Why Not Ask The Obvious Questions About The Swalwell Case?

There are two obvious questions in the Eric Swalwell case, regarding his sexual compromise by a Chinese spy: Who knew what, and when did they know it?

Notice that I framed the question in the plural.

This afternoon James Freeman in his Best of the Web column at the WSJ claimed to offer us:

The Swalwell Timeline

Did a communist spy know the congressman was about to assume oversight of the CIA?

What good is a timeline if none of the obvious names show up? As far as I can tell from the article, Swalwell--by his own words--was likely to have been contacted by the FBI as early as 2014 or even earlier: 

According to the Axios story, the interactions included the alleged agent known as Fang Fang or Christine Fang placing an intern in Rep. Swalwell’s office and also helping to raise funds for his 2014 re-election campaign. Axios reported that the FBI gave Mr. Swalwell a defensive briefing sometime around 2015 to warn him of the threat.

Since Axios broke the story, one of the few disclosures Mr. Swalwell has been willing to make occurred in an interview with CNN’s Jim Sciutto, when the lawmaker clarified the timeline. Mr. Sciutto asked the Congressman if he had had any concerns about the woman before receiving the defensive briefing from the FBI. Rep. Swalwell responded:

No. Jim, I was shocked when, you know, just over six years ago, I was told about this individual. And then I offered to help, and I did help and I was thanked by the FBI for my help and that person is no longer in the country.

If Mr. Swalwell’s story is accurate, it means he was told sometime in late 2014 or earlier that he had unwittingly been conducting a relationship with a communist spy.

Now, here's the only really solid date we have:

The Other Mike Rogers--Again?

To my mind, one of the most important contributions that CTH has made to uncovering the overall nature and scope of the Russia Hoax--the Deep State's effort to thwart the election of Donald Trump and, when that failed, to oust him--was drawing attention to the presence of Mike Rogers in the Trump campaign. No, not Mike Rogers the admiral, who headed NSA and played an heroic role (DiGenova: Mike Rogers Is The "Rosetta Stone" For John Durham). As I explained in The Spy In The Trump Campaign, this Mike Rogers was formerly the head chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), before Devin Nunes' time. It's hard to imagine a much more strategic position for a Deep State operative--which Rogers surely was:

Mike Rogers ..., the former US Representative., was a Special Agent for the FBI in Chicago from 1989 - 1994 (I didn't know him, but recall hearing the office buzz when Rogers resigned to go into politics). More to the point, after leaving the House in 2014, having served as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence, Rogers joined the Trump campaign in 2016 as national security adviser. (You can locate other references to this Mike Rogers here.)

By the way--you won't find any mention of the six months Rogers spent on the Trump campaign on his Wikipedia page. Interesting, isn't that? But look here and here. It appears Rogers came on board the Trump campaign in May, 2016, once it became clear that Trump would be the GOP nominee. Again, it's difficult to imagine a more sensitive position in a presidential campaign--especially one that was being targeted for destruction by the Deep State--than national security adviser. And Rogers' Deep State ties were well known to DC insiders. Which led sundance to ask, way back then, "So how did Decepticon Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?"

Late yesterday, sundance again drew attention to Rogers, noting that footnote 474 in the OIG FISA report may refer to Rogers, although without naming him. If true, this would mean that Rogers was an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS - informant) while he was working for the Trump campaign as its national security adviser.

Before we delve into that a bit further, lets get some of the previous background on record again. Some of this was and remains speculative, but is highly suggestive:

Now That Sue Gordon Is Gone ...

Trump ‘In No Rush’ to Select Permanent Intelligence Chief

President offered no clarity on how long Joseph Maguire would serve as acting national-intelligence director

And why should he be? He likes the acting guy just fine: Joseph Maguire. Was this a brilliant finesse?

“I’m in no rush because we have a great acting [director],” Mr. Trump said. 

Mr. Trump on Thursday ousted Sue Gordon, the No. 2 intelligence official, after his allies urged her removal to block her ascension to acting director of national intelligence following the departure of Dan Coats next week. Mr. Trump announced Mr. Coats’s planned departure last month. 

I find this misuse of the word "ascension" deeply annoying. We're not talking about Jesus here--it's just Sue Gordon. And yet I see this misuse regularly, including not only by journalists but by actually highly educated people. The word they want is accession.

The president initially said he would nominate Rep. John Ratcliffe (R., Texas), a staunch ally who sharply criticized former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, as his permanent successor, but Mr. Ratcliffe withdrew less than a week later amid scrutiny of his résumé and opposition from key senators. 

Mr. Trump’s critics have warned him against politicizing an intelligence community ...

We'll pause briefly here to laugh our hooha off.

What's The Bigger Picture On "Azra Turk"?

Sorry, this may be a bit disjointed--there are a lot of moving pieces.

In my first post regarding the FBI's revelation (through the NYT) that - Oh, did we mention that we actually did spy on the Trump campaign, just like Bill Barr said? - I briefly made two points: 

The first point was the importance of the date that the two FBI assets--the "flirty" Azra Turk (possibly an undercover agent - UCA), posing as Stefan Halper's assistant, and Halper himself--made contact with George Papadopoulos in London: September, 2016. The date is important because it means this contact was putatively legal, pursuant to an open and authorized Full Investigation: Crossfire Hurricane, opened on July 31, 2016. Of course, we know that Halper was making approaches to Trump campaign associates months before that, but I confidently expect that that will be covered by the revelation of a Preliminary Investigation of some sort. You can see from this why Barr keeps mentioning the "predication" for these "investigations." It's key.

The second point I made was that the most important purpose of this leak is probably to give the appearance that FBI targeting of the Trump campaign didn't really begin until they had open investigations going. This is probably another in a long line of falsehoods, and it's what I want to explore a bit more.

When did the FBI begin targeting Trump?

Trisha Anderson Quibbles

What is a "spy"? What is the meaning of the verb "is"? Who knew our high level FBI officials had a taste for such arcane speculation? Jeff Carlson has shared some additional tidbits from Trisha Anderson's House testimony, Testimony by FBI Lawyer Trisha Anderson Reveals Extensive Role in Trump, Clinton Investigations, which reveal that Anderson possessed that penetrating type of mind.

It may be well to refresh recollections regarding exactly who Trisha Anderson is. We previously cited a press release from the DC law firm of Covington & Burling, where she was a protege of Eric Holder, who recruited her to DoJ. Her government legal experience ran like this (most recent first):

* Federal Bureau of Investigation, Principal Deputy General Counsel 

* U.S. Treasury Department, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement & Intelligence 

* U.S. Department of Justice, Associate Deputy Attorney General; Attorney-Adviser at the Office of Legal Counsel 

What's So Special About That Relationship?

How it's done in Merrye Olde England ...

A little less than a week ago, Mike Sylwester drew my attention to a series of posts at the Moon of Alabama blog. These blog posts deal with the role that British intelligence agencies and their proxies played in our Russia Hoax. While they don't offer any breakthrough factual discoveries, per se, they do offer a valuable look inside the world of state sponsored intelligence operations that target public opinion as well as tantalizing links to US based people and organizations.

A good way to work our way into this topic is a piece that appeared today at Zerohedge: The Not So Special US-UK Relationship. The author begins by discussing the general notion of the Special Relationship between the US and the UK:

The Anglo-American ‘Special Relationship’ has been known to exist as a close alliance between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since the days of FDR and Churchill forged during the Second World War. It is called special because of the unique historical and cultural bonds of kinship that unite the American and British peoples through a perceived shared heritage, common political/social/economic values and language. Together over the course of 72 years it has been the White House with the support of 10 Downing Street as its principal strategic leading ally in Europe.

Of course, nowadays we also speak of the Five Eyes,

an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.

Indeed, we've seen the significant role that Australian intel operatives also played in our 2016 Presidential election. Nevertheless, the Anglo-American relationship remains special, especially because of the role the UK's GCHQ plays in monitoring worldwide communications:

UPDATES: The Spy In The Trump Campaign

Sundance at Conservative Tree House has a fascinating blog up tonight. He begins from a tweet by George Papadopoulos:

George Papadopoulos‏ @GeorgePapa19

While I cannot disclose the information publicly, it’s a fact that both me and congress know who the SPY within the campaign was. Congress will likely include it in a report later on. Eyes were everywhere during 2016.

3:05 PM - 28 Oct 2018

Sundance posits that the source was the former US Representative from Michigan, Mike Rogers--not to be confused, as we'll see, with former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Rogers, the former US Rep., was a Special Agent for the FBI in Chicago from 1989 - 1994 (I didn't know him, but recall hearing the office buzz when Rogers resigned to go into politics). More to the point, after leaving the House in 2014, having served as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence, Rogers joined the Trump campaign in 2016 as national security adviser. Sundance points out Rogers' dodgy role in the Benghazi whitewash and then asks: "So how did Decepticon Rogers come to be an advisor to the Trump campaign?" Unfortunately, he offers no views on that.

