(Credit: Director of National Intelligence)

The FBI abused a digital surveillance tool nearly 300,000 times between 2020 and early 2021, running 23,132 inquiries alone after Jan. 6., according to a newly unsealed court document.

The Section 702 database, which the FBI is authorized to use to gather foreign intelligence information or if they believe there is evidence of a crime, was used on Jan. 6 suspects, along with congressional campaign donors and protestors arrested in riots after George Floyd was killed in 2020, a newly unsealed court document reveals. An April 2022 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) opinion described these abuses, noting that the employee who ran the queries after Jan. 6 did so “to find evidence of possible foreign influence, although the analyst conducting the queries had no indications of foreign influence related to the query term used.”

No “raw Section 702 information was accessed” as a result of Jan. 6 queries, according to the court document. A senior F.B.I. official said analysts “had a mistaken understanding of the standard” and were required to undergo training, according to The Washington Post.

An FBI official conducted a search in June 2020 for individuals arrested “in connection with civil unrest and protests between approximately May 30 and June 18, 2020,” the same time Black Lives Matter protests were happening nationwide after the death of George Floyd.

An FBI analyst also “conducted a batch query for over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign,” on a campaign the analyst said was a target of foreign influence.

FISA court Judge Rudolph Contreras permitted Section 702 to continue for another year because he was “encouraged by the amendments to the FBI’s querying procedures,” but noted compliance problems “have proven to be persistent and widespread.”

“If they are not substantially mitigated by these recent measures, it may become necessary to consider other responses, such as substantially limiting the number of FBI personnel with access to unminimized Section 702 information,” Contreras wrote. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 5/19/2023)  (Archive)

FBI Used Cash Bonuses To Encourage Agents To Wiretap More Americans, Whistleblower Says

Michael Atkinson steps into an elevator as he leaves a secure area in the Capitol after a day of questions about the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment hearings. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

“Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes told The Sara Carter Show that Republicans have an active investigation into Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who alerted lawmakers to the so-called whistleblower complaint that has led to President Donald Trump’s partisan impeachment in the House.

Nunes, R-CA, spoke to this reporter for Monday’s podcast. He revealed that transcripts of Atkinson’s secret testimony will expose that the Inspector General either lied or he needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers. The transcripts have been kept from the public by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-CA because it is damaging to their “impeachment scam,” Nunes said.

The whistleblower, who has not been formally named by lawmakers, met with Schiff’s staff members prior to submitting their complaint to Atkinson. Schiff was chided by Republican lawmakers and many members of the media for falsely claiming that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.

(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging. ~ Rep. Nunes

(Read more: Sarah Carter, 1/06/2020)  (Archive)

We have a rather robust timeline going under our “media leaks” tag and Nancy was kind enough to explain how to leak propaganda to the media, use the subsequent articles as validation, and then “merchandise” them as a means to push the desired narrative. Although Nancy was accusing Republicans of this tactic, it is obvious projection that we’ve all come to recognize in Dem officials.   There are many examples in the tag linked above.

Cindy McCain made a statement revealing that many people were aware of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities, but no one took legal action.

She stated, “We all knew about it. It was hiding in plain sight, but no one wanted to go after him legally.”

This suggests a perception that… pic.twitter.com/cc8gwsYhrM

— 🗡️🛡️Sir Rickster🛡️🗡️ (@Rickster_75) January 5, 2024

Christopher Wray (Credit: Andrew Harnik/The Associated Press)

“FBI Director Christopher Wray told the federal surveillance court in a letter Friday that he “deeply regrets” the bureau’s many errors in the process to obtain surveillance warrants on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

“The FBI has the utmost respect for this Court, and deeply regrets the errors and omissions identified by the OIG,” Wray wrote in a letter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

A judge on the FISC ordered the FBI on Dec. 17 to respond by Friday with a roadmap on how the bureau plans to address the problems identified in a Justice Department inspector general’s (IG) report regarding applications for warrants to wiretap Page.

(…) FBI personnel will be instructed on the errors and omissions that were made in the Carter Page FISA applications and associated processes,” Wray said.

The training will include a test “to confirm that personnel understand the expectations and the materials,” as well as certification for FBI employees who have completed the training, he added.

Wray set April 30 as a deadline to complete the training.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/10/2020)  (Archive)

“The name of a former top FBI official who leaked sensitive information over the course of hundreds of communications with at least six reporters can be revealed by the Washington Examiner.

Bryan Paarmann gives a guest lecture to cadets at the Combating Terrorism Center on October 6, 2017. (Credit: public domain)

His identity is contained in a 21-page report obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report reveals that investigators for the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that Bryan Paarmann, 53, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s international operations division from 2016 to 2017, “improperly disclosed court-sealed and law enforcement sensitive information to the media” in violation of FBI rules.

The incident is one Horowitz included as part of what his June 2018 report called the FBI’s “culture of unauthorized media contacts.” A one-page summary of the investigation was released last May.

But Paarmann defended his actions.

“I gave 35 years of faithful and devoted service to this nation and never did I give classified or investigatively sensitive information to the press,” Paarmann told the Washington Examiner. “I never endangered a prosecution and only did what I believed my superiors had tasked me with.”

Although most identifying details about the reporters in question and the cases Paarmann was leaking details of were redacted, the Washington Examiner was able to identify one of the reporters in question, Los Angeles Times reporter Del Wilber, and two of his stories that the DOJ’s watchdog alleged contained details leaked by Paarmann.

(…) Horowitz’s team reviewed Paarmann’s communications from 2012 through 2017, which showed “extensive contacts” with members of the media, especially in 2016 and early 2017, laying out interactions with at least six reporters. These contacts included hundreds of texts, calls, and emails; over a dozen rounds of golf, including one where the reporter paid for both and another where Paarmann did; private drinks and dinners, including instances where investigators couldn’t determine who paid; a media member’s housewarming party where Paarmann brought wine as a gift; and a $225-ticket dinner, which was free of charge thanks to a member of the media, in violation of FBI rules.” (Read more: Washington Examiner, 1/10/2020)  (Archive)

Judge James Boasberg (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM/The Associated Press)

“A former Justice Department official picked Friday to oversee the FBI’s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report was one of the many pundits during the Russia probe to defend the bureau’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

David S. Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security, was also an outspoken critic of Rep. Devin Nunes and other congressional Republicans who accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in applications to wiretap Page.

An inspector general’s (IG) report released Dec. 9, 2019, largely vindicated Republicans and Page. The report identified 17 errors and omissions the FBI made in its four applications to surveil Page. The IG also said the FBI was unable to corroborate allegations that Page was a Russian agent.

Judge James E. Boasberg, who presides over the FISC, tapped Kris [to] serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance warrants. In that role, Kris will “assist” the FISC in assessing the FBI’s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report.

