that it was initially independent of Comey’s Flynn scheme.

• 

What was Grenell carrying by hand?

Last Friday, photographers spotted ADNI Grenell toting a satchel of documents into Department of Justice.

Must be his security man walking to his right, coat unbuttoned.  What was Grenell carrying?

1. Theory 1: It was a nonverbal signal, a bunch of additional papers that he wanted to be seen as carrying by hand.  To whom was the signal directed?  It had to be someone who knew or could guess what was in the satchel.  Who would that have been?
2. Theory 2: It was a smoking gun of some kind with Obama’s fingerprints all over it, and Grenell did not want anyone else to hand deliver it to Department of Justice.  He might feel the need if he felt his normal ODNI messengers would not permit something contra Obama to survive or that his normal ODNI messengers would blab about it to defend Obama.  Possible alternate: former DCI Brennan, another man with loyalists in ODNI.  And we know that there were plenty of both kinds of loyalists in ODNI.  But this goes slightly against theory #1.
3. Theory 3: It’s a MacGuffin, Clause 27, two letters of transit signed by General De Gaulle, cannot be rescinded. Grenell is taunting someone.

But the real question is: who was his audience?  Grenell wanted to taunt, bypass, signal someone.  Who was it?

Clinesmith messed up a lot of cases

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order today refers to an FBI attorney in the Office of General Counsel, widely supposed to be Kevin Clinesmith, in a very bad way:

“Because the conduct of the OGC attorney gave rise to serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to the FISC in any matter in which the OGC attorney was involved, the Court ordered the government on December 5, 2019, to, among other things, provide certain information addressing those concerns.” [emphasis added]

So he has now dragged every other case he ever worked on back into scrutiny.  A cascade.  You hear about stuff like this with corrupted lab technicians, like Kamalkant Shah in New Jersey.  He shoved 7827 cases in NJ back into scrutiny.  The court order does not specify the  number of Clinesmith tainted cases.

Clinesmith really laid an egg, and there is going to be some jail time for him.  A good start.

Blasey Ford’s testimony trap

This morning I read an article about the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, making me think of the excruciating trap that Christine Blasey Ford is about to face.

The novel and movie present a parallel to the trap that Blasey Ford faces — the same trap that the character Mayella Ewell faced: tell the truth or stay safe.  This is IF something did happen to Blasey Ford.

The four other people she claims were there, Kavanaugh, Patrick Smyth, Mark Judge and Leland Keyser, all assert that she is wrong.  Either they were not there or nothing happened like what Ford claims.

Is it possible that Blasey Ford is correct AND the four others are correct?

Because eventually, one of the Senate Judiciary questioners will ask the question, the central question, the question Blasey Ford will fear to answer, the question she must stave off to a safe distance by manufacturing a list of people she knew but who were not there.

Q: There was someone else, wasn’t there?
A: Yes, there was someone.

Like a John le Carré novel, sending Alec Leamas sent all the way into East Germany to fireproof the bastard Mundt, like dropping Jim Prideaux into Brno to find the one word answer to the Tinker Tailor riddle though he, as well as George Smiley, already knew the answer and he got a bullet in the back instead, and like Ned and the entire Russia House searching England and finally tracking down Barley Scott Blair in Lisbon to ask the one question about Scott Blair’s seedy lunch on a recent visit to the Soviet Union: “But there was someone else, wasn’t there?”

Yes.  It was Goethe, the missile scientist.  The movie’s script renames him Dante.

For Christine Blasey Ford, if she is telling the truth about being assaulted, and if the other four are also telling the truth, then who was also there?  Someone else?

Her answer — what price will Blasey Ford pay to speak that answer truthfully or to stay safe?

Lisa Page resigns, James Baker resigns, but no appearance on CNN yet

Not promoted to talking heads yet!

• Lisa Page resigns from DOJ.  Nice.
• James Baker resigns from DOJ. So tremendous.
• No appearance on CNN yet?

 These two corruptocrats, I am sure they are ready for their closeup now, Mr. DeMille.

Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895 ← ← good to reread in 2018

Winston Churchill to Jack Churchill, November 15, 1895

Well worth rereading in the present day. Two pull quotes:

But essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth.

A great, crude, strong, young people are the Americans – like a boisterous healthy boy among enervated but well bred ladies and gentlemen. Some day Jack when you are older you must come out here and I think you will feel as I feel–and think as I think today.

Picture to yourself the American people as a great lusty youth – who treads on all your sensibilities – perpetrates every possible horror of ill manners – whom neither age nor just tradition inspire with reverence–but who moves about his affairs with a good hearted freshness which may well be the envy of older nations of the earth.

Thank you, young Winston!

“I would like to nail one to the door as a message,” on Valentines Day

Inspector Comey, speaking his own doom.

” would like to nail one to the door as a message.”

So tremendous.

And another thing: no PADAG testimony?

Now that I think more about it, why isn’t there more testimony, sworn statement or any interview information from the PADAG in question, whether it was Matthew Axelrod or someone else.

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Lisa Page and Strzok Man are in the OIG report, but nothing from PADAG, other than one footnote, about what he told OIG, that the PADAG call leak was accurate to what he recalled, but that

“…the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

What does it signify that PADAG is just a footnote?  Reminds me of the the tiny quote of Bill Priestap in the Nunes Memo.  Priestap’s quote signified that he was talking to OIG or Huber or both, and perhaps that he had flipped, being the only guy still in place in his original job and not demoted to HR or some such.  PADAG is out of government now?  Or it was someone other than Axelrod and still inside the DOJ?

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in the summer of 2016?

“…we [OIG] found that in late October 2016, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to discuss with [WSJ reporter] Barrett issues related to the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation (CF Investigation). In particular, McCabe authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to disclose to Barrett the contents of a telephone call that had occurred on August 12, 2016, between McCabe and the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”)… The disclosure to the WSJ effectively confirmed the existence of the CF Investigation…”

Matthew Axelrod was PADAG in summer of 2016, presumably the PADAG who jawboned the Clinton Foundation investigation over the phone with Andrew McCabe.

For the past few years, his lawyering career has been a DC revolving door between Department of Justice and various private DC law firms. Here is former PADAG Matthew Axelrod’s LinkedIn page.

 

“As of approximately 1 month later, McCabe had failed to execute and return the draft SSS.”

Stonewall.

In regard to the Wall Street Journal leak that McCabe had engineered, he let on that he was a victim.  He knew nothing about it.  This was during a private interview in which his interviewers from FBI Inspection Division (INSD) had him swear an oath.  They later drafted a statement for him to sign, an SSS, “signed sworn statement,” viz.

On 05/09/2017, [INSD-Section Chief] and [INSD-SSA1] provided me with a photocopy of a Wall Street Journal article, dated 10/30/2016, and requested I evaluate and assess the content of the first three paragraphs appearing on the last page for accuracy. My assessment of the referenced portion of the article is that it is basically an accurate depiction of an actual telephonic interaction I had with a Department of Justice (DOJ) executive. I do not know the identity of the source of the information contained in the article. Since this event, I have shared the circumstances of this interaction with numerous FBI senior executives and other FBI personnel. I gave no one authority to share any information relative to my interaction with the DOJ executive with any member of the media. I initialed a photocopy of the article, which is attached to my statement as Exhibit Number 5.

However, there was a little problem. The INSD twice emailed McCabe a draft of the signed sworn statement, but he never signed it. “McCabe did not sign the draft SSS and did not communicate with INSD regarding the draft SSS until August 18…”

Stonewalling the FBI.

Snake time

A snake.

“Two FBI Executives, NY-ADIC and the then-Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Division (“W-ADIC”), told us that they each received calls from McCabe admonishing them for leaks contained in the October 30 WSJ article about the CF Investigation. At no time did McCabe disclose to either of them that McCabe had authorized Special Counsel to disclose information about the CF Investigation to the WSJ reporter.”

McCabe beats up two ADICs about something he, McCabe, orchestrated through two other individuals.  Despicable.