Rogers was abruptly terminated within days after the election--much to the dismay of the Washington DC establishment. For example, in the Washington Post David Ignatius reported the dismissal in telling terms:

Just how far the new administration may depart from long-standing U.S. national-security policies was demonstrated by Rogers’s own departure.

You could imagine the jaws dropping Tuesday across the intelligence community when people heard the news of Rogers’s ouster. ... the intelligence agencies literally don’t know what to expect next.

Sundance himself ties Rogers' dismissal to the well known visit of Admiral Mike Rogers to Trump Tower a few days after the election, which led to the move of the Trump transition team headquarters from Trump Tower to a Trump golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey. However, once again, sundance offers no further details.

The question, then, becomes: What would the NSA Director have to do with a human source inside the Trump campaign? Wouldn't that be the purview of the FBI? Would the NSA Director even know of the existence, much less the identity, of such a source? And even supposing that Admiral Rogers disclosed the existence and identity of a human source inside the Trump campaign, why would that necessitate a removal of the Trump transition team from Manhattan to rural New Jersey? Wouldn't removal of the source from the transition team solve the problem, without the need for a disruptive move?

UPDATED: Crossfire Hurricane: The How and Why

We're getting to the point in Obamagate where it's possible to begin to gather some of the disparate threads together. Yes, there's still plenty to uncover, but a lot of the picture is slowly emerging--and the process is gathering momentum as the Deep State begins to switch over to damage control mode. That aspect has become apparent with the revelation of Stefan Halper as a key operative for the FBI, the revelation of the codename for the FBI Full Investigation as "Crossfire Hurricane," and the floating of the desperately absurd new narrative: We weren't spying on Trump--we wanted to protect him!

To understand what Crossfire Hurricane was all about, it helps to begin with the realization that it was not the FBI's first choice--in the big picture it amounts to a fall back option that was more or less forced on the FBI by circumstances beyond their control.

Make no mistake about it--the FBI was all in with the effort to enable a Democrat presidential handoff from Obama to Clinton. In modern political campaigns, intelligence and data in digital form is essential to success, and that's where the FBI came in. Running informants, such as Halper, against the GOP wasn't going to guarantee a Clinton victory--not in and of itself. However, access to bulk amounts of sensitive inside data could play a significant role. And the FBI had that access, in the form of access to raw NSA data, which means just about all digital communications in the world. Remember Nellie Ohr? The former CIA contractor and former employee of Fusion GPS? She became a ham radio operator during the 2016 campaign, so I guess she understood what it takes to fly under the Deep State radar.

Now, the FBI wasn't about to do something totally stupid, like mine the NSA for data and ship boatloads of it over to the DNC or some other intermediary to the Clinton campaign. Not as an institution. No, the smart way to do this would be to hire non-government contractors--we'll call them Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike--to provide the FBI with "analytical assistance." As if the FBI didn't have an army of analysts already. And then give these contractors total access to NSA data without telling NSA, who would have thought that only FBI employees were combing through their data. You can read the gory details in Jeff Carlson's excellent article: The FBI’s Outside Contractors, DNC Servers & Crowdstrike.

The beauty of this approach was that it totally bypassed legal controls. There was no need to falsify things in writing, no need to make stuff up to open a Full (Counterintelligence) Investigation (FI) on a US Person (USPER), and then lie to the FISC to get FISA coverage on the USPER. No need to have to regularly renew the FISA and lie all over again to the FISC each time. Of course, it wasn't as if the FISC was doing much besides rubber stamping FISA applications but, hey, who needs the bother? And besides, better safe than sorry. Because, in the unlikely event that the FBI would be questioned about this arrangement, they could just play dumb: Gosh, we didn't know the contractors were looking at all that stuff! How do you prove criminal intent?

So this cute arrangement was humming along, working like a charm. For how long? That's hard to say, but we know that it was in operation no later than December of 2015. And the way that came to light was that in the Spring of 2016 the unlikely event actually occurred: Admiral Mike Rogers, head of NSA, learned of irregularities in FBI accessing of NSA data and did an audit of the activity. That audit covered the period beginning from December 2015, and it discovered that fully 85% of the queries failed to comply with what are called "minimization procedures" (procedures designed to shield the identities of persons who fell within certain criteria--like, USPERs who had no connection to intelligence or terrorist activities). Then, as if Rogers learning about this weren't bad enough, Rogers went and blew a whistle--to the FISC itself--and put a stop to it all. That was in April, 2016, just as it was becoming obvious that Trump was going to be the GOP candidate for President.