Assistant Attorney General David Kris (l) of the Justice Department’s National Security Division testifies with Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 7, 2009. (Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Nunes and Page both panned the choice of Kris given his past commentary defending the FBI.

“It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside Comey, McCabe, or Schiff,” Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.  

“The choice is shocking and inexplicable.”

Page also weighed in on Kris’s selection to oversee the FBI’s reforms.

“If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess, it extinguished with David Kris’ appointment,” he told The DCNF.

“Nobody trying to fix the rampant abuse and coverup plaguing the entire FISA process would have picked Kris,” continued Page, who called Kris a “longtime FISA apologist.”

“Instead, you appoint Kris for only one reason: you don’t want the system fixed. You just want it to look like you do.”

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/11/2020)  (Archive)

Rod Rosenstein (l) Sharyl Attkisson (c) and Shawn Henry (Credit: public domain)

“A very interesting development in the ongoing effort of former CBS investigative journalist, Sharyl Attkisson, to resolve the issue of who spied on her, planted spyware and infiltrated her computer systems for illegal surveillance.  [Attkisson website here]

According to a recent court filing [Source Here] a person who was engaged in the “wrongful activity” has come forward to provide Ms. Attkisson with details about the operation.  As a result of those whistle-blower revelations Attkisson is able to name specific individuals who were running the operation:

Former DOJ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is named as the person who was in charge of the operation; and the former head of the FBI DC field office, Shawn Henry is also outlined.

Mr. Henry is the head of Crowdstrike, a contractor for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic company.  Those who have followed the aspects related to the FBI use of the NSA database to illegally monitor U.S. persons; and those who followed the DNC cover story of Russia “hacking”; will be familiar with Crowdstrike.

According to the updated lawsuit (full pdf below) Rod Rosenstein, as the U.S. Attorney for Maryland, was in charge of the Obama 2011 and 2012 operation to monitor journalists specific to Ms. Attkissons reporting on Fast-n-Furious and Benghazi.

What I find additionally interesting is the overall timeline in the bigger picture.

In the April 2017 release from FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer outlining the abuses of the FISA-702 process by FBI “contractors”, where the NSA database was being used for unlawful surveillance of U.S. persons, Collyer specifically noted the findings of her review of the period from November ’16 to May ’17 (85% non compliant rate) was likely to have been happening since 2012. [Go Deep]

The “IRS Scandal” where the DOJ was creating a list of U.S. persons for political targeting, and requested CD ROM’s of tax filings, was the lead-up to the 2012 exploitation of the NSA database. [The Secret Research Project] So there’s a larger picture of government surveillance under the Obama administration that becomes more clear.

Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term “Secret Research Project” originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S. Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the FISA abuse:

The IRS sent the FBI “21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The transaction occurred in October 2010 (link)

Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there’s a pre-existing financial crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the surface in early spring 2012.

This is the same time-frame when DNI James Clapper falsely denied to congress about the U.S. government -through the NSA- collecting metadata on all U.S. electronic communication.  This is the same time-frame where CIA Director John Brennan was monitoring the computer networks of congressional intelligence oversight staff.

When you overlay the new information from the Attkisson lawsuit, what emerges is the picture of an intentional effort by the Obama administration to weaponize the ability to collect electronic information on domestic political opposition.  It’s one long continuum.” (Read more: The Conservative Treehouse, 1/10/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch today released 37 pages of new Clinton emails recently found by the FBI that show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her unsecure, non-government email to transmit classified information. The new emails also show Clinton used text messages for government business. The documents, produced to Judicial Watch after a review by the State Department, include 13 new Clinton emails.

The State Department did not provide information about where the emails were found; why they were not previously produced; or if additional records are anticipated. Last month, a Justice Department attorney could not tell a federal court judge how and where the FBI discovered the new cache of Clinton emails. The State Department previously claimed it had produced all releasable Clinton emails, including emails recovered by the FBI that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or withhold. The State Department initially claimed all responsive emails had been produced in 2018, but then found more emails which were produced, for the first time, early last year.

Then in November 2019, the State Department first disclosed to the court that the FBI had found this latest batch of emails.

(…) “Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that show Clinton used text messages for government work, not to mention the continuing flow of classified information transmitted over her unsecure email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents further underscore the need for a fresh, unbiased and thorough criminal investigation into Clinton’s blatant malfeasance – and the related DOJ, FBI, and State Department cover-up.”

Clinton repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in another Judicial Watch case, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”

The production of documents in this case was to have been concluded with the FBI’s recovery of approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Clinton took and tried to destroy, however, the case remains ongoing. (Emails highlighted at Judicial Watch, 1/10/2020)  (Archive)

Remember when Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails?

In response to a court order in a Judicial Watch case, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”

We’ve known for a while that this was not the case.

An ecstatic Hillary Clinton celebrates at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention where she accepted the nomination on July 28, 2016. (Credit: Ben Lowy/ Time)

Now there’s more proof. We have released 37 pages of new Clinton emails recently “found” by the FBI that show the former secretary of state using her unsecured, non-government email to transmit classified information. The new emails also show Clinton used text messages for government business. The documents, which we received after a review by the State Department, include 13 new Clinton emails.

Here’s how poorly these emails were handled. The State Department did not provide information about where they were found; why they were not previously produced, or if additional records are anticipated. Last month, a Justice Department attorney could not tell a federal court judge how and where the FBI discovered the new cache of Clinton emails.

The State Department previously claimed it had produced all responsive Clinton emails, including emails recovered by the FBI that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or withhold. The State Department initially claimed all responsive emails had been produced in 2018, but then found more emails, which were produced, for the first time, early last year. Then in November 2019, the State Department first disclosed to the court that the FBI had found this latest batch of emails.

Here’s what we found.

In an email Clinton’s personal email, dated January 23, 2012, former-British Prime Minister Tony Blair sends details that were redacted as classified.

In a email containing classified information dated August 30, 2011, Jeffrey Feltman, then-Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs suggested Clinton meet Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati in Paris to talk about Syria and other issues.

In an email exchange on August 31, 2011, Clinton top aide Huma Abedin says she sent Clinton “a couple text messages,” and offers to “send Monica [Hanley] to hamptons to help you get organized.”

In an email sent on April 10, 2012, Clinton forwards to her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan a memo on the Egyptian election campaign that includes information on the Muslim Brotherhood that she received from Sidney Blumenthal. In this memo, Blumenthal claims to have “Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western intelligence and security services.”

On November 7, 2012, Mills forwards a classified email chain with the subject “global health doc” to Clinton’s personal email. The initial email, which included a draft of this document was labeled and highlighted “Confidential fyi – not for larger dissemination to ANY others.”