And it gets worse.  McCabe “forgets,” just like Hillary Clinton: “McCabe told us that he did not recall calling either NY-ADIC or W-ADIC to reprimand them for leaks in the October 30 WSJ article.”

“I spoke to both. Both understand that no decision on recusal will be made until I return and weigh in.”

The Inspector General has McCabe’s text messaging.  The report contains this: “I spoke to both. Both understand that no decision on recusal will be made until I return and weigh in.”

Not surprising.

But why in the prior releases of text messages, they were all from Strzok and Page.  Not a single one was from McCabe.  What does that signify about Horowitz’ strategy and intentions?

Wall Street Journal rang McCabe’s bell

Reading today’s report from Inspector General Horowitz.

McCabe’s misstep was responding to the hammering he was taking from Wall Street Journal concerning the Clinton Foundation investigation.

WSJ had McCabe’s frequency, and when they rang his bell, he cracked.  He instigated a leak to protect his own reputation and not to protect the public’s interest.  And he did so through by an unnamed source in the newspaper, not publicly.

So it was not Trump that broke McCabe.  It was the Wall Street Journal all along.

Judge X and the insurance policy

Who is Judge X?

Rep. Goodlatte said the slowdown in requested information from Dept. of Justice correlated to the Strzok & Page text messages coming out.  Those messages came out the day after Gen. Flynn’s plea, and a few days before Judge Contreras recused himself or was recused by currently unknown Judge X.  That’s where the connection is between Unguided Missile Mueller and the Steele/Clinton file.  Something there.

Also: how did Judge X figure out he had to recuse Contreras?  The lovebird Strzok & Page text messages in the newspapers?  Or does IG Horowitz also have to alert Conteras’ supervisory judge?  Have events dragged Judge Contreras into Horowitz and Huber’s net, along with Priestap, Strzok et al.?

Can Judge X see the connection between the unguided missile and the McCabe insurance policy?

Silver Blaze time: Why is Rosenstein still DAG and not supervising the cafeteria at Main Justice?

Just why is Rosenstein still DAG and not supervising the cafeteria at Main Justice?  According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, it is a long time since he miscreated the unguided missile named Mueller against the regulation of 28 CFR Sec. 600.1, viz.

The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead, appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with a crime…

 

This seems an open, easily observable error by Rosenstein. But Rosenstein is still in the DAG office. The unguided missile is still roaming the skies at full power. Why is that?

I reckon that the writers at The Conservative Treehouse have bagged a crucial fact in “the Big Ugly” of FISA abuse/Russia-Russia-Russia: that several of the DOJ and FBI insiders have flipped, testifying to Inspector General Horowitz, keeping their employment intact but moved out of the way in places like FBI’s HR department.  Is that why Rosenstein is still in the DAG office?

• Has he flipped, and is he helping the IG?
• He is still in the DAG office, though, not running the cafeteria at Main Justice, so is there some tactical or strategic advantage to keeping Rosenstein in the DAG office?

It is curious.  Inquiring minds want to know. #SilverBlaze

When did Priestap testify?

This unusual FISA abuse investigation has complexity, several things we civilians cannot see.

1. FBI counterintelligence head, Bill Priestap, gave remarks that found their way into part 4 of  the Nunes memo.  However, he never testified in Congress.  How did that happen?  Did he get flipped?
2. Ditto for the Department of Justice bigshot, Bruce Ohr.
3. Some have conjectured that other FBI and Main Justice individuals have flipped.

The Conservative Treehouse has wrapped it all in a bundle.  The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, did some wrestling and wrangling over the committee’s oversight.  Nunes threw Rosenstein and wrested an agreement that Priestap, Ohr and others would testify to the House committee in January.  However, they never happened.  Yet their words are in the Nunes memo.

This unusual FISA abuse investigation has complexity, several things we civilians cannot see.

The master class: Trump’s practice of surprise and Shannon’s theory of communication

Trump’s practice of surprise and Shannon’s theory of communication

The Donald has been until now a master of running the establishment media’s agenda, whatever else you may like to say about him.

