“Hunter Biden suggested setting up a shell company to do business with a Chinese firm in order to avoid registering as a foreign agent, and to be able to bid on contracts with the U.S. government, according to documents from May 2017 obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

A day after sending the message, Biden arranged a meeting between his father, Joe Biden, and Tony Bobulinski, one of the prospective partners in a deal with CEFC China Energy, a Chinese conglomerate whose chairman had links to the communist regime in Beijing.

“We don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know,” Hunter Biden wrote to Bobulinski on May 1, 2017, according to a message obtained by the DCNF.

“No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects.”

Biden appeared to be referring to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as well as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Biden did not explain in the messages why he thought the venture with CEFC would violate FARA or FCPA without the buffer of a U.S. shell company.

On May 2, 2017, a day after the text message, Hunter Biden arranged a meeting between Bobulinski, James Biden and Joe Biden in Los Angeles.

Bobulinski said at a press conference on Thursday that the meeting lasted an hour. He also said that the meeting undercut Joe Biden’s past claims to have never discussed business with his son.

“That is false,” Bobulinski said of Joe Biden’s previous statements.

“I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden.”

Bobulinski said that during the May 2017 meeting, he and the Bidens discussed “the Biden’s family business plans with the Chinese.”

He said that Joe Biden was “plainly familiar” with those plans “at a high level.”

Text messages preserved by Bobulinski show him discussing the meeting with Hunter and James Biden.

Bobulinski has provided emails, text messages and business records related to the CEFC deal to the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He also met Friday with the FBI, according to Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the committee.

The DCNF has also obtained Bobulinski’s trove of records.

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 10/24/2020)  (Archive)

Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski describes his May 2017 meeting with former Vice President Joe Biden at the Beverly Hilton in an interview with FOX News host Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: OK, so I want to fast forward to 2017, early May, 2017, and at this point you’ve agreed to become part of this deal. Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, the vice president’s brother, James Gilliar, and they’re asking you to meet with the former vice president in Los Angeles.

Describe the context; describe why they wanted you to meet with him.

BOBULINSKI: OK. Across those days in Los Angeles in May of 2017 that you’re referencing, I met with Hunter Biden multiple times at the Chateau Marmont and Rob Walker, and the discussion was they wanted me to sit down with their father, just to meet him and, at a high level, discuss the Biden family and how they approach things.

CARLSON: Let me ask you to pause. Will you explain to us who Rob Walker is?

BOBULINSKI: Yeah. Rob Walker was a partner in Rosemont Seneca and had a very close relationship with the Biden family and had developed and been working with James Gilliar throughout 2015 and 2016 to develop this deal with the Chinese and CEFC.

CARLSON: What was his relationship with the Biden family?

BOBULINSKI: So my understanding is Rob had worked in prior administrations and had a very, very close relationship. In fact in Rob Walker’s own words in an email to me he states that you know everyone was contributing or telling me how they wanted to participate in Sinohawk, and in an email he basically states in his own words to me, I want to continue acting as a proxy for Hunter Biden, Jim Biden and the Bidens around the world.

CARLSON: The Biden family.

BOBULINSKI: The Biden family.

CARLSON: So they want you to meet with the former vice president in LA.

BOBULINSKI: Yes.

CARLSON: How did that play out?

BOBULINSKI: That’s correct. The former vice president was flying in, and we were to meet at the Beverly Hilton; the Milken Conference was going on, obviously one of the top three conferences in the world for anybody that’s a global investor or developing different humanitarian causes and a variety of things.

And he was, Joe was flying in to speak about the cancer and the Moonshot stuff he was working on, and Hunter and everyone was in town and they wanted to coordinate me meeting with Joe.

And so it was set up for the night of May 2nd at The Beverly Hilton. I first met with Hunter Biden and Jim Biden and just had a light discussion where they briefed me that, listen, my dad’s on the way, and you know we won’t go into too much detail on the business front, but we’ll just spend time talking at a high level about you, your background, the Biden family, and then you know he’s got to get some rest because he’s speaking at the conference in the morning.

CARLSON: So this was at night. The vice president had just flown across the country. He’s an older man; he’s got work to do.

BOBULINSKI: Correct.

CARLSON: But they carved out a piece of his schedule for you to meet with him. Why would they do that?

BOBULINSKI: Because they were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me more engaged and want to take on the CEO role and develop Sinohawk both in the United States and around the world in partnership with CEFC.

And I — as you can imagine I’ve been asked by a hundred people the last month you know, why would you be meeting with Joe Biden, and I sort of turn the question around to the people that asked me, why at 10:38 on the night of May 2nd would Joe Biden take time out of his schedule to sit down with me in a dark bar at The Beverly Hilton, sort of positioned behind a column so people couldn’t see us, to have a discussion about his family and my family and business at a very high level where Jim Biden sat and Hunter Biden participated in?

I’m irrelevant in this story. They weren’t raising money for me. There was no other reason for me to be in that bar meeting Joe Biden than to discuss what I was doing with his family’s name and the Chinese CEFC.

CARLSON: He’s — and this is a company with direct connections to the communist government of China — so the former vice president has said he had no knowledge whatsoever of his son’s business dealings and was not involved in them at all. But this sounds like direct involvement in them.

BOBULINSKI: Yeah. That’s a blatant lie. When he states that, that is a blatant lie. Obviously the world’s aware that I attended the debate last Thursday, and in that debate he made a specific statement around questions around this from the president, and I’ll be honest with you; I almost stood up and screamed liar and walked out, because I was shocked that after four days or five days that they prepped for this, that the Biden family is taking that position to the world.

And once again, I’m irrelevant in this discussion. I just was brought in to run this company and have been exposed to all of this fact, and I believe the American people should see this fact.

I would have much preferred the Biden family go on record and define these facts to the American people and the globe versus me sitting here having a discussion with you on it.

CARLSON: So Joe Biden has not denied meeting with you in Los Angeles. Correct?

BOBULINSKI: Correct.

CARLSON: Tell us about the conversation that you had with him.

BOBULINSKI: So, I initially was sitting — because I got there a little earlier, was sitting with Jim Biden and Hunter Biden, and Joe came through the lobby with his security and Hunter basically said, hey, give me a second, I’ll go over and — give me 10 minutes to brief my dad and read him in on things.

And so then Hunter and his father and security came through the bar, and obviously I stood up out of respect to shake his hand and Hunter introduced me as, this is Tony, Dad, the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business that we’re working on and the Chinese.

CARLSON: So it was clear to you that Joe Biden’s son had told him about this business deal?

BOBULINSKI: Crystal clear.

CARLSON: Crystal clear. Tell us about the conversation that subsequently occurred between you and Joe Biden.

BOBULINSKI: So the conversation — as you’re well aware, Tucker, I grew up the son of a career naval officer, so the president of the United States was always the commander-in-chief, whether they were a Democrat or a Republican or other, and so I had the highest respect for Joe and the office that he had held. And so, I stood up and shook his hand.

And obviously, we sat down and I think ordered some drinks. I think Jim Biden was hungry and might have ordered some food. And you know, Joe asked me to talk about my background, my family. He thanked me for my service. I’m obviously very proud of that, proud of my brother’s service and my grandfather’s service.

