It’s Not Just What is “In” The Documents, It’s What’s “On Them” That Tells The Story

Now that everyone is familiar with how the Mueller Special Counsel Team took over Main Justice (DOJ and DOJ-NSD) in May 2017, let’s take a look at a critical ten days.

On July 12, 2018, at the apex of the Mueller probe, the DOJ-NSD dispatched a demonstrably manipulative letter to the FISA court informing the FISC that the predicate for the FISA application was still valid.  {Go Deep} Nine days later, July 21, 2018, the special counsel released the Carter Page FISA application to fill FOIA requests.

The background context is important.  House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte was asking Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer for a copy of the FISA application on file in the FISC.  Collyer responded saying both Goodlatte and Nunes (Legislative Branch) needed to exhaust all efforts to retrieve from the DOJ (Executive Branch).  Congress was questioning the details of the FISA.   Unprompted, and needing to keep prop-up the FISA application the special counsel (DOJ-NSD) responded to the FISC saying the predicate was still valid.

Obviously the background of how the FISA application was attained was critical to the special counsel maintaining the validity of their purpose.  Hence, despite 18 months of direct FBI evidence that contradicted the primary underpinning document, the Steele Dossier, the special counsel lied to the FISC saying the originating predicate was valid.

The July 12, 2018, letter only surfaced in April 2020 after the FISC reviewed the December 9, 2019, IG report which completely contradicted the July 12, 2018, claims. The FISC responded to the Bill Barr DOJ in 2020 by demanding the 2018 letter be given to congressional oversight via Senator Lindsey Graham.   The DOJ submitted the 2018 document and Senator Graham released the letter to the public.

Nine days later, July 21st 2018, the special counsel then released the FISA application to the public under the guise of a FOIA fulfillment.  However, what almost everyone missed was that the actual FISA application itself was a very specific version released.

The special counsel released a very specific version of the FISA application.  The first two components of the FISA release were from a copy dated March 17, 2017, that was used in an FBI leak investigation. {Go Deep}  The special counsel used this version and then added the April 2017 and June 2017 renewals to complete the set.

Take a look at the last page of the first FISA application that was released and there is a much bigger story visible.  This page tells us a great deal:

The FISC stamp of 3/17/17 tells us that Robert Mueller’s team released a document that was proprietary to the Washington Field Office FBI, Supervisory Special Agent, Brian Dugan. {Go Deep}   FBI Agent Dugan calls this “an FBI equity” in his December 14, 2018, statement under penalty of perjury.   The special counsel is releasing Dugan’s evidence.

This release tells us that SSA Brian Dugan turned over his investigative file to the special counsel at the conclusion of his leak investigation; likely because the Mueller probe held primary investigative authority over anything related to Trump-Russia, and the FISA application was a central component to the Mueller probe.

Quite simply: if agent Dugan had not turned over his investigative file; and if the special counsel did not take ownership of his investigative file; then the special counsel would not have this specific copy to release.   The DOJ would have, instead, been releasing their own copy of the FISA application from the DOJ-National Security Division.

The simple fact that Mueller released this March 17th stamped version for a FOIA fulfillment meant the special counsel had received Dugan’s investigative file.  Hopefully everyone can see that.

When the special counsel released the Dugan copy on July 21st 2018 they redacted the dates.  Despite everyone knowing what the dates were from both Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Chuck Grassley releases, the special counsel redacted the dates.

The special counsel redacted the dates because Brian Dugan had changed them in order to track leaks to the media.  The unredacted Dugan copy would show origination dates in conflict with actual.   The special counsel released the Dugan copy and removed the risk by redacting the dates.

This is one example of how the Special Counsel team controlled, removed and released information that was damaging to their own corrupt intentions.  There are many more.

The special counsel needed to remove the evidence that SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the unredacted FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.

By the time Brian Dugan’s investigative file was scrubbed by the Mueller team, it was returned to USAO Jessie Liu with the evidence of the Wolfe FISA leak removed.

This is why the Wolfe grand jury never heard the evidence of “WHAT” James Wolfe released; and this explains why he was only indicted on lying three times to FBI investigators.

On the last sentences (paragraph four); on the last page; on the last court document that SSA Dugan would write; FBI Agent Brian Dugan swore under penalty of perjury that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application….

….No-one noticed:

(LINK)