In an email dated August 30, 2011, Clinton forwards to Sullivan, her top foreign policy advisor, an intelligence memo on Libya that was sent to her earlier by Blumenthal with the subject line, “H: Very good intel re: inside NTC. Sid” NTC is the acronym for the Libyan National Transitional Council. The State Department redacted Hillary Clinton’s comments about the Blumenthal Libya memo.

In a heavily redacted email chain between January 25-26, 2009, Clinton CCs her BlackBerry in a discussion about an envoy to North Korea with her then-Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, and former State Department Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Robert Einhorn. Einhorn sends Clinton, “several names for [Clinton’s] consideration.” Clinton replies from her personal email account.

After Einhorn responds, Clinton asks Mills privately to put Einhorn and someone only identified as “Rose” “into transition space.” She also asks that then-Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar be on call lists to “schedule the two of them.”

On February 18, 2009, Mills sends an email to Clinton, Clinton’s BlackBerry and Abedin containing a message “For HRC from [former Ambassador] Frank Wisner” about Clinton’s request for his thoughts on her upcoming trip to Egypt.

On August 2, 2009, in an email with the subject line “Feingold,” Huma Abedin sends to Clinton’s personal email a memo from Russ Feingold about issues concerning Somalia, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Nigeria. The memo also includes information on the Islamist militant group, Boko Haram in Nigeria.

In an email dated January 8, 2012, which included Clinton’s schedule, Abedin emails Clinton’s main scheduler Lona Valmoro to check to see if Clinton will have enough time to prep for her Elle Magazine interview. She also had an interview with Lisa DePaolo of More magazine. That same day, Clinton took five questions during her phone call with 200 personnel from the US Embassy in Kabul.

In an email dated October 31, 2012, then-former-State Department Director of Policy Planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter emailed Clinton’s personal email, as well as Sullivan, Abedin, Mills, and Clinton innovation advisor Alec J. Ross a document asking for State Department support for a satellite channel that would “allow Syrians to talk to Syrians in a citizen-controlled format.” Slaughter adds that she’s “made contact with the Swedes” on this issue.

On November 4, 2012, Valmoro again sends Clinton’s sensitive daily schedule to Clinton and Abedin on the unsecured server.

What does all this mean? Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that show Clinton used text messages for government work, not to mention the continuing flow of classified information transmitted over her unsecured email system. These documents further underscore the need for a fresh, unbiased and thorough criminal investigation into Clinton’s blatant malfeasance – and the related DOJ, FBI, and State Department cover-up.

The production of documents, in this case, was to have been concluded with the FBI’s recovery of approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Clinton took and tried to destroy, but, as you see, this case is still in progress. (Via Judicial Watch email, 1/11/2020)  (Archive)

(This information was received via a Judicial Watch email on January 11, 2020)

Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy (Credit: public domain)

“House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., demanded answers Saturday from the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s office regarding the whistleblower complaint about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Nunes sent a letter to ICIG Michael Atkinson raising several questions about the complaint, which ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment, and repeated requests for information that he said went unanswered for months. While several officials met for closed-door sessions to answer questions following the complaint, Atkinson’s testimony has not been released to the public.

“He’s the only one of all the star chamber games that were played in the basement of the Capitol, with the secretive interviews. The only one that’s not released is the one with the IC Inspector General. “That’s unacceptable,” Nunes told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Nunes, along with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., previously had sent a letter to Atkinson in September 2019 in which they raised a number of issues related to the whistleblower’s complaint. Nunes’ new letter claimed Atkinson’s office has not responded satisfactorily.

Among Nunes’ main concerns: the decision to revise a form for whistleblower complaints that removed the requirement of first-hand information in order for a complaint to be relayed to Congress.

Nunes’ September letter had inquired about the update to the form that had left out the first-hand knowledge requirement, and how it had been dated August 2019 despite evidence that it was created on Sept. 24, 2019. Atkinson’s office later claimed that the form had been backdated in error because it had received preliminary approval in August. Now, Nunes is asking that if that was the case, why it took until late September for it to be posted alone.

“What he’s claiming is, essentially, ‘We’re just dumb, we made mistakes, it was a huge mistake,’” Nunes said Sunday. “That’s fine if you want to claim incompetence, but you need to have the documentation, the evidence to prove that you were indeed incompetent.” (Read more: Fox News, 1/12/2020)  (Archive)

“House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss two very important issues.  The first is the origination of the “whistle-blower” complaint and new issues surrounding Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.  The second important subject is the background of newly installed FISA Court monitor, David Kris, to oversee the FBI reform promises.

CTH has some explosive new information that has been shared with Mr. Nunes on both issues, but we start with the interview and ICIG Michael Atkinson.

Since our original research into Atkinson, there have been some rather interesting additional discoveries.

The key to understanding the corrupt endeavor behind the fraudulent “whistle-blower” complaint, doesn’t actually originate with ICIG Atkinson. The key person is the former head of the DOJ National Security Division, Mary McCord.

Mary McCord (Credit: public domain)

Prior to becoming IC Inspector General, Michael Atkinson was the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division, Mary McCord.

It is very safe to say Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson have a working relationship from their time together in 2016 and 2017 at the DOJ-NSD. Atkinson was Mary McCord’s senior legal counsel; essentially her lawyer.

McCord was the senior intelligence officer who accompanied Sally Yates to the White House in 2017 to confront then White House Counsel Don McGahn about the issues with Michael Flynn and the drummed up controversy over the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak phone call.

Additionally, Mary McCord, Sally Yates, and Michael Atkinson worked together to promote the narrative around the incoming Trump administration “Logan Act” violations. This silly claim (undermining Obama policy during the transition) was the heavily promoted, albeit manufactured, reason why Yates and McCord were presumably concerned about Flynn’s contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It was nonsense.

However, McCord didn’t just disappear in 2017 when she retired from the DOJ-NSD. She resurfaced as part of the Lawfare group assembly after the mid-term election in 2018.

THIS IS THE KEY.

Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord is currently working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.

Now it becomes critical to overlay that detail with how the “whistle-blower” complaint was organized.  Mary McCord’s former NSD attorney, Michael Atkinson, is the intelligence community inspector general who brings forth the complaint.

The “whistle-blower” had prior contact with the staff of the committee.  This is admitted.  So essentially the “whistle-blower” almost certainly had contact with Mary McCord, and then ICIG Michael Atkinson modified the whistle-blower rules to facilitate the outcome.

There is the origination.   That’s where the fraud starts.

The coordination between Mary McCord, the Whistle-blower, and Michael Atkinson is why HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff will not release the transcript from Atkinson’s testimony.

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint aka a Schiff Dossier and handed it to allied CIA operative Eric Ciaramella to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.

