It’s Deja-Vu All Over Again – The Ukraine Effort is Simply “Obstruction 2.0″…
September 22, 2019
[Background] As I’m wiping down the white-board to outline the corrupt purposes, intents and connections, suddenly it becomes obvious. The Ukraine story is Obstruction 2.0.
To assemble a quick elevator explanation of the Muh Russia obstruction construction, and to better understand the end goal of the political objective which encompassed the use of the FISA court, CTH previously said:
To get impeachment, they needed obstruction. To get obstruction, they needed an investigation. To get the investigation, they needed evidence. To change dossier from oppo-research to evidence they needed a FISA. To get a FISA they needed a target. The target was Carter Page.
While assembling the more recent deployment of Adam Schiff’s Ukraine story, I recognize something familiar:
To get impeachment Schiff needs obstruction. To get obstruction, Schiff needs an investigation. To get an investigation Schiff needs evidence. To change political innuendo into evidence, Schiff needs a ‘whistle-blower’. To use a ‘whistle-blower’ they need a report… And guess where we are?
In the 2016/2017 Muh Russia operation we notice the same general cast of characters were involved.
- Embeds in the intelligence apparatus;
- Lawfare allies -inside and outside government- constructing the narrative for media absorption and distribution; and
- politicians working to utilize their constructs.
Now, remember, the Lawfare Alliance is quite smart, they purposefully use the intelligence apparatus as part of the constructed narrative because the intelligence aspect itself can act as a shield.
You might remember when Adam Schiff was making claims in 2017 about the ‘highly classified’ FISA application used against Carter Page?
As the HPSCI ranking member Adam Schiff was saying in 2017 the ‘Steele Dossier’ was not the structural evidence underlying the application (it was). However, Schiff knew: (A) the application was hidden by its classified status; and (B) if the application did ever become public in 2018, his allied media would never hold him accountable for the 2017 lies.
When the FISA application was ultimately released, albeit in redacted form (Aug ’18), the Steele Dossier was the structural underpinning for it; yet Adam Schiff was never held accountable for the fraudulent content in the House Minority Intelligence Report.
Fast forward to 2019 and overlay this Trump/Ukraine story and what you will immediately notice is an almost identical deployment of the same playbook.
♦ Obstruction 1.0 (2016 original version): Source for Obstruction narrative, Chris Steele.
♦ Obstruction 2.0 (2019 Ukraine version): Source for Obstruction narrative, an unnamed “Whistle-Blower”.♦ Obstruction 1.0: Tool for Obstruction narrative, Steele Dossier.
♦ Obstruction 2.0: Tool for Obstruction narrative, Whistle-Blower Complaint.♦ Obstruction 1.0: The impediment to Obstruction narrative advancement (a needed special counsel) was AG Jeff Sessions. Solution was to force recusal.
♦ Obstruction 2.0: The impediment to Obstruction narrative advancement is current Acting DNI Joseph McGuire. Solution ongoing, hence call him before HPSCI.
[IMHO The House Intelligence Committee will likely attempt some recusal process against Joseph McGuire. Also, if you accept this Ukraine angle was planned to roll-out, it is almost certain to explain why Schiff and the Democrats were desperately demanding the appointment of Sue Gordon. They’ve had this operation in the works for weeks.]
- Obstruction 1.0: narrative exploitation needed a Special Counsel investigation.
- Obstruction 2.0: narrative exploitation now needs HPSCI investigation.
It doesn’t matter that the underlying premise is false. What matters is the ability of Schiff and team -including media- to create the illusion of possibility within their premise:
- Obstruction 1.0: Obstruction narrative needed the premise Trump worked with the Russians etc.
- Obstruction 2.0:Obstruction narrative needs the premise Trump worked with (pressured) the Ukranians.
Once Schiff/Lawfare create the premise and cement a false narrative; then all efforts shift to taking aggressive measures to bait President Trump into taking action that would lead to the charge of obstruction:
- Obstruction 1.0: Obstruction narrative mostly based on Trump firing James Comey.
- Obstruction 2.0: Obstruction narrative will advance by baiting Trump to remove Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).
It should be emphasized the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community; the guy who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ‘whistle-blower‘ complaint, who was “blowing-the-whistle” based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, is Michael K. Atkinson.
Atkinson’s self-interest: Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD). That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
[Irony Reminder: The DOJ-NSD was purposefully under no IG oversight. In 2015 the OIG 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.]
Put another way, Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
Immediately after the Carter Page FISA warrant is approved, in the period where DOJ-NSD head John Carlin has given his notice of intent to leave but not yet left, inside those specific two weeks, the National Security Division of the DOJ tells the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) they have been breaking the law. The NSD specifically inform the court they are aware of contractors who have been using FISA 702(16)(17) database search queries to extract information on political candidates.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has looked into the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page. Additionally, U.S. Attorney John Durham is said to be looking at the intelligence communities’ use of systems for spying and surveillance.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.
View this document on Scribd
If you stand back and look at the big picture, what becomes visible is the purpose for this 2019 Adam Schiff Ukraine Whistle-blower narrative to create the same situation previously used in 2016/2017 to generate Trump impeachment by obstruction.
It is an almost identical playbook.
Meanwhile…