And then he walked through sort of his family, you know, obviously some of the tragedies they’ve dealt with, his political career, on a high level.

We didn’t go into too much detail on business, because prior to Joe showing up Hunter and Jim had coached me, listen, we won’t go into too much detail here, so just a high-level discussion and meeting. So it’s not like I was drilling down with Joe about cap tables and details.

(RealClearPolitics, 10/27/2020)  (Archive)

Huma Abedin (Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“Judicial Watch today released 894 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent additional classified information through her unsecure clintonmail.com email account by top aide Huma Abedin. The Abedin emails also include repeated instances of Clinton’s detailed daily schedules being sent to top Clinton Foundation officials at unsecured email addresses.”

(…) “The new documents included 29 email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 317 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The emails show classified information was sent through the clintonemail.com account:

• In a December 21, 2009, email, Clinton top national security and foreign policy staffer Jake Sullivan forwarded an email to Clinton’s unsecured email account containing classified information heavily redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton then forwarded the email, concerning the climate change accord, from her unsecured email account to Abedin’s unsecured email account with the message, “Pls print.”

• And, on December 24, 2009, Clinton sent an unsecured email from HDR22@clintonmail.com to then-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson. The classified email, asking Carson to “Pls review the memcon of my call w [French] FM Kouchener [Redacted].” Information in this message was blacked out using FOIA exemptions B1.4(B) –  “Foreign government information” and (D).

(…) “On January 17, 2010, five days after the massive Haitian earthquake, former Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper emails Hillary Clinton’s then- deputy chiefs of staff, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, to ask if they can do a conference call to discuss Haiti. Clinton Foundation officials Laura Graham and Doug Band are also provided the call-in information for the conference call. (Author Peter Schweizer would later describe in his book “Clinton Cash” how the Obama administration, during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, allowed hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction contracts for Haiti to flow through the Clinton Foundation.) (Read more: Judicial Watch, 5/02/2017)

(…) On May 8, 2017 Senator Lindsey Graham questioned former DAG Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper.  Within the questioning, Sally Yates tipped her hand.  There was never an unmasking of Flynn because Flynn was a target, it was not an incidental collection.

Sally Yates doesn’t directly say Flynn was a target, but by now we all know he was a target of the FBI investigation.  As a result of Flynn being the actual target, he would be directly identified within the intelligence documents because the investigation would be about him, and not incidental. But there’s more…

In the three years following this testimony, there was nothing that would deliver the answer as to who unmasked General Michael Flynn? The reason why is simple, Flynn wasn’t unmasked – because he was the target of authorized active surveillance.

Here’s another way we know.

♦ First, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were watching that hearing where Senator Lindsey Graham was questioning Sally Yates and James Clapper.  As they discussed in their text messages the issue of “unmasking” is irrelevant.  “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative”:

The “incidental collection” is an “incorrect narrative” because the collection was not incidental.  Flynn was actively being monitored.  Flynn was an active target in an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation.  Flynn was THE target.

♦ Second, more evidence of Flynn under active surveillance is found in the Mueller report where the special prosecutor outlines that Flynn was under an active investigation prior to the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak:

Mary McCord was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ National Security Division after John Carlin left in October of 2016.  McCord knew about the active FBI investigation of General Flynn. [McCord was also the person who Sally Yates took with her to the White House to confront White House Counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn call and FBI interview.]

It is now admitted by public document releases that Flynn was under investigation during the President-elect transition period when the Kislyak phone call took place.

Put it all together and…. (1) There was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental…. (2) Because the intercept was not incidental. (3) Because the intercept was part of the multi-year FBI ongoing investigation of Michael Flynn which included surveillance.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 5/11/2020)  (Archive)

Weeks after FBI opened its investigation & narrowed to Wolfe as a suspect, Carter was emailing taunts to @WaPo & @nytimes reporters with James Wolfe *blind copied* as a recipient.

This email from @carterwpage would as a tracer for the FISA leak recipient, directly identifying @nakashimae for prosecutors when she was the only reporter of 5 to “respond” to the “invisible” copied target, James Wolfe.

Take a moment to reflect on the irony: @carterwpage, all times under 100% FISA surveillance for being an alleged “agent of a hostile foreign power”, is sending emails that identify leak-networks for federal prosecutors AND are used as multiple pieces of “State’s evidence”…🤔

QUESTION: How does Page know James Wolfe is involved? Page was approached by Ali Watkins & Brian Ross, also Wapo & NYT reporters, but how would Page know about logistics of his FISA or which “government operatives” were to blame?

How’d he find out in 2 weeks? While under FISA?

This amazing display of trade-craft, specifically using emails to *indirectly transmit* key investigative leads to federal authorities by way of *intercepted* communications via FISA, is notable..

It establishes a *pattern* of such behavior for @carterwpage.

See his email to the international body @OSCE to *indirectly* inform FBI/Comey that he knew about Christopher Steele.

Carter was the first in the world to “report” about that, FWIW.

.@carterwpage‘s email to @OSCE in Oct 2016 was basis of @DevinNunes memo, uncovering @FBI reliance on Steele via @HillaryClinton… pic.twitter.com/4D0CHNsk1s

— MonsieursGhost (@MonsieursGhost) October 13, 2021

Carter Page also sent another email, the day before his letter to reporters, to the House Intel Committee.

In this email Carter names reporters at @ABCnews & @Buzzfeednews (@brianross & @aliwatkins) as responsible for Felony #1, the leaking of his protected identity within the Buryakov case.

Carter names reporters at @Wapo as responsible for Felony #2. Note that Carter does not mention @nytimes reporters in the formal complaint to HPSCI even though he would mention them the next day in the informal ‘trap’ email to the reporters. 🤔

Note that everyone that Carter has “named”, has suffered consequences:

James Wolfe, named in the blind cc email, was of course prosecuted, convicted, and defamed.

The reporters Carter named responsible for Felony #1 were both demoted from their careers on the NatSec beat *within 24 hours of each other* in July 2018.

They claimed “bad reporting” for Ross and “ethics review” for Watkins. Both were poor cover stories.

The reporter responsible for Felony #2 was masked as Reporter #1 in the Wolfe indictment but slyly revealed by @carterwpage as @nakashimae when he leveraged a female identifier dropped by prosecutor Jessie K. Liu to eliminate 4 other male contenders.

Notable: @nakashimae escaped having her career destroyed like Ross, Watkins & Wolfe. Is it due to interface with FBI and 2wk hold before publishing? Ali waited just as long; why did she suffer? How did Ross get his paws on the leak and why is he named nowhere? Always more…

(@MonsieursGhost, 12/17/2021)

Rod Rosenstein joins William Barr as he speaks during a press conference on the release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report, April 18, 2019. (Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

“Judicial Watch announced today it received 382 pages of documents showing former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s communications with former Obama officials, including Eric Holder and information sharing with the media in the days immediately surrounding the inception of the Mueller investigation.

These documents were obtained in response to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications of Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)).

On May 15, 2017, Public Affairs Specialist Marsha Murphy sends Rosenstein an email with the subject line “Eric Holder just called for you.” The message says: “Please call him.”

On May 16, 2017, U.S. Attorney John Huber wrote to Rosenstein: “Rod, We’re proud of you.” Later that year, Huber was chosen by then-Attorney General Sessions to head up the Clinton Foundation investigation.