Atkinson’s conflict-of-self-interest, and/or possible blackmail upon him by deep state actors who most certainly know his compromise, likely influenced his approach to this whistleblower complaint.   That would explain why the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel so strongly rebuked Atkinson’s interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 1/12/2020)  (Archive)

This documentary was released in conjunction with Consortium News, and sorts out the complicated UkraineGate scandal and the role Joe Biden played in it. (Consortium News, 1/13/2020)  (Archive)  (les-crises.fr)  (Twitter/UkraineGate)

Part 1 – A Not So Solid Prosecutor

We are pleased to present to you today the first video in our documentary series “UkraineGate – Inconvenient Facts”.

Our investigation began in the spring of 2019. It deals with the conflict between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, who has just brought the latter before the Senate for a dismissal trial. The French press having spoken little of it, and the American press having spoken badly of it, we thus bring our stone to the search for the truth on the actions of the Obama administration.

Through several episodes, this independent investigation reveals a number of facts unknown to the general public and highlights the major problems with the quality of information across the Atlantic. It is based on the use of Ukrainian open sources, which our investigation teams verified, cross-checked and then analyzed, with the help of experts whom we met and interviewed.

From Joe Biden, this investigation will take us to the heart of the Ukrainian and international corruption networks…

Part 2 – Not so “dormant” investigations

This second episode focuses on the investigations of General prosecutor Shokin, described as “dormant” by the Biden clan. It demonstrates the fallacy of the narrative launched by Biden’s communication advisors. But you will also discover that Biden’s defense – widely reported by the mainstream media without any verification – has been challenged by Viktor Shokin in various interviews, of which we reveal several excerpts that have never been broadcast…

Part 3 – A not so noble president

In this third episode, we publish several important testimonials, through exceptional exclusive interviews. You will thus discover the revelations of several personalities, such as the Director of the Ukrainian Action Centre against Corruption, but also a former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, a former Ukrainian diplomat, and other famous specialists on Ukraine… We are particularly grateful to Oleksandr Onyschenko for the importance of his testimony. This oligarch, a former member of parliament, was a close associate of Petro Poroshenko, whose mission included corrupting Ukrainian elected officials. Disgusted by these mafia practices, he repented by becoming a whistleblower. Since our interview, he has been arrested in Germany, where he is awaiting an extradition judgment – Interpol having refused to prosecute him since 2016…

Part 4 – Shokin Strikes Back

In the fourth episode, we exclusively present the crucial testimony of the one who was forced to resign under pressure from Joe Biden, the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin.

“Yesterday’s ridiculous, albeit proactive, New York Times narrative about Russians hacking Burisma now makes sense.  Today the Lawfare team (Mary McCord et al) within Adam Schiff’s impeachment crew sends additional files of evidence (pdf below) to be included in the impeachment articles constructed by HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler.

It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.  The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence-gathering phase. Additionally, the Lawfare crew anticipates a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.

So the proactive democrat strategy was/is to use the New York Times presentation of Russia hacking Burisma to negate the provenance of the evidence against the Bidens.  In essence, to cast doubt upon any documents that would show Joe and Hunter Biden participating in an actual influence and money-laundering scheme.

The SDNY created legal leverage upon Lev Parnas using the familiar strategy of charging “FARA violations”, as noted in the background of the House explanation.

The purpose was/is to extract anything from Parnas that could be twisted or construed to show evidence that Rudy Giuliani was working on behalf of President Trump to pressure Ukraine into investigating Burisma, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

To counter any evidence that would highlight the truth that Hunter and Joe Biden were indeed participating in a pay-to-play influence and money laundering scheme for personal financial benefit, the same democrat operatives created a 2020 Russian ‘hacking claim’ using former Crowdstrike employee Blake Darché and his colleague Oren Falkowitz.

NYT – […] The hackers fooled some of them into handing over their login credentials, and managed to get inside one of Burisma’s servers, Area 1 said.

“The attacks were successful,” said Oren Falkowitz, a co-founder of Area 1, who previously served at the National Security Agency. Mr. Falkowitz’s firm maintains a network of sensors on web servers around the globe — many known to be used by state-sponsored hackers — which gives the firm a front-row seat to phishing attacks, and allows them to block attacks on their customers. (link)

Blake Darche’ and Oren Falkowitz formed a new cyber-security company named “Area-1 Security”.  It is an analysis from this group that the New York Times uses to push the Russian hacking of Burisma narrative.  It’s all the same players, just switching around the subject.

• The 2016 Lawfare group is now 2020’s Just Security;
• the 2016 CrowdStrike group is now 2020’s Area-1 Security;
• and the 2016 Russia DNC hack is now the 2020 Russia Burisma hack… 

It’s the same players, the same story, the same approach.

Go deep on Oleg Falkowitz and Oren Falkowitz HERE

In February 2008, Oleg Falkowitz was hired as the Iran Mission Manager and Special Assistant For Policy and Cybersecurity at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In February 2009, Oleg Falkowitz left his position at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In August 2010, Oleg Falkowitz was hired as Director of Technology and Data Science Program (J2 — Intelligence) at the United States Cyber Command.

In July 2012, Oleg Falkowitz left his position at both the United States Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.

The same month, Oren Falkowitz co-founded the organisation sqrrl and became the Chief Executive Officer.

In January 2013, Falkowitz left his position at sqrrl.

In November 2013, Oren Falkowitz, Blake Darché and Phil Syme founded the organisation Area 1 Security.

Blake Darché published the article “Once a Target, Always a Target” in Medium, which was about “Cozy Bear”.

Between July 17–19, 2017, Oren Falkowitz, John Brennan, Andrea Mitchell and David Sanger attended the Fortune Brainstorm Tech Conference in Aspen, CO.

LINK to Background

(Conservative Treehouse, 1/14/2020)  (Archive)

Lev Parnas (Credit: Peter Foley/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

“House Democrats on Tuesday released a cache of notes and text messages from former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, shedding significant light on key aspects of ‘Ukrainegate’ at the heart of impeachment proceedings against President Trump. This includes efforts to get the former US Ambassador to Ukraine recalled, as well as Giuliani laying out his mission and the situation in Ukraine at the time.

The first segment of the 38-page release contains several pages of undated, unverified, hand-written notes from the Ritz-Carlton Vienna, ostensibly penned by Parnas – which state “get zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated,” and “Put together package,” followed by “Go to D.C. with package,” and “Do my ‘magic’ and cut deal.”

The second segment details January, 2019 efforts by Parnas to have Rudy Giuliani secure a visa for Viktor Shokin – the former Ukrainian prosecutor who instead testified via a January 2019 phone call that he was fired at the request of then-VP Joe Biden for investigating Burisma – a Ukrainian gas company which hired Biden’s son hunter for more than $50,000 per month to sit on its board.