His press conference last night was a master class.  His comments about Charlottesville drove the establishment media into a nearly uncontrollable rage, for a very specific reason.  In the master class, his set of remarks about black mask/antifa was a “dog whistle” to the establishment media, a slug of un-dodge-able information that The Donald masterfully inserted into the broad communication channel known as “the national conversation.”

Information in the channel…

Information in the channel points us to the mathematical theory of communication, Claude Shannon’s most famous theory from his days at Bell Labs.  Shannon’s theory begins with the idea of information as a countable substance, as quantifiable as the volume of water in a pitcher or the number of apples growing on an apple tree.

For the basic quantity of information, some scientists use the term surprisal, and that is a nice term for informal conversation.  In colloquial terms, information is surprise.

The amount of surprise you experience depends on who is at the other end of the communication channel.  You, the observer, receive some amount of surprise from a sender, a source.  Are you talking to an honest mensch or a crooked gambler looking for a sucker?  In terms of throwing dice, is the source a pair of fair dice or a pair of crooked dice?

This pair of dice is going to come up 7’s frequently.

If the honest mensch is on the line, you are going to hear a random array of results: “The first roll is 3.   OK, the next roll came up snake eyes.  Let’s see: it’s a 7.  Next roll 8…”  And so on for the honest mensch.

The crooked gambler has his dice set up to come up 7’s at least 25% of the time, on average.  So, his first four transmissions down the phone line to you might be: “First roll, 3!  Come on, baby, next roll, 7!  OK, shoes for the baby…. LUCKY 7!  Let’s try another roll, come on: another 7!  We are on a lucky roll, man, but it can’t last.”  At which point, he asks you to increase your bet.

But if you are smart, you hang up the phone on the crooked gambler.  You hang up the phone, because there is no surprise in what he says.  Low surprise, low information.  (A completely fixed pair of dice, all fives and all twos, would be zero surprise, and Claude Shannon would say that the source bears zero information.)

The crooked gambler’s dice are going to come up 7 most of the time, just like some establishment news channels like CNN have recently been all Russia collusion, all the time.  Now, however, the blow up in Charlottesville permits them a new spiel, all white supremacy, all the time.

Thus CNN becomes Johnny One Note.

Johnny One Note is also known as Jack of No Surprises.

Jack of No Surprises is Jackie Zero, for zero information.

The rage of establishment media yesterday came from The Donald pushing information about black mask/antifa into their low information channel.  He did not back down.  Johnny One Note did cry a few tears of rage, like any 4-year old in a tantrum, but then they had to accommodate it.

In the master class, The Donald surprised Johnny One Note into exploring the octaves, using more of his channel’s capacity.  CNN et al. do have the capacity for a lot of information, if they choose to use it wisely.  There is a lot going on in the world they could be transmitting. more than just collusion and Charlottesville and other symbols of partisan rage.  CNN et al. have a job to do, and we civilians have to learn more about all of the imbecilic criminal neo-Nazi types in Charlottesville and what they tried to do there, so that we be vigilant for those who would corrupt or destroy our freedom here in the USA. CNN, get to it!

Judy Garland sings “Johnny One Note”

 

فُردو‎, have we got your attention yet?

Listening yet, you guys in فُردو‎?  Mr. GBU 43 wants to check with you.  How about, you, Outstanding Leader 영명한 동지?

Three questions “they” should ask Hillary Clinton.

Here are three questions it would be great to ask Hillary Clinton.

1. Do you agree never to do a Friday afternoon document dump?
2. Will you guarantee that you’ll appoint a nonpartisan, apolitical Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
3. Will you agree to appoint an independent, forensic IT professional to  guarantee the documentary integrity of all your emails?

It would be nice to see her torch her own campaign by weasel-wording these questions.

Unlike the living answer to Hillary’s dictum — “What difference at this point does it make?” — President Barack “Test Signal” Obama, voting present most of the time, no matter how dangerous it gets at Fardu دو  or Zahedan, and unlike someone with a clear conscience, Hillary, who represents the past and is so polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, overconfident, secretive, who considers herself inevitable and entitled to the White House and who will do anything to win, though out of touch, will not be able to handle these questions.  Even refusing to answer will not help.