(On May 17, 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein as special counsel.)

The documents revealed that Rosenstein had communications with Washington Post reporter Sari Horwitz that included multiple off-the-record calls, information sharing, and smoothing over arguments with the DOJ press office.

In an email exchange on May 12, 2017, with the subject line “Off the record” Horwitz complains to Rosenstein about then-DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores yelling at her and the Washington Post’s national security editor and calling a story of theirs “bullshit.” Rosenstein replies, “I will talk to Sarah.” Horwitz adds that she is “around all night if [Rosenstein wants] to talk off the record.”

In an email exchange between May 13-16, 2017, Horwitz requests that they speak off the record again. Rosenstein replied by sending her a link to a story about him in The Baltimore Sun.

On May 18, 2017, Horwitz emails Rosenstein with the subject line, “Urgent” to ask him about President Trump being the focus of an FBI investigation: “The Washington Post has been told by very good sources that President Trump is now a focus of the FBI investigation Can I please talk to you as soon as possible on deep background?”

On May 15, 2017, Rosenstein received an email from Katherine Davis, likely the 60 Minutes producer. In it, she states: “I hope you’re handling all of this craziness this week. Am sure you are. Much to discuss. FBI finalists. And whether you are considering recusing (hoping not but lmk) Lmk when I can come and visit. Next week? You know where to reach me in the meantime.”

In the days surrounding the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, Rosenstein received calls from multiple emails of support from former senior Obama administration officials.

On May 12, 2017, Rosenstein received an email from former Obama Special Counsel Jonathan Su: Hi Rod: I know there’s a lot going on right now, but I wanted to send you a note of support. If there’ s anything I can do to be of help, please let me know. Hope you hang in there.”

On May 13, 2017, he received a similar supportive email from former Obama White House Deputy Associate Counsel Mike Leotta with the subject line “Thinking of you and your family.” The message says: “I hope you’re hanging in there, [redacted] despite all the press attention, attacks, and contradictory claims.”

On May 14, 2017, Rosenstein emailed Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Senior D.C. District Court Judge John D. Bates’ cell phone number, three days before the appointment of Robert Mueller.

On May 16, 2017, Rosenstein received a supportive email from former Obama Deputy Attorney General, James Cole: “You have the right approach. I always found that if you concentrated on doing your job (protecting the constitution) your reputation takes care of itself.”

On May 16, 2017, the day before Mueller was appointed, scheduling emails indicate that Rosenstein spoke with both Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

The day after the special counsel appointment, on May 18, 2017, Judge Bates sent an email to Rosenstein with the subject line “Great move” and the message “Well done.”

On May 20, 2017, Rosenstein requests a phone call with Obama’s former Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, who was also Al Gore’s co-counsel in Bush v. Gore and recently published the book, Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump.

“These astonishing emails show that Rod Rosenstein had many Obama/Clinton and media friends supporting him around the time he infamously appointed Robert Mueller,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

Andrew McCabe arrives for a meeting with members of the Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees on December 21, 2017. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

(…) On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a letter recommending FBI Director Comey be fired. The subject of letter was: Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI. Comey would be fired that day.

Unknown to everyone in the Trump Administration, that same day Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was being interviewed by agents from the FBI’s Inspection Division (INSD) regarding apparent leaks that occurred in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article,  “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe” by Devlin Barrett.

McCabe would lie to the INSD Agents regarding his participation in the leaks as later disclosed in the Inspector General report, “A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.” McCabe would be fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a Grand Jury investigation.

McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as Spygate. He directed the activities of FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia Investigation. He was also mentioned in the famous “insurance policy” text message:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,”

At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe’s actions fully known. In light of Comey’s firing, McCabe was now the Acting FBI Director and was immediately under consideration for the permanent position.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 6/18/2019)  (Archive)

ABC News interviews former FBI director James Comey for a special edition of “20/20” that aired on Sunday, April 15, 2018 (Credit: Ralph Alswang/ABC/Getty Images)

“President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey, the White House announced Tuesday afternoon.

Trump fired Comey based on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to lead the bureau,” Trump wrote in a letter to Comey dated Tuesday.

“It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,” the president wrote.

In a statement on Comey’s firing released by the White House, Trump called the FBI “one of our Nation’s most cherished and respected institutions,” adding, “today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement.”

The White House said that a search for a new permanent FBI director would “begin immediately.” (Read more: The Hill, 5/09/2018)

Rod Rosenstein’s letter, titled, “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI” recommends FBI Director James Comey’s dismissal. (Credit: BBC)

“President Donald Trump followed the recommendation of his deputy attorney general when he fired FBI boss James Comey. What did Rod Rosenstein say? This is his letter in full.

Memorandum for the Attorney General

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein

SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.

The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.” (Read more: BBC, 05/10/2017)

NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers cast a dash of doubt Tuesday on the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia-tied hackers sought to help Donald Trump in the 2016 election, explaining for the first time in public testimony why his agency had only “moderate confidence” in that judgment.

Testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Rogers affirmed he and the NSA were highly confident the Russians sought to hurt Hillary Clinton in the election. But Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Rogers – who also heads U.S. Cyber Command — why the NSA differed on the related conclusion about Trump in the Jan. 6 intelligence report on alleged Russian interference in the election.

That conclusion stated that the Russian government “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

The FBI and CIA backed that with high confidence, but the NSA only held that judgment with “moderate confidence.”

Cotton noted that fellow Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., during the hearing called Trump “Russia’s preferred candidate” and asked Rogers to “explain the discrepancy.”

“I wouldn’t call it a discrepancy, I’d call it an honest difference of opinion between three different organizations, and in the end, I made that call,” Rogers said.

He added that when he looked at the data, for each of the other judgments there were multiple sources and he could exclude every other alternative rationale. But for this particular conclusion, “it didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources,” he said.” (Read more: Fox News, 5/09/2017)  (Archive)

Did you all know that Eric Ciaramella tried to “whistleblow” and get Trump impeached BEFORE the Ukraine call? HR McMaster had Ciaramella (who was a CIA analyst) set up outside the Oval Office door. Ciaramella felt that Trump has coordinated the firing of Comey by consulting with… pic.twitter.com/b2oCMWas3Y

— Truth Ninja (@TruthNinja316) March 12, 2024

Did you all know that Eric Ciaramella tried to “whistleblow” and get Trump impeached BEFORE the Ukraine call? HR McMaster had Ciaramella (who was a CIA analyst) set up outside the Oval Office door. Ciaramella felt that Trump has coordinated the firing of Comey by consulting with Vladimir Putin (by listening in on a phone call…sound familiar?), and went and told John Kelly. Ciaramella was basically CIA running a domestic surveillance operation on a sitting U.S. President with the consent of not one, but two, US Generals.🤦🏻‍♂️ (citation below from the Mueller Report) –
@StephenM

“Former top FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office, claiming he was told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said two Trump Cabinet officials were “ready to support” such an effort.

Andrew McCabe (l) and Donald Trump (Credit: Associated Press/Getty Images)

(…) Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials. But in his testimony, the lawyer said McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to him to relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including discussions of the 25th Amendment.

“I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he — this was what was related to me — that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment,” Baker told the committees.

The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing a sitting president from office. One way that could happen is if a majority of the president’s Cabinet says the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

Rosenstein, who still works at the Justice Department but who is expected to exit in the near future, has denied the claims since they first surfaced in the media last year.

Fox News requested further comment from the parties involved. Lawyers for Baker and McCabe declined comment, as did an FBI spokesperson.

Former AG Jeff Sessions stands between former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe at a press conference on October 10, 2018. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

(…) In his testimony, Baker said of McCabe’s state of mind: “At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don’t know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time.”

(…) During his testimony, Baker acknowledged he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions but testified over a two-day period in October that McCabe and Page came to him contemporaneously after meeting with Rosenstein for input in the days after Comey was fired by the president.

(…) As Fox News has previously reported, the eight days in May 2017 between Comey’s firing and appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller were seen as a major turning point in the Russia probe, which has also involved examining whether the president obstructed justice.

“I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president’s Cabinet and that they were…onboard with this concept already,” Baker said.

During the closed-door hearing, the former FBI lawyer told lawmakers he could not say whether Rosenstein was taking the initiative to seek out Cabinet members:

(…) Baker also said he did not know the names of the two Cabinet officials.

“Lisa and Andy did not tell me, and my impression was they didn’t know themselves,” he said.

But when the New York Times broke the story in September, it reported that Rosenstein told McCabe he might be able to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Secretary of Homeland Security and later White House chief of staff John Kelly to invoke the 25th Amendment.” (Read more: Fox News, 2/17/2019)

(DOJ OIG Report/Comey Memos, page 33-34, 8/28/2019)

Newly produced notes of Andrew McCabe show that at 5:15 p.m. on May 10, 2017, McCabe briefed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  They were trying very hard to pin something on General Flynn.  Exhibit B. “Flynn –

• Open: nothing
• Closed: everything
• Blackmail: theoretically possible, not the strongest theory.

McCabe Notes – page 9

From left, Andrew McCabe, Sen. Richard Burr, Sen. Mark Warner, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo greet each other before the start of the Senate (Select) Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, May 11, 2017. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

“On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein allegedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record Trump. This remark was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe. Rosenstein immediately issued a statement denying the accusations.

The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was “pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president.” Note that just five days earlier, on May 11, McCabe had publicly testified before Congress that there was no obstruction, stating, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

Sen. Rubio: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specifics of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?”

Mr. McCabe: “As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.”

On the one hand, McCabe testified there was no obstruction from Trump, yet, just five days later, McCabe was attempting to convince Rosenstein to go along with his efforts to open an obstruction investigation into the president. Events suggest that McCabe’s efforts were met with alarm from Rosenstein, who responded by appointing Mueller as special counsel. Rosenstein may have also informed Trump of McCabe’s intentions.

At the same time that McCabe was attempting to open an obstruction investigation, Strzok and Page were texting about the lack of evidence of collusion. In a text that Strzok sent to Page, Strzok noted:

“You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there, no question. I hesitate, in part, because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

Page was asked about this text during her July 2018 testimony by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas). She initially answered, “So I think this represents that even as far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question.” After a brief consultation with her legal counsel, Page continued: “I think it’s a reflection of us still not knowing. I guess that’s as good as I can answer.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 2/18/2019)

(DOJ OIG Report/Comey Memos, pages 35-36,  8/28/2019) (New York Times, 5/11/2017)

Yadong Liu (Credit: public domain)

Newly released messages from the House Ways and Means Committee appear to show Hunter Biden proposing a meeting in New York City between the boss of a Chinese energy company and Joe Biden, the former vice president at the time, along with Joe’s brother, Jim Biden.

“Can you meet this evening early,” Hunter Biden asked Yadong Liu, CEO of CEFC Global Strategic Holdings in a poorly punctuated text message the evening of Dec. 12, 2017.

“My father will be in New York also and he wants me to attend the Sandy Hook memorial service with him and I would like him to meet you along with my uncle and then you and I can talk let me know if that works.”

“I’m sorry for the late notice I got off the red eye in Baltimore from LA and take a little nap before I got his message,” Hunter added.

Yadong told Hunter “No problem” and asked to let him “know when and where to meet.”

Hunter Biden told the CEFC CEO he would like his father, Joe Biden, the former vice president at the time, to meet the executive in New York City. (House Ways and Means Committee)

Less than two weeks after the proposed meeting among the four individuals, Hunter Biden messaged Yadong, asking Yadong to call him, saying he was “anxiously waiting” for his report from a meeting in China.

“I am still in China. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner but I knew [sic] you have been talking to Kevin…,” Yadong said, appearing to reference a CEFC China Energy executive named Gongwen Dong.

“I didn’t get to see the chairman on this trip but president chen asked me to convey to you that while we attach great importance to working with you, under the current circumstances it is almost impossible to move forward on any of the projects with you. There are a few key dates in the next weeks and we are focused on those legal challenges and cannot afford to do anything that have any potential of being misunderstood or misconstrued.”

“He sincerely hopes that you can understand our situation and looks forward to removing those legal uncertainties and working with you again,” Yadong continued. “I am coming back next week and can meet to explain face to face if necessary. Thank you.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, Jim Biden and Hunter Biden’s attorney to confirm whether the meeting in New York City took place but did not receive a response. (Read more: Fox News, 5/22/2024)  (Archive)

The House Ways and Means Committee voted Wednesday to release 100 pages of new evidence that shows Hunter Biden lied under oath to Congress during his Feb. 28 deposition.

The evidence, provided by IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, who probed the first son’s finances, reveals Hunter “indisputably” lied at least three times during his sworn testimony, the panel’s majority said after voting in a closed-door executive session for its release.

Hunter, 54, claimed he was “high or drunk” when he sent a threatening text message to the wrong Chinese business associate — but phone records of the WhatsApp message show the associate, Raymond Zhao, responded and “knew exactly” what the president’s son was talking about when he asked to speak with the chairman of CEFC China Energy, Ye Jianming.

“Sure. I need some time to reach him,” Zhao, a translator for CEFC, wrote back in messages over the next day. “CEFC is willing to cooperate with the family.”

The first son also kept exchanging messages with Zhao after making the threat that he was “sitting” with his father, Joe Biden, and said they would both “hold a grudge” if the CEFC translator reneged on a “commitment.” (Read more: New York Post, 5/23/2024)  (Archive)

(Credit: New York Post)

“Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be “interesting for me and my family,” emails obtained by The Post show.

One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line “Expectations,” included details of “remuneration packages” for six people involved in an unspecified business venture.

Biden was identified as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.

His pay was pegged at “850” and the email also noted that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.”

CEFC China Energy Co., Ltd. (Credit: Imaginechina/The Associated Press)

In addition, the email outlined a “provisional agreement” under which 80 percent of the “equity,” or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with “H” apparently referring to Biden.

The deal also listed “10 Jim” and “10 held by H for the big guy?”

Neither Jim nor the “big guy” was identified further.

The email’s author, James Gilliar of the international consulting firm J2cR, also noted, “I am happy to raise any detail with Zang if there is [sic] shortfalls ?”

“Zang” is an apparent reference to Zang Jian Jun, the former executive director of CEFC China.

The email is contained in a trove of data that the owner of a computer repair shop in Delaware said was recovered from a MacBook Pro laptop that was dropped off in April 2019 and never retrieved.

The computer was seized by the FBI, and a copy of its contents made by the shop owner shared with The Post this week by former Mayor Rudy ­Giuliani.” (Read more: New York Post, 10/15/2020)  (Archive)

“Fired FBI chief James Comey was already plotting to share memos summarizing his conversations with President Trump with a pal who later leaked the info to the media before his supposed middle-of-the night epiphany about the president’s claim that he had “tapes” of their conversations.

The discrepancies in his timeline, as outlined in the Justice Department’s top watchdog’s scathing, 83-page report on his behavior, create more uncertainty about Comey’s version of events following his May 9, 2017, ouster.

The former top G-man told investigators for Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and a key Senate committee during an earlier hearing, that Trump’s Friday, May 12, 2017, tweet about supposed Oval Office “tapes” caused him to snap awake “in the middle of the night” the following Monday, May 15, and conclude that he needed to share the records.

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” the president had tweeted.

(Credit: Donald Trump/Twitter)

But Horowitz’s report — which concluded that Comey had violated department policies — said that on the afternoon of Sunday, May 14, 2017 — the day before he said the midnight lightning bolt struck — Comey had already sent four of the memos to Patrick Fitzgerald, one of his lawyers, “with instructions to share the email and PDF attachment with [lawyer David] Kelley and professor [Daniel] Richman.” The discrepancy was first reported by Fox News.

Richman, a longtime Comey pal and professor at Columbia Law School, leaked the memos days later to the New York Times, which published a story about Comey’s allegation that the president asked him to go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Comey had also testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2017 that the late-night awakening had happened on the Monday after Trump’s tweet, according to the IG’s report.

James Comey, right, with his attorney, David Kelley, leaves Capitol Hill, December 2018, after a second closed-door interview with two Republican-led committees investigating what they say was bias at the Justice Department before the 2016 presidential election. (Credit: Manuel Balce Ceneta/The Associated Press)

“The president tweeted on Friday [May 12], after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape,” Comey said in response to questions from Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins.

“And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a friend of mine to do it,” he said, referring to Richman.

Comey hoped that the special counsel would prevent the president or his team from destroying any such tapes, which he believed would verify his version of his conversation with Trump.

Fitzgerald forwarded Comey’s documents to Kelley at 7:35 a.m. May 17, and to Richman at 10:13 a.m. May 17.

But Comey himself sent a digital photograph of one of his memos to Richman on Tuesday, May 16 — the day after the supposed epiphany — and told him to share the contents with the Times. (Read more: The New York Post, 8/30/2019)

Bruce Ohr (l) and Christopher Steele (Credit: Fox News)

“An Aug. 28, 2018, testimony before Congress by Ohr, which was reviewed for this article, sheds new light on McCabe’s involvement in the investigation. His testimony also illustrates how Steele and Simpson passed their information targeting Trump to the FBI, using Ohr as an unofficial back-channel.

(…) In May 2017, the FBI suddenly decided to reach out to Steele through Ohr. The re-engagement attempt came six months after Steele had been formally terminated by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016.

The matter, which was discussed at several points during Ohr’s testimony, was highlighted during a review of some text messages between Ohr and Steele:

Q: “The next page, 2 months forward, 5-15, three-quarters of the way down. ‘Having now consulted my wife and business partner about the question we discussed on Saturday, I am pleased to say yes, we should go ahead with it.  Best, Chris.’”

Q: “Go ahead with what?”

Ohr: “The FBI had asked me a few days before, when I reported to them my latest conversation with Chris Steele, they had had would he—next time you talk with him, could you ask him if he would be willing to meet again.”

Q: “So this is the re-engagement?”

Ohr: “Yes.”

The texts that are being referenced were sent on May 15, 2017, and refer to a request that Ohr received from the FBI to ask Steele to re-engage with the FBI in the days after Comey had been fired on May 9.

Q: “So you have asked him will he re-engage with the FBI?”

Ohr: “Yes.”

Q: “And he says: ‘Talked with my wife; I’m in.’ You say: ‘Thanks. We’ll let them know and we will follow up.’”

Ohr: “Yes.”

Q: “‘Thanks again. I chatted with my colleagues and can give you an update when you have a minute.’ What was the update about? Was it about that subject?”

Ohr: “Yes.”

Q: “So that all happens on May 15?”

Ohr: “Yes.”

Several days prior, on May 12, 2017, Ohr and Steele exchanged a series of text messages published by John Solomon of The Hill, that appear to detail Ohr reaching out to Steele following the FBI’s request for re-engagement:

Ohr: “Thanks again for your time on Wednesday. Do you have time for a short follow up call sometime this weekend?”

Steele: “Yes, of course. Perhaps sometime tomorrow. When might suit?”

Ohr: “Would 3 pm your time work? I’m pretty open so just let me know. Thanks!”

Steele: “Fine, or possibly even at 2 pm our time if that works for you? Best”

Ohr: “2 pm your time is good. It will be quick. Thanks!”

The next text message is a response from Steele on May 15, 2017:

Steele: “B, having now consulted my wife and business partner about the question we discussed on Saturday I’m pleased to say yes, we should go ahead with it. Best C”

Ohr: “Thanks! I will let them know and we will follow up.”

Comey was fired by Trump on May 9, 2017. This appears to have been the precipitating event that led the FBI to suddenly attempt to re-establish contact with Steele through Ohr. This was the only time the FBI used Ohr to reach out to Steele.

Notably, McCabe was now the acting FBI director.

On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to Acting FBI Director McCabe that he secretly record Trump. This remark was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe. Rosenstein immediately issued a statement denying the accusations.

An unidentified participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat differently, noting that Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”

The comments by Rosenstein allegedly occurred at a meeting where McCabe was “pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president.” Note that just five days earlier, McCabe had publicly testified that there was no obstruction, stating “there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

(…) Text messages to Ohr from Steele provide some hints and highlight an abrupt pullback by the FBI. In June 2017, Steele sent Ohr the following text:

“We are frustrated with how long this re-engagement with the Bureau and Mueller is taking. There are some new perishable operational opportunities we do not want to miss out on.”

Steele sent another text to Ohr on Nov. 18, 2017:

“I am presuming you’ve heard nothing back from your SC colleagues on the issue you kindly put to them for me. We have heard nothing from them either. To say this is disappointing would be an understatement.”

Ohr testified that “at some point during 2017, Chris Steele did speak with somebody from the FBI, but I don’t know who.”

(Read more: Epoch Times, 1/14/2019)

(…) According to this email from a redacted person to “Rush” at “LRA” (?), it was a redacted person from Perkins Coie who turned over a copy of Seth Rich’s DNC laptop to the FBI in San Francisco in May 2017.

What was that again?

Perkins Coie, legal counsel of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, has its fingerprints all over the old Russia Hoax, beginning with hiring Fusion GPS to concoct the fake Steele dossier and hiring Crowdstrike to fake-investigate the DNC email leak. Now the firm of Marc Elias (Kamala Harris’s campaign counsel) and Michael Sussman and Robert Bauer ( wife Anita Dunn) is a link in the chain of custody of the Seth Rich laptop.

I’m sure there is a completely reassuring explanation for all of this. After all, Seth Rich’s murder was a “robbery gone bad,” Julian Assange is a terrorist, and Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president. (Read more: Diane West, July 9, 2021)  (Archive)

Page 137/FBIVault

Schiff is connected to both BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments, two companies that were named in the $7.4B Burisma/US-Ukraine corruption claim that was announced…https://t.co/enhuAplCUE    https://t.co/WuEZfwdTGt pic.twitter.com/rzjVyDibGd

— M3thods (@M2Madness) November 21, 2019

Clerk Disclosures – PDF

Interfax, 11/20/2019

Rod Rosenstein (Credit: NBC News)

“The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.

Mr. Rosenstein made these suggestions in the spring of 2017 when Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director plunged the White House into turmoil. Over the ensuing days, the president divulged classified intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office, and revelations emerged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty and end an investigation into a senior aide.

Mr. Rosenstein was just two weeks into his job. He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation and played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But Mr. Rosenstein was caught off guard when Mr. Trump cited the memo in the firing, and he began telling people that he feared he had been used.

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.

None of Mr. Rosenstein’s proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

(…) “Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account.

“The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect,” he said in a statement. “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically.” (New York Times, 9/21/2018)

“A 2019 Judicial Watch FOIA Lawsuit resulted in the release of a May 16, 2017, memo written by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. [Link Here]  At the time of the FOIA release most people focused on Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s willingness to wear a wire to record the President; however, the memo content actually revealed much more.

There are three aspects to the McCabe memo that warrant attention: (1) Rosenstein’s willingness to wear a wire. (2) Evidence that Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16, 2017, as a set-up to interview Mueller’s pending target; and (3) the CURRENT redactions to the memo indicate CURRENT efforts by the CURRENT AG Bill Barr to protect the corrupt intent of Rod Rosenstein. While all three points are alarming; given recent events, the last aspect is most concerning.

In order to show the significance of this FOIA release, CTH is going to present the McCabe memo in two different ways. First, by highlighting the raw memo release; and then secondly, to highlight the important context by inserting the memo into the timeline.

First, here’s the McCabe memo:

(Link to Judicial Watch FOIA pdf)

The first two substantive issues within the McCabe memo can only be accurately absorbed against the background of those two context links.

Now we can insert the McCabe memo information into the timeline. This will help better understand what was happening in/around the dates in question.

Start by noting the May 16, 2017, date of the meeting at 12:30 pm is immediately before Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller for an interview with President Trump in the oval office. The oval office “interview” is where Mueller reportedly left his “cell phone” at the White House.

“Crossfire Hurricane” – During 2016, after the November election, and throughout the transition period into 2017, the FBI had a counterintelligence investigation ongoing against Donald Trump. FBI Director James Comey’s memos were part of this time period as the FBI small group was gathering evidence. Then Comey was fired….

♦Tuesday May 9th – James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST. Later we discover Rod Rosenstein first contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment less than 15 hours after James Comey was fired.

♦Wednesday May 10th – From congressional testimony we know DAG Rod Rosenstein called Robert Mueller to discuss the special counsel appointment on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am.

(See Biggs questions to Mueller at 2:26 of video)

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation. Wednesday, May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

A few hours after the Rosenstein-Mueller phone call James Comey’s office was being searched by the SSA Whistleblower per the IG report on Comey’s memos.

♦Thursday May 11th – Andrew McCabe testified to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines. McCabe testified there had been no effort to impede the FBI investigation.

Also on Thursday May 11th, 2017, the New York Times printed an article, based on information seemingly leaked by James Comey, about a dinner conversation between the President and the FBI Director. The “Loyalty” article [link]. The IG report shows: “[Daniel] Richman confirmed to the OIG that he was one of the sources for the May 11 article, although he said he was not the source of the information in the article about the Trump Tower briefing“.

♦Friday May 12th – Andrew McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the ongoing issues with the investigation and firing. Referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before. According to McCabe:

… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

According to Andy Biggs questioning of Mueller, on this same day, May 12th, evidence shows Robert Mueller met “in person” with Rod Rosenstein. This is the same day when SSA Whistleblower went to James Comey’s house to retrieve FBI material and both Rybicki and Comey never informed the agent about the memos:

May 12th, is the date noted by David Archey when FBI investigators had assembled all of the Comey memos as evidence. However, no-one in the FBI outside the “small group” knows about them.

♦On Saturday May 13th, 2017, another meeting between Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, this time with AG Jeff Sessions also involved. [Per Andy Biggs]

♦Sunday May 14th – Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys. Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.

♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.

♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of , Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman.

Back in Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting. I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo. Including the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

Sidebar: pay attention to the redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; and (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was pre-determined before the Oval Office meeting.

While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, Rod Rosenstein was taking Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence. While they were meeting in the oval office, and while McCabe was writing his contemporaneous memo, the following story was published by the New York Times (based on Comey memo leaks to Richman):

Also during the approximate time of this Oval Office meeting, Peter Strzok texts with Lisa Page about information being relayed to him by Tashina Guahar (main justice) on behalf of Rod Rosenstein (who is at the White House).

Later that night, after the Oval Office meeting – According to the Mueller report, additional events on Tuesday May 16th, 2017:

It is interesting that Tashina Gauhar was taking notes presumably involved in the 12:30pm May 16, 2017 meeting between, Jim Crowell, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe. But McCabe makes no mention of Lisa Page being present.

It appears there was another meeting in the evening (“later that night”) after the visit to the White House with Robert Mueller. This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar again taking notes.

♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017: Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

We Exit The Timeline:

♦Back to the memo. Notice the participants: Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Tashina Gauhar and Jim Crowell:

Now remind ourselves about who was involved in convincing Jeff Sessions to recuse himself:

The same two people (lawyers) Tasina Guahar and Jim Crowell, were involved in recusal advice for Jeff Sessions and the “wear-a-wire” conversation a few months later.

♦Back to the redactions. Notice how in the McCabe memo FOIA release, the DOJ is redacting the aspects of the appointment of a special counsel.

The redaction justification: b(5) “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Or put another way: stuff we just don’t want to share: “personal privacy” etc.

Again, when combined with the testimony by Mueller in response to the questioning by Rep. Andy Biggs, the redacted information looks like current DOJ officials hiding the timing of the decision-making to appoint Mueller, thereby protecting Rod Rosenstein.

More motive for this scenario shows up during a statement by Matt Whitaker who appeared on Tucker Carlson television show. Whitaker outlined why Rosenstein could never admit to having said he would wear a wire at the time the story broke.

When the “wear-a-wire” story first surfaced was when DAG Rosenstein was trying to convince President Trump not to declassify any information until after the Mueller special counsel was concluded. Rosenstein’s justification for his instructions surrounded President Trump possibly obstructing justice during Mueller’s investigation.

Reminder when Rod Rosenstein convinced President Trump not to declassify the documents that were being requested by Congress (Sept. 2018):

While McCabe is a known liar, there is enough ancillary supportive information, circumstantial and direct evidence, to make the content of the McCabe memo essentially accurate.

Also, Rod Rosenstein expanded the scope of Mueller’s investigation twice, the second time in October 2017 targeting Michael Flynn Jr. Also, Rosenstein participated in the indictment of fictitious Russia trolls and a Russian catering company. Yes, all indications are that Rod Rosenstein was a willing participant in the overall McCabe/Mueller effort.  We have not been allowed to see those scope memos.

Ultimately all of the DOJ delay and hidden information under AG Bill Barr appears to have an identical motive: help protect Rod Rosenstein.

That effort continues with the lack of released information and the ongoing, internal, DOJ and FBI redactions…

….The problem for Attorney General Bill Barr is not investigating what we don’t know, but rather navigating through what ‘We The People’ are already aware of…. (link)

(Conservative Treehouse, 2/15/2020)  (Archive)

With a larger portion of the U.S. electorate now beginning to realize there never was a Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy case to begin with; and with people now realizing almost all of Mueller investigative time was spent gathering evidence for an ‘obstruction case’; and with new revelations from Andrew McCabe, John Dowd and Mueller officials overlayed on the previous Strzok/Page texts; we can now clearly reconcile a previous issue:

The May 16, 2017, Mueller meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

There has been a great deal of flawed interpretation of the May 16th meeting between President Trump, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller.  Some people even mistakenly used that meeting as a cornerstone for a claim that Mueller and Rosenstein were working to the benefit of President Trump.  However, if you overlay the new information, there is considerable evidence that interview was for the purpose of Mueller determining if he could achieve an ‘obstruction’ goal.  Here’s how…

FBI Director James Comey was fired on Tuesday May 9th, 2017.

According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

These McCabe statements line up with with text message conversations between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok – (same dates 5/9 and 5/10):

(text link)

It now appears that important redaction is “POTUS” or “TRUMP”.  [Yes, this is evidence that some unknown DOJ officials redacted information from these texts that would have pointed directly to the intents of the DOJ and FBI. (WARNING: Don’t get hung on it.)

The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”

McCabe responded: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”

However, again referencing his own admissions, on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before.  According to McCabe:

“[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)

Recap: Tuesday-Comey Fired; Wednesday-McCabe starts criminal ‘obstruction’ case; Thursday-McCabe testifies to congress “no effort to impede”; Friday-McCabe and Rosenstein discuss Special Counsel.

After the weekend, Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”

Now, overlaying what we know now that we did not know in 2018, to include the John Dowd interview and McCabe admissions, a very clear picture emerges.

On Tuesday May 16th, Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to talk with the target of the ‘obstruction’ criminal investigation, under the ruse of bringing Mueller in for a meeting about becoming FBI Director.  This meeting was quite literally advanced reconnaissance.

The next day, Wednesday May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.

(…) “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”

(…) “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)

Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.

According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group.  Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.

Now, with hindsight and full understanding of exactly what the purposes and intents were for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to bring Robert Mueller to the White House, revisit this video from June 2017:

(The Conservative Treehouse, 4/04/2019)

(Republished with permission)

Andrew McCabe (l) and James Comey (Credit: Jahi Chikwendiu/Matt McClain, Getty Images)

“Newly declassified FBI memos provide startling new details that undercut the frenzied 2017 effort to investigate Donald Trump for obstruction, revealing the FBI knew Director James Comey’s firing had been conceived by Justice Department leadership long before the president pulled the trigger during a key moment in the Russia probe.

The memos written in May 2017 by Acting Director Andrew McCabe and a lieutenant also provide contemporaneous proof for some of the more jaw-dropping lore of the now-discredited Russia collusion scandal.

 McCabeNotesRecusalMay202017.pdf

(…) But the memos’ most explosive revelations chronicle the decision by McCabe in his early days on the job to open a formal investigation of Trump on the grounds that Comey’s firing may have been an act of obstruction of justice designed to thwart the Russia probe.

The notes show McCabe informed Rosenstein during a May 16, 2017 meeting — one of their first after Comey was fired and McCabe became acting director — that he had opened the obstruction probe.

Excerpt:

McCabe Notes, 5/16/2017

File  McCabeNotesMay162017.pdf

One of McCabe’s lieutenants who also attended the meeting, then-bureau attorney Lisa Page, took her own notes, observing that Rosenstein’s expressed outrage over Comey’s firing seemed odd since Rosenstein had revealed to FBI officials he and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been contemplating it since January 2017.

“This was a strange comment,” Page wrote, “because it was my understanding that the DAG had previously indicated that he and AG Sessions had been discussing firing Director Comey since January, but given the nature of the conversation there was no room for follow-up.”

File  PageNotesMay162017.pdf

McCabe’s own notes from the May 16, 2017 meeting don’t mention that Rosenstein had been discussing firing Comey since January. But five days later in a new meeting, McCabe quoted Rosenstein as confirming the termination had been in the works for months and was not really driven by the Russia probe.” (Read more: JusttheNews, 1/27/2021)  (Archive)

(Credit: CNN composite)

“Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former acting FBI director, reveals in his new book that Robert Mueller temporarily left his cell phone behind after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office and that the phone “later had to be retrieved.”

(…) In his anti-Trump book, titled, “The Threat: How the F.B.I. Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” McCabe, citing Rosenstein, relates the story of Mueller leaving his phone behind after the interview with Trump.

McCabe wrote:

In this same meeting Rod talked about interviews with candidates for director. Then he flipped back to talking about possible candidates for the special counsel job. It was hard to track whether he was talking about candidates for one job or for the other. One minute, he said Mueller had been asked to interview for the position of FBI director; Mueller had gone in for an interview with Trump, and left his phone there, and then the phone had to be retrieved.

McCabe did not offer any further details on the matter of Mueller’s phone.

Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, a Trump confidante, previously stated that Mueller and Trump “had a private conversation” during their meeting. “He had a private conversation with the President on his views about all sorts of matters potentially about the investigation,” Ruddy said. “And the next day he’s now maybe using some of that information in his investigation.” (Read more: Breitbart, 2/25/2019)

Robert Mueller is sworn in on July 24, 2019 before testifying to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. (Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

“Mueller testified under oath he did NOT interview with Trump for the job of FBI Director on May 16, 2017

Yet new FOIA’d emails show, DAG Rosenstein sending an email the very next day, May 17, saying that “Mueller” has now “withdrew from consideration for FBI Director”

Mueller’s testimony to the House. Mueller is clear that he was never “applying” for the job of FBI Director, he was never under consideration, and his “interview” on May 16, 2017 was just to give his “input” on “what it would take to do the job”
(Mueller Transcript)

(Mueller Testimony)

Rosenstein email, just released in FOIA. Mueller “withdrew from consideration for FBI Director”, sent the day after the “interview” with Trump, May 17, 2017.

(Note: Rosenstein appointed Mueller Special Counsel later that same day)

(Source)

Mueller can’t “withdraw” from “consideration” for the job of FBI Director unless he was previously under consideration for the role, which he testified he wasn’t. Rosenstein was in the “interview” on May 16, so his email makes no sense if Mueller was never under consideration.

So who is wrong? Mueller, or Rosenstein (Mueller’s boss)? Because they can’t both be right, and one of them was under oath. (Undercover Huber @JohnWHuber, 8/27/2020)  (Archive)

Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and James Comey (Credit: public domain)

(…) “It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named special counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

Page opined further, acknowledging “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia, no matter what Mueller or the FBI did.

“As far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” she said at another point.

(…) Shortly after he was fired, [June 2017], ex-FBI Director James Comey told the Senate there was not yet evidence to justify investigating Trump for colluding with Russia. “When I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump,” Comey testified.

And Strzok, the counterintelligence boss and leader of the Russia probe, texted Page in May 2017 that he was reluctant to join Mueller’s probe and leave his senior FBI post because he feared “there’s no big there, there.”

(…) So, by the words of Comey, Strzok and Page, we now know that the Trump Justice Department — through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — unleashed the Mueller special counsel probe before the FBI could validate a connection between Trump and Russia.

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special counsel?” (Read more: The Hill, 9/16/2018)

Aaron Zebley (Credit: Jeff Chiu/The Associated Press)

“May 17th, 2017 Mueller is appointed. The Strzok/Page text messages reveal discussions of team being assembled. Strzok notes “emailing with Aaron.”  Well that’s Aaron Zebley former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s Chief of Staff who was selected for Special Counsel position. He’s also a partner at WilmerHale, and Strzok mentions to Page that she might find herself working at WilmerHale if she plays her cards right.

The fact that Agent Strzok was emailing with “Aaron” Zebley prior to the official appointment of the special counsel team should likely raise a few eyebrows. Of course within this time-frame of the messaging released, the redactions increase.

Toward the end of the release a more thorough picture emerges of who was selecting Robert Mueller’s team and why. Andrew McCabe was key player along with James Baker. Reading how this was done blows the entire Mueller “White Hat Theory” to smithereens. However, the conversation does highlight an aspect we have previously discussed. Robert Mueller did not select the “small group” to work with him; but rather the DOJ/FBI “small group” appears to have selected him.

Specifically Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are discussing who is best ideological ally to help their Mueller Special Counsel team “get Trump” (discussions on pages 46, 47, 48, 49 in year 2017 section).

Predictably right when those juicy tidbits about the Mueller agenda are surfacing, the text message release abruptly stops on May 23rd, 2017.”  (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 4/27/2018) (Strzok/Page text messages)

Scott Schools (Credit: public domain)

(…) The Justice Department is refusing to reveal details of the process that led up to former FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to serve as special counsel investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

In response to a POLITICO Freedom of Information Act request, the agency released a one-sentence memo Friday confirming that Mueller was granted a conflict-of-interest waiver in order to assume the politically-sensitive post.
…
However, the document signed by Justice’s top career official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools, provides no detail at all of the grounds for the waiver. In fact, it’s so vague that it doesn’t even convey why anyone would think Mueller needed such a release.

“Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller’s participation in the investigation into Russia’s role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising from the investigation,” Schools wrote in the “authorization” signed on May 18, one day after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position.

Cornell Law – Link

The agency’s Justice Management Division said it located a two-page “recommendation memorandum” in response to POLITICO’s request, but was declining to release that on grounds it would interfere with the deliberative process inside the department.” (Read more: Politico, 12/12/2017)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.

According to numerous news reports, Comey met directly with Mueller previous to his June 8, 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources said that Comey’s opening statement and subsequent testimony were coordinated with Mueller.

At the hearing, Comey revealed that he had intentionally leaked material from a memo allegedly documenting a meeting with President Trump in order to help assure the appointment of a special counsel.

I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

The DOJ and FBI have stated that Comey’s leaks were unauthorized and compared the disclosures to Wikileaks.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.

• On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.
• An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:
• In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.
• Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”

(Read more: Judicial Watch, 5/10/2018)

Lisa Page and Robert Mueller (Credit: public domain)

(…) “Page testified that she joined the team of special counsel Robert Mueller around May 18, 2017—and that FBI agent Peter Strzok was considered for inclusion shortly thereafter. Page’s role was to “bridge the gap and transition between what we as a team knew and the evidence that we had gathered to date on the collusion investigation and sort of imparting that knowledge to the new special counsel team,” she said.

Page, who acknowledged her personal relationship with Strzok at several points during the interview, noted that initially, Strzok wasn’t “brought over as the senior executive to run the investigation. Another individual was, and that was not successful. It was not a good match with Mr. Mueller. He did not really have the sufficient counterintelligence background to be effective.” That individual would later be identified as John Brown.

Page agreed to work for a 45-day trial period, but at the end of that time, she left to spend more time with her children, by her own account. Page left of her own volition and before Inspector General Michael Horowitz notified Mueller (and then-Acting FBI Director McCabe) of the texts between Page and Strzok. (The Epoch Times, 1/21/2019)

Newly released text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and his colleague Lisa Page reveal that Strzok was reluctant to join special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference because he feared the team wouldn’t find anything noteworthy.

“You and I both know the odds are nothing,” Strzok said in a text to Page on May 19, 2017. “If I thought it was likely, I’d be there, no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

The fresh batch of texts was released on Tuesday by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Republican chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, after the Department of Justice delivered about 384 pages containing around 9,000 texts to Congress on Friday.

Despite his misgivings about the case, Strzok did seem to appreciate the gravity of the investigation, which encompasses President Donald Trump and his associates as well.” (Read more: Business Insider, 1/23/2018)

“U need to stress to H[unter], does he want to be the reason or factor that blows up his dad’s campaign,” James Gilliar told Tony Bobulinski about the specter of Hunter’s foreign business dealings torpedoing Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign plans. pic.twitter.com/akezdtsbOQ

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 22, 2020

(Credit: marcopolousa.org)

“The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment. Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don’t.

GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?

BRENNAN: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not. (Video is cued  @01:54:28)

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote at the time:

(…) James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? (read more)

Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal to light.

On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:

It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey. While the majority of the content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017.  NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 10/22/2019)   (Archive)

Andrew McCabe (Credit: Bill Clark/Getty Images)

“The former acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, wrote a confidential memo last spring recounting a conversation that offered significant behind-the-scenes details on the firing of Mr. McCabe’s predecessor, James B. Comey, according to several people familiar with the discussion.

Mr. Comey’s firing is a central focus of the special counsel’s investigation into whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. Mr. McCabe has turned over his memo to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

In the document, whose contents have not been previously reported, Mr. McCabe described a conversation at the Justice Department with the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, in the chaotic days last May after Mr. Comey’s abrupt firing. Mr. Rosenstein played a key role in the dismissal, writing a memo that rebuked Mr. Comey over his handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton.

But in the meeting at the Justice Department, Mr. Rosenstein added a new detail: He said the president had originally asked him to reference Russia in his memo, the people familiar with the conversation said. Mr. Rosenstein did not elaborate on what Mr. Trump had wanted him to say.

To Mr. McCabe, that seemed like possible evidence that Mr. Comey’s firing was actually related to the F.B.I.’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and that Mr. Rosenstein helped provide a cover story by writing about the Clinton investigation.

One person who was briefed on Mr. Rosenstein’s conversation with the president said Mr. Trump had simply wanted Mr. Rosenstein to mention that he was not personally under investigation in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Rosenstein said it was unnecessary and did not include such a reference. Mr. Trump ultimately said it himself when announcing the firing.” (Read more: New York Times, 5/30/2018)