“Btw they declined his visa today,” Parnas wrote Giuliani, referring to Shokin, to which Giuliani responds “I can revive it.”

Despite Giuliani involving “no 1” on it (possibly Trump), he was ultimately unable to secure the visa, leading to Shokin’s testimony via telephone.

The third segment of the release involves discussions from March, 2019 between Parnas and an associate surrounding the effort to get former US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch fired. The associate, Congressional House GOP candidate Robert F. Hyde of Connecticut, appears to have ties within the incoming Zelensky administration – which wanted Yovanovitch fired.” (Read more: The Hill, 1/14/2020)  (Archive)

Judge Amit Mehta (Credit: National Law Journal)

“Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court yesterday ordered a snap hearing after the Justice Department submitted information under seal on Friday following the court’s demand for an explanation of why no records have been produced in the ongoing legal battle for documents about the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal involving the Awan brothers. The hearing is set for tomorrow, January 15, at 10 am.

In a joint status report filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests “because the agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter so as to avoid having to produce records in this case.” In that same report the DOJ told the court that Judge Chutkan is “presiding over a related sealed criminal matter” that prohibits the government from releasing the requested FOIA information.

In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay. Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court.

“The cover-up of the Awan Brothers Democratic IT scandal shows the FBI and DOJ’s penchant for dishonesty isn’t just limited to FISA abuse,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The DOJ’s handling of the Awan Brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are expected to believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth about this scandal. We are skeptical.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 1/14/2020)  (Archive)

“A federal judge Thursday agreed to postpone Michael Flynn’s sentencing for another month while he considers the former Trump national security adviser’s recent request to withdraw his guilty plea over false statements to the FBI.

In his order, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan set a new sentencing hearing for Feb. 27, while also spelling out a series of deadlines for lawyers in the case to explain their views on the retired Army general’s unusual move.

Flynn formally told Sullivan on Monday he wanted out of the plea deal he’d reached with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s office in late 2017. That decision comes months after Flynn shifted to a more confrontational defense strategy, hiring new lawyers and fighting with federal prosecutors over planned testimony in a related criminal case.

The abrupt turn to a more combative style prompted federal prosecutors earlier this month to tell Sullivan that Flynn was no longer exhibiting the same remorse he did when he entered his guilty plea. As a result, DOJ prosecutors recommended that Flynn face a sentence of up to six months in prison, potentially a much stiffer penalty than probation, which the government seemed open to a year ago.” (Read more: Politico, 1/16/2020)  (Archive)

FBI whistleblower Nate Cain has recently filed a complaint against Michael Atkinson for lowering the standards of an intelligence community whistleblower complaint, that now allows hearsay evidence. Atkinson is the Intelligence Community Inspector General who protected the CIA hearsay whistleblower, whose complaint led to President Trump’s impeachment.

(Credit: The Daily Mail)

The New York Times just published a bombshell report that’s faintly reminiscent of the scoops that the Liberal paper of record used to publish during the spring and summer of 2017 when the Mueller probe was in its infancy.

Except this time, instead of the leak focusing on alleged wrongdoing by President Trump and his inner circle, the NYT is focusing on former FBI Director James Comey, who has increasingly been taken to task by the mainstream press in recent months for his botched handling of both the Clinton investigation and the origins of the probe in Russian interference (remember that?).”

According to veteran NYT reporter Adam Goldman (a reporter who won a Pulitzer in 2018 for his work bolstering the Russian interference narrative), federal prosecutors have launched an investigation into an earlier incident of leaking by former FBI Director James Comey.

(…) The latest investigation involves material that Dutch intelligence operatives siphoned off Russian computers and provided to the United States government. The information included a Russian analysis of what appeared to be an email exchange during the 2016 presidential campaign between Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who was also the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, and Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, a democracy-promoting organization whose founder, George Soros, has long been a target of the far right.

In the email, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested that then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch would make sure that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted in the email case. Both Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Benardo have denied being in contact, suggesting the document was meant to be Russian disinformation.

That document was one of the key factors that drove Mr. Comey to hold a news conference in July 2016 announcing that investigators would recommend no charges against Mrs. Clinton. Typically, senior Justice Department officials would decide how to proceed in such a high-profile case, but Mr. Comey was concerned that if Ms. Lynch played a central role in deciding whether to charge Mrs. Clinton, Russia could leak the email.

(…) It’s believed that the investigation began in recent months, but it’s unclear whether a grand jury has been impaneled, or how many witness [sic] have been interviewed.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 1/16/2020)  (Archive)

Sidney Powell (Credit: The Epoch Times)

“Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, presented evidence that shows that prosecutors knowingly pressured him to lie, his lawyer said.

“This evinces the strong inference the prosecutors themselves conspired to cause Mr. Flynn to make false statements,” Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell said in a Jan. 16 court filing (pdf).

(…) The lobbying registration, filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by the Flynn-hired law firm Covington & Burling, pertained to a job that Flynn’s now-defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel Group (FIG), did for Alptekin’s firm Inovo.

Alptekin hired FIG in the summer of 2016 to do research and lobbying focused on an Islamic cleric living in exile in Pennsylvania, Fethullah Gulen. Gulen runs a group that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed for an attempted 2016 coup. Prosecutors said Flynn lied in the FARA forms about the extent the Turkish government was involved with the project.

In June 2019, after Flynn fired Covington and hired new lawyers, led by Powell, prosecutors asked Flynn to testify that he signed the lobbying forms intentionally knowing there were lies in them. He refused, saying he only learned about the issues with the forms in retrospect.

That angered the lead prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, notes from a June 27, 2019 conference call indicate.

(Supplemental Brief, footnote pg 3)

But Powell now argues that the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false statement. She filed with the court a draft of Flynn’s Statement of Offense, which shows that the words pertaining to the FARA registration, “FLYNN then and there knew” were cut from the final version.

Moreover, Powell submitted emails that indicate the words were cut by the prosecutors themselves after Flynn’s then-lawyers raised some objections to the draft.

“Point is, they knew that what they were demanding Flynn do was lie about himself and admit he did something that all along he said he didn’t,” Powell said in an email to The Epoch Times. (Read more: The Epoch Times, 1/19/2020)  (Archive)

Former FBI Director James Comey on Capitol Hill, Dec. 17, 2018. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

“In a curious report on Thursday evening, the New York Times carefully averts its eyes from everything that’s interesting. Even Adam Schiff has acknowledged that James Comey’s actions in 2016 may represent the most important and significant Russian influence on the election. (Hoist your shot glass. This will be the umpteenth time I’ve quoted Mr. Schiff on this matter in this column.)

“A trail of documents has reportedly led Attorney General William Barr’s handpicked federal prosecutor to focus his inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation on the first several months of President Trump’s tenure.”

John Durham is zeroing in on the period spanning from January 2017, when Trump took office, to May of that year. A “strong” paper trail,   has led the investigation into possible misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials to that time frame.

Barr and Durham have traveled around the world for the investigation, and Durham’s team has already asked witnesses about possible anti-Trump bias among former FBI officials. The secretive DOJ inquiry includes scrutiny of former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele.

Little else is known about the investigation other than that Durham is exploring whether a crime was committed by Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who was found by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to have altered a document during the FBI’s efforts to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal to continue wiretapping onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The period of time under scrutiny by Durham also covers a leak to reporters that federal prosecutors in D.C. are investigating. The Russian intelligence document under scrutiny, word of which made its way into press reports in the spring of 2017, factored into former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, and Comey himself appears to be the focus of that inquiry. Comey was fired in May 2017, after which Mueller was appointed special counsel to lead the Russia investigation.

Barr says, “We have to be careful about the way we collect evidence. And we have to make sure that we have enough evidence to justify our actions. And we’re not going to cut corners in that respect,”  . “You know, there’s some people who think this thing is going to drop in a few weeks. That’s not the case. I see this, perhaps, reaching an important watershed perhaps in the late spring, early summer.” (Read more: The Washington Examiner, 1/17/2020)  (Archive)

“Remarkable interview between the attorney for Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, on WMAL radio with Larry O’Conner.  Ms. Powell describes the current status of the case and the filings to withdraw the guilty plea.  Additionally, Ms. Powell drops a bombshell in that they have a witness to the original Flynn-302 the government says doesn’t exist.

O’Conner does a great interview because he understands the background and details of the case.  His probing questions allow Ms. Powell to share valuable insight.

The original FBI report is reported to have statements to the effect that Michael Flynn was not lying.  The prosecution says no such FBI FD-302 report exists; however, Ms. Powell now shares that they have a witness to it.   Audio Below  Just hit play on the toolbar:”

(Conservative Treehouse, 1/17/2020)  (Archive)

**********

The Epoch Times adds, “Powell said in the WMAL radio interview that if Sullivan allows the plea withdrawal and the case goes to trial, she will call witnesses including former FBI Director James Comey, his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and the “agent who cannot be named,” referring to Special Agent Joe Pientka.

It was Strzok and Pientka who interviewed Flynn, while Comey and McCabe were involved in planning the interview. Powell previously requested Clapper’s phone records to “confirm” whether he communicated with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, “especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn,’” she said.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 1/20/2020)   (Archive)

Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, speaks at a rally against discredited Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytsky on July 17, 2018. (Credit: Oleg Petrasluk)

“Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign released a video Tuesday that quoted a Ukrainian anti-corruption activist who said in 2019 that Hunter Biden “did a very bad thing” by working for Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings.

The campaign released the video, narrated by rapid response director Andrew Bates, in order to push back on Trump allies’ allegations that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government in 2016 to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin in order to shut down an investigation of Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a director.

The video quoted Daria Kaleniuk, an activist with the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, criticizing Shokin as maintaining a “Soviet system of prosecution which intimidates people.”

But the Biden campaign appears to have overlooked another target of Kaleniuk’s scrutiny.

“I think Hunter Biden did a very bad thing and he was very wrong. He allowed his name to be abused,” she told ABC News in an interview that aired June 20, 2019. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/21/2020)  (Archive)

“For over a decade, the work of five-time New York Times bestselling investigative reporter Peter Schweizer has sent shockwaves through the political universe.

Clinton Cash revealed the Clintons’ international money flow, exposed global corruption, and sparked an FBI investigation. Secret Empires exposed bipartisan corruption and launched congressional investigations. And Throw Them All Out and Extortion prompted passage of the STOCK Act. Indeed, Schweizer’s “follow the money” bombshell revelations have been featured on the front pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and regularly appear on national news programs, including 60 Minutes.

Now Schweizer and his team of seasoned investigators turn their focus to the nation’s top progressives—politicians who strive to acquire more government power to achieve their political ends.

Can they be trusted with more power?

In Profiles in Corruption, Schweizer offers a deep-dive investigation into the private finances and secrets deals of some of America’s top political leaders. And, as usual, he doesn’t disappoint, with never-before-reported revelations that uncover corruption and abuse of power—all backed up by a mountain of corporate documents and legal filings from around the globe. Learn about how they are making sweetheart deals, generating side income, bending the law to their own benefits, using legislation to advance their own interests, and much more.” (Amazon)

John Bolton (Credit: Tatyana Zenkovich/Shutterstock)

“The [National Security Council] told former national security adviser John Bolton that his tell-all book contains “significant amounts of classified information,” including some which is “TOP SECRET” and could harm national security.

“Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed, as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” the letter continues.

Notably, the letter, sent from the National Security Council to Bolton’s attorneys, was sent three days before the manuscript mysteriously leaked to the New York Times on the eve of the Senate impeachment proceedings – sparking a debate over calling Bolton as a witness in the trial.

A fact-checker for the Washington Post has already suggested the NSC is lying.

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 1/29/2020)  (Archive)

January 25, 2020 – Rudy Giuliani Common Sense EP. 1: Since No Crimes Exist, It Must Be Dismissed

January 30, 2020 – Rudy Giuliani Common Sense Ep. 2 The Trial: Opening Statement | Bombshell Documents

January 31, 2020 – Common Sense Ep. 3 The Trial: Witness One | exclusive interview with Viktor Shokin

February 6, 2020 – Common Sense Ep. 4 The Trial: The Biden family crimes conclusively proved | sworn affidavit

February 8, 2020 – Common Sense Ep. 5 | The Complete Witness: Proof of Bribery & Collusion

February 12, 2020 – Proving Extensive Corruption & Criminal Conduct by the Biden Family Enterprise | Common Sense Ep. 6

February 14, 2020 – EXCLUSIVE Interview with Steve Bannon: 2020 Campaign, Ukraine, and Crooked Democrats

February 19, 2020 – Inside the Prosecutor’s File and Bombshell Documents | Common Sense Ep. 8

February 21, 2020 – The BLOCKBUSTER Report & RAPE of Ukraine | Common Sense Ep. 9

February 26, 2020 – Interview with Ukrainian Whistleblower Over EXCLUSIVE New Documents | Common Sense Ep. 10

February 29, 2020 – $5.3 Billion in Ukrainian Foreign Aid Missing | Rudy Giuliani’s Common Sense Ep. 11

(Credit: Rudy Giuliani – Common Sense)

Rupert Allason (Credit: public domain)

“A British author who specializes in espionage raised serious doubts about former MI6 officer Christopher Steele’s salacious dossier, which was included in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Rupert Allason, a former member of Parliament whose pen name is Nigel West, conducted a forensic analysis of Steele’s work, which made stunning allegations about coordination between Trump’s camp and Russia. He came away “stunned” by what he viewed to be a poor job by a former intelligence officer whom he once considered to be a friend.

“There is … a strong possibility that all Steele’s material has been fabricated,” Allason wrote in a report obtained by the British newspaper Sunday Times. [paywall]

Allason, 68, was commissioned by a Republican law firm after the dossier, a series of reports that included details of an alleged video obtained by the Russians of Trump with prostitutes urinating on a bed in a Moscow hotel room, was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.

Allason’s report comes in the wake of an assessment by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who condemned Steele, 55, and the FBI for its reliance on his dossier to obtain warrants for wiretapping onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Additionally, special counsel Robert Mueller concluded an investigation last year that found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The FBI has been heavily criticized by Trump and his Republican allies for not making clear to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that Steele’s work, commissioned by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was funded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm.” (Read more: Washington Examiner, 1/26/2020)  (Archive)

“Former Harvard Law Professor, author, and Democrat, Alan Dershowitz, testified in defense of President Donald Trump in the US Senate Impeachment Trial.

Alan Dershowtiz: It follows, it follows from this that any president would have done what the Times reported about the contact of the Bolton manuscript. That would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat, nothing in the Bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense..

(Read more: Gateway Pundit, 1/27/2020) (Archive)

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

“The “House Bolton Maneuver” was a pre-planned operation to use a timed NSC ‘resistance’ leak to frame a new demand for testimony in the Senate. From the beginning the House intentionally constructed an impeachment process to avoid the judicial branch because the construction of the articles was dependent on an unconstitutional creation: impeachment by decree of the Speaker.

As a result of their approach, the House fully intended to usurp their lack of judicial subpoena authority by placing political pressure on the Senate to call the trial witnesses they knew were unattainable due to separation of powers within the constitutional process.  By design the House plan puts the burden of compulsory witness testimony upon the Senate because the House refused to create their own authority with a vote to initiate the impeachment process.

The House effort was, and is, an end-run around the constitutional outline for impeachment.  This was not a flaw; it was a feature of the House creation.

(Conservative Treehouse, 1/27/2020)  (Archive)

Before her nomination, Ambassador Yovanovitch was briefed specifically on Burisma by the Obama Administration in case she got a question about it.

The Washington Post reported that the fired prosecutor believed he lost his job because he was investigating Burisma.

The media asked about Hunter’s position on multiple occasions.

ABC questioned Hunter’s business dealings in both Ukraine and China.

Witnesses testified that there was at least an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hunter Biden was paid $83,333 per month by Burisma for 17 months.

(Videos clips are posted for each point: Benny@bennyjohnson/Twitter, 1/27/2020)

Full Video:

“New FOIA docs expose David Kris, the anti-Trump Obama- period DOJ official appointed to oversee FISA reforms was sending WaPo op-ed drafts attacking Nunes’s FISA memorandum to other DOJ participants requesting for edits as well as clearance.

(Credit: @Techno_Fog)

There’s more …

David Kris likewise called Nunes a “chairman who appears to have gone rogue.”

(Credit: Techno_Fog)

David Kris (Credit: public domain)

(…) GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH) and Mark Meadows (NC) recently sent a letter to Judge Boasberg demanding answers about David Kris’s appointment to oversee FISA reforms.

In a letter obtained by The Gateway Pundit, the GOP Congressmen stated that “if the FISC’s goal is to hold the FBI accountable for its serious misconduct, Mr. Kris does not appear to be an objective — or likely effective — amicus curiae for several reasons.”

Meadows and Jordan gave Judge Boasberg until January 30th to provide the information they requested.” (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 1/27/2020)  (Archive)

Fox News host Tucker Carlson aimed his Monday night “Tucker Carlson Tonight” opening monologue at “disgraced former National Security Adviser John Bolton.”

Bolton’s upcoming book, the New York Times reported Sunday, will contend that President Donald Trump intentionally tied aid to Ukraine to a desired investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

WATCH: 

Part I

Part II

“Back during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump used to recite a poem about a woman who took a dying snake into her home and nursed it back to health,” Carlson began. “The snake did become healthy, and then immediately whipped around and bit the woman. As she breathed her last breaths, the woman asked the snake, ‘why did you do this?’ ‘Because I’m a snake,’ was the reply. ‘That’s what we do.’”

The Fox News host likened the story to “former National Security Adviser John Bolton,” whose betrayal of President Donald Trump seemingly “shocked” Washington Republicans.

“But they shouldn’t be shocked,” Carlson said. “That’s who John Bolton is. That’s who John Bolton has always been. That’s what John Bolton does.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 1/27/2020)  (Archive)

Senators Chuck Grassley (l) and Ron Johnson (Credit: public domain)

“Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee have formerly requested that Attorney General William Barr declassify four footnotes in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s FISA abuse investigation. The letter states that the classified footnotes contradict information in Horowitz’s report that appears to have misled the public.

U.S. Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the classified letter Tuesday evening and questioned the contradiction between the footnotes and what was made public by Horowitz’s team regarding the bureau’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.  However, the Senators did not disclose what section of the December FISA report contradicts the footnotes in their findings.

Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes, letter states.

The Senators state in their letter to Barr that certain sections of Horowitz’s report on the FBI are misleading the public.” (Read more: Sarah Carter, 1/28/2020)  (Archive)

“Last week’s political trifecta—the Iowa caucus, the State of the Union, and President Trump’s impeachment acquittal—temporarily starved other stories of oxygen. Among those was the news that the inspector general’s report on FISA abuse was misleading and that redacted information contained in four footnotes contradicted sections of the lengthy expose on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson dropped that bombshell in a letter delivered to Attorney General William Barr that requested Barr declassify the information hidden in the redacted footnotes. While the declassified version of the Grassley-Johnson letter did not identify the four footnotes at issue, a detailed analysis of the IG report suggests the redacted information concerned Christopher Steele’s sources and potentially the FBI’s purported predication for the launch of Crossfire Hurricane. These conclusions come from a deep-dive into the IG report read in tandem with the Grassley-Johnson letter.

That letter noted that the senators had “reviewed the classified report of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and [were] deeply concerned about certain information that remains classified.” Their concern? “That certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes.”

The next sentence is the key, as it establishes that the redacted information concerns not just a few details addressed in the IG report, but goes to the heart of the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation: “This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation.”

From these details—that the redacted information contradicts “sections of the public version of the report” and provides insight “for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation”—it is possible to pinpoint the footnotes and concerns Grassley and Johnson see.” (Read more: The Federalist, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko applauds Joe Biden after a speech to the Ukrainian Parliament on December 8, 2015. (Credit: Mikhail Palinchak/The Associated Press)

“Former top Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin has filed a criminal complaint with the state authorities, claiming former US Vice President Joe Biden strong-armed Kiev into firing him in order to stop the Burisma investigation.

In the complaint Shokin sent to the Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) on Tuesday, the former prosecutor requests that Biden be charged with “interference with the activities of a law enforcement officer.” The document was obtained by the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.

Shokin urged the SBI to kick-start a pre-trial investigation into the alleged crime committed by Biden, who he claims was illegally pressuring Ukrainian officials into ousting him from office while using a $1 billion loan guarantee as leverage.

Noting that Biden, in his official capacity as the second-in-command in the US political hierarchy, repeatedly visited Ukraine in late 2015 and early 2016 to persuade high-ranking officials to remove him, Shokin argued that “as a result, he curtailed an objective investigation criminal proceedings on the facts of unlawful activities of persons associated with the company Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus), including the son of the specified high-ranking official [Biden’s son Hunter, who sat on the company’s board from 2014 till 2019].”

Shokin specifically refers to the recently released documentary series ‘UkraineGate: Inconvenient facts’ by French investigative journalist Olivier Berruyer, which challenges the Western media claims that the corruption investigation into Burisma was “dormant” at the time Biden was lobbying for Shokin’s dismissal.

Berruyer, founder of the popular anti-corruption blog Les Crises, said that he collected documents that show that the investigation into the gas company was in full swing at the time.” (Read more: RT, 1/29/2020)  (Archive)

UPDATE:

This is Viktor Shokin. He is the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden accused of being corrupt and had removed.

In this video he responds to accusations that his investigation into Burisma was dormant or that he was corrupt. He tells the truth about why he was removed as prosecutor.… pic.twitter.com/4kmXexBsmL

— MAZE (@mazemoore) August 4, 2023

General Flynn filed two bombshell motions today: one further supporting his request to withdraw his plea, and the other seeking to dismiss his case for egregious government misconduct. Read the motions below:

Full court filings:

Completed ECF 160 (with Attachments)

Doc. 162 Flynn Motion to Dismiss for Egregious Government Misconduct and in the Interest of Justice

(Sidney Powell, 1/29/2020)  (Archive)

Lawyers representing Lt. General Michael Flynn have filed a motion to dismiss [pdf here] citing “government misconduct”.  Additionally, Mr. Flynn has filed a declaration [pdf here] requesting to remove his prior guilty plea and take the case to trial.  Hours later the DOJ revised their sentencing memo, dropped their request for jail time and offered probation.

Within the motion to dismiss (full pdf embed below) Flynn’s legal team points out several issues with the prosecution of Mr. Flynn and highlights the recent findings, admissions and briefs amid the IG report, DOJ notifications to the FISA Court, and FISC orders therein.

NOTE: FBI Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Pientka III, the FBI agent with his finger in the majority of the corrupt FBI activity, has an ongoing protective court order upon his personage requiring the redaction and/or removal of his name from any government or case document.   No-one has publicly stated the reason for the protective order.

Complete Motion for Dismissal

Additionally, for the first time, in a declaration to the court, we get to hear from Lt. General Michael Flynn himself about the situation and legal status.  Mr. Flynn explains the reason why he accepted a guilty plea on December 1st, 2017.

Full Flynn Declaration

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 1/29/2020)  (Archive)

“Senator Rand Paul appears on Fox News with Martha MacCallum to discuss how the impeachment process originated. One of Senator Paul’s concerns centers around the staff of Adam Schiff and the HPSCI plotting the impeachment process.

Former NSC member Sean Misko (currently on Schiff’s staff), and former DOJ-NSD head, Mary McCord, may have participated in constructing a whistle-blower complaint eventually presented by CIA operative Eric Ciaramella; using false evidence provided by current NSC member Alexander Vindman.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(Conservative Treehouse, 1/30/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit: Senate Television clipping)

(…) “The contacts between members of Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower are shrouded in secrecy to this day,” deputy Trump counsel Patrick Philbin said responding to a question asked at Wednesday’s trial by senators about RCI’s reporting earlier this month. “Obviously to get to the bottom of motivations, bias, how this inquiry was all created, [it] could be relevant.”

Schiff claimed he cannot talk about who among his staff met with the “whistleblower,” because they have received “threats” online. He says he must “protect” them, along with the whistleblower’s identity, which he insists he does not know. Schiff also suggested RCI was “circulating smears on my staff,” though he did not deny the story.

On an official question card, GOP Sen. Rand Paul Thursday submitted a direct question for Schiff based on  story: “Are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko has a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together? Are you aware and how do you respond to a report that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”

However, the question was never asked. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, blocked it after screening the card, ostensibly because it included the name of the official believed to be the whistleblower. “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts declared in rejecting Paul’s query.

Earlier, Roberts had signaled to Senate leaders behind the scenes that he would not read aloud the alleged whistleblower’s name or otherwise publicly relay questions that might out the official.

Constitutional scholars say the disputed question was an unprecedented situation.

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who testified as an expert in the House impeachment hearings, said Roberts had no legal reason to quash the senator’s question since it did not violate federal whistleblower laws.

“This is relatively uncharted because the reading of the name does not directly violate federal law,” Turley said.

He speculated Roberts simply claimed an inherent authority to block the question under “decorum and restraint.”

It remains unclear how Roberts knew Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower when Paul did not outright say he was the whistleblower in the question card that was handed Roberts to read. “My question made no reference to any whistleblower,” Paul affirmed. Did the presiding justice consult with Schiff or other House managers prior to the 16-hour question period? If so, did Roberts violate his own impartiality oath?

Paul said he was given no explanation for the rejection of a question that could have drawn out exculpatory information for the president. He blamed Roberts and the Senate for “selective belief in protecting the whistleblower statute … Nobody says they know who the person is. But anybody you say might be [the whistleblower] all of a sudden is protected from being part of the debate.”

The Kentucky senator said he considered requesting a roll call vote to overrule Roberts’ “incorrect finding,” but decided Friday’s debate over witnesses would generate too many motions and votes to make it feasible.

Effectively silenced, Paul held a press conference Thursday afternoon in which he explained the significance of asking such questions: “It’s very important whether or not a group of Democratic activists, part of the Obama-Biden administration, were working together for years looking for an opportunity to impeach the president.”

He compared Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko to disgraced FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page plotting to prevent Trump from being president.

With a paucity of information about the whistleblower forthcoming from both government and media, only one side has been allowed to do any real fact-finding during the impeachment process. And that’s left the defendant — Donald J. Trump — still unable to cross-examine his main accuser.” (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 1/31/2020)  (Archive)