- - Tuesday, January 30, 2018

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

People are wildly speculating on the contents of the Nunes memo. The following is an investigator’s analysis of what’s currently known and who may have criminal liability.

Perjury anyone? A FISA warrant is permission to wiretap someone suspected of spying for a foreign government. It is issued by the FISA Court whose actions are carried out in secret and consists of 11 members, all federal judges. A FISA warrant resulted in the overhear of members of President’s Trump’s team and begat the special counsel.

A yet unknown FBI agent was the affiant on that warrant, which alleged criminal activity involving spies operating in the U.S. This same agent likely used the Steele dossier as probable cause which was based on lies and ambiguities. He also swore under oath that Mr. Steele was a reliable FBI source but failed to mention that he was being paid by Hillary’s campaign. This constitutes perjury.

Peter Strzok spent much of his career in counter-intelligence, which places him squarely in the FISA world. That fact, along with a verified hatred of Donald Trump, make Mr. Strzok my primary suspect as the force behind the FISA warrant. FBI agents who base warrants on source information must verify the facts alleged by that source. This didn’t happen since any validation process would have exposed the Steele dossier as baloney.

The FISA application then traveled to the Justice Department where attorneys verify its accuracy. Bruce Ohr was an assistant deputy attorney general, working directly for Rod Rosenstein. Mr. Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS and in 2016, Mr. Ohr met with Christopher Steele, the author of the bogus dossier. Why would a high-ranking Justice attorney meet with a snitch at this point in time? Mr. Rosenstein approved that warrant, which makes him either complicit in obstruction or incompetent.

Mr. Ohr would be my primary my suspect as the individual who shepherded the FISA warrant through Justice.

Who obstructed justice? The Nunes memo will likely identify Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Ms. Page, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Baker and Ms. Lynch as directly obstructing justice or providing tacit approval in exonerating Hillary. These individuals either directly participated in the sham investigation or had knowledge that Hillary would walk before the investigation was completed. If proven, they violate several federal statutes.

It will detail that all, or a portion, of the co-conspirators plotted to rig the 2016 election and once that failed, attempted to dethrone a sitting president. This action constitutes an attempt to overthrow the government, using the Constitution in lieu of bullets.

The Nunes memo will rebuke FBI Deputy Director McCabe for unethical behavior resulting from his wife accepting $500,000 in campaign funds from Hillary’s friend. This created the perception that Mr. McCabe owed loyalty to Mrs. Clinton in her email case, since a non-indictment equaled a Hillary presidency. Mr. McCabe may have dodged that bullet with a lot of bureaucratic gibberish had he not met with agents Strzok and Page in August, 2016.

This conversation with “Andy” can’t be explained away given the Strzok/Page texts. Mr. McCabe was aware of the blatant anti-Trump prejudice of these two agents yet approved their appointment to the Mueller team. Mr. Mueller dismissed them once their texts were discovered, but why didn’t Mr. McCabe give Mr. Mueller a heads up? Or perhaps he did.

By approving their assignment with knowledge of blatant bias makes Mr. McCabe a co-conspirator if illegal activity is proven. The Nunes memo will additionally name other high-ranking officials who attended meetings with an agenda of anarchy.

People of interest? Bill Priestap was Peter Strzok’s boss. FBI supervisors conduct periodic official reviews of their agents’ work so Mr. Priestap had knowledge of Mr. Strzok’s work both in the Hillary investigation and the Russian collusion case. Did Mr. Priestap know that the FISA warrant was counterfeit or participate in the “Andy” meetings with Mr. Strzok, Ms. Page and Mr. McCabe? Probably, and that would place him in a position to know of their strong anti-Trump agenda.

A bogus special counsel? The release of the Nunes memo may not directly expose the Mueller probe as a scam, but will lead to that conclusion. Mr. Rosenstein seems to be in the middle of just about everything. He appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel knowing that the statute could only be initiated if there is underlying evidence of criminal activity.

But there was never evidence of criminal activity with Russia, but merely Democrats, rumors and anonymous sources. Mr. Rosenstein was aware of the close relationship between Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller and that the statute stipulated this friendship constituted a conflict of interest. Why Mr. Mueller?

National security violations? The Nunes memo may name officials in the Obama administration who leaked the identity of Gen. Flynn. Members of the Trump transition team were caught in incidental FISA collections. This is not illegal, but it is a crime to leak (unmask) their identities to the press. Samantha Powers and Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons captured in raw intelligence reports and both had access and motivation to leak results. Leaking to the press is a violation of Title 18 Section 798.

Could there be an innocent explanation for any of this? Not really.

People rationalize that FBI agents have a right to their personal opinions. We do, but I couldn’t imagine my supervisor assigning me a case knowing I’m already predisposed on the outcome.

John Ligato is a retired FBI agent. He is the author of “The Near Enemy” (Post Hill Press, 2017).


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide