(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)

“The National Archives is in the process of reviewing several thousand documents related to meetings held between senior Obama Administration and Ukrainian officials at the White House in 2016. The trove of documents was discovered after a request for documents was submitted by two top GOP Senators in November of last year, this website has learned.

The documents requested by Senator’s Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, are significant as they directly concern meetings that senior Obama Administration and Ukrainian officials had at the White House in 2016. The documents are expected to be reviewed for classification purposes, as well as Executive privilege by lawyers for both President Obama and President Donald Trump, officials told SaraACarter.com.

Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, and Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, sent the three page detailed request letter in November to David S. Ferriero, the head of the National Archives. The request was for “records of multiple White House meetings that took place in 2016 between and among Obama Administration officials, Ukrainian government representatives, and Democratic National Committee officials.”

Sen. Johnson, who spoke to this reporter, said:

“…we will continue our oversight. We are going to get to the bottom of what all has been happening here. Hopefully we will get access to the information to make it available to the American public so they really do understand what’s been happening.”

A source familiar with the ongoing Senate investigation told SaraACarter.com that the request for documents “is still in NARA’s notification process.”

The National Archives (NARA) did not immediately respond for comment. This story will be updated when and if NARA officials respond to the request. (Read more: Sarah Carter, 2/03/2020)  (Archive)

“Earlier today Senator Rand Paul delivered his remarks on impeachment from the Senate floor.  During his remarks Senator Paul highlighted the real and present danger of allowing agents within government to plot against a sitting president.

Senator Paul asks the same question he presented to Chief Justice John Roberts as the presiding officer of the Senate trial.  A question Roberts refused to ask:

“Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn [sic] Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together; and are you aware -and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?“

(Conservative Treehouse, 2/04/2020)  (Archive)

FBI Oversight Hearing – February 5, 2020

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified at an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Wray addressed Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December 2019 report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse allegations during the 2016 election. “The failures highlighted in that report are unacceptable, period. They don’t reflect who the FBI is as an institution and they cannot be repeated,” he said. Mr. Wray added that his agency was implementing all of the recommendations made in the report and taking even further steps to ensure higher accountability.

(CSpan 2/05/2020)

Chuck Grassley (l) and Ron Johnson

“The Treasury Department has handed over documents to a pair of GOP Senate chairmen as part of a months-long probe into Burisma Holdings, Ukraine and Hunter Biden, according to the top Democrat on one of the panels.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — the chairmen of the Finance and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees, respectively — sent a letter to the Treasury Department in November saying they were investigating “potentially improper actions” during the Obama administration.

The Treasury Department is complying with their request, according to a spokeswoman for Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, who noted that Democratic requests for information have been stonewalled.

(…) The development was first reported by Yahoo News, with a source telling the publication that the Treasury Department began complying with the Grassley-Johnson request in less than two months.

A spokesman for the Treasury Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.   (Read more: The Hill, 2/06/2020)  (Archive)

Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman not only funded the group that sabotaged the Iowa caucus, he also bankrolled the notorious online “false flag operation” in Alabama’s 2017 senate campaign, reports Max Blumenthal.

Reid Hoffman (Credit: public domain)

(…) The force accused of sowing the confusion and disarray surrounding the first Democrat Party contest of the 2020 election season is a dark money Democratic nonprofit called Acronym. It was Acronym that launched Shadow Inc, the mysterious company behind the now-infamous, unsecured, completely unworkable voter app which prevented precinct chairs from reporting vote totals on caucus night.

The exceptionally opaque Acronym was itself created with seed money from a Silicon Valley billionaire named Reid Hoffman who has financed a series of highly manipulative social media campaigns.

Dmitri Mehlhorn (Credit: public domain)

The billionaire founder of LinkedIn, Hoffman is a top funder of novel Democratic Party social media campaigns accused of manipulating voters through social media. He is assisted by Dmitri Mehlhorn, a corporate consultant who pushed school privatization before joining Hoffman’s political empire.

One of the most consequential beneficiaries of Hoffman’s wealth is Acronym CEO Tara McGowan, a 33-year-old former journalist and Obama for America veteran.

Once touted as “a weapon of a woman whose innovative tactics make her critically important to the Democratic Party,” McGowan’s name is now synonymous with the fiasco in Iowa. She happens to be married to a senior advisor to Buttigieg’s presidential campaign.

Back in December 2018, McGowan personally credited Hoffman and Mehlhorn’s Investing in US initiative with the birth of her dark money pressure group, Acronym.

“I’m personally grateful and proud to be included in this group of incredible political founders + startups @reidhoffman and his team, led by Dmitri [Mehlhorn], have supported and helped to fund over the past two years,” she declared on Twitter in December 2018.

At the time, Hoffman had just been exposed for funding Project Birmingham, a covert disinformation campaign consisting of false flag tactics that aimed to depress voter turnout and create the perception of Russian interference in the 2017 Alabama senate election.

Hoffman and Mehlhorn have also faced scrutiny for their alleged operation of a series of deceptive pages that attempted to manipulate center-right users into voting for Democrats. Today, Acronym’s McGowan oversees a massive Facebook media operation that employs similarly deceptive techniques to sway voters.

Tara McGowan (Credit: public domain)

Through youthful, tech-centric operatives like McGowan, Hoffman and Mehlhorn are building up a massive new infrastructure that could supplant the party’s apparatus.

As Vanity Fair reported, “Hoffman and Mehlhorn, after all, are not just building a power base that could supplement traditional Democratic organizations, they are, potentially, laying the groundwork to usurp the D.N.C. entirely.” (Read more: Consortium News, 2/06/2020)  (Archive)

***

“Iowa’s voting debacle has renewed fears that the DNC is again working against Bernie Sanders and his grassroots campaign. The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal breaks down the network of dark money billionaires, Democratic elites, and Russiagate profiteers behind the app that ruined the Iowa vote, and a wider effort to stop Sanders’ progressive momentum. Guest: Max Blumenthal, Editor of The Grayzone and author of “The Management of Savagery.”

Marie Yovanovich (Credit: Greg Nash/The Hill)

“Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a central figure in the House impeachment of President Trump, on Thursday warned the public against allowing the U.S. to become a country that silences those who stand up to the government.

In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, Yovanovitch recalled how she and other civil servants spoke out last year when they believed the Trump administration was committing wrongdoing in its dealings with Ukraine.

She added that they also testified before Congress because they believed that speaking up about impropriety is the “American way.”

“I have seen dictatorships around the world, where blind obedience is the norm and truth-tellers are threatened with punishment or death,” Yovanovitch wrote. “We must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act. ”

(…) Yovanovitch said that it has been “shocking” to see the “criticism, lies and malicious conspiracies that have preceded and followed my public testimony.” But she asserted that she had no “regrets” about testifying before Congress, noting that “I did — we did — what our conscience called us to do.”

“We did what the gift of U.S. citizenship requires us to do,” she said.” (Read more: The Hill, 2/07/2020)  (Archive)

David Lipton (Credit: Agence France Presse/Getty Images)

“One of the most senior figures at the International Monetary Fund is stepping down in a move that will allow the Trump administration to influence who will take over as second-in-command at the financial watchdog.

David Lipton, 66, will step down as first deputy managing director after a nine-year tenure that made him the longest-serving official to hold what is effectively the number two position.

When he leaves at the end of this month he will be joined by Carla Grasso, chief administrative officer and one of three deputy managing directors appointed in 2015.

The moves will allow the IMF’s managing director Kristalina Georgieva to stamp her mark on the organisation four months after she took on the top job. It is understood she wants to raise the profile of the departmental directors who are the key people who will implement her policy on the ground.

However, according to precedent, the first deputy managing director of the IMF has traditionally been an American national, offsetting the fact that Europeans have always held the top job of the Washington-based multilateral lender.

(…) A year ago, David Malpass, a senior Treasury official, was appointed as president of the World Bank after being nominated by US president Donald Trump”. (Read more: Independent, 2/07/2020)  (Archive)

Alexander Vindman, (Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Eugene Vindman (Credit: public domain)

Anti-Trump impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother have been fired and escorted out of the White House by security, according to his attorney.

Vindman, a Ukraine specialist who sat on the National Security Council who was accused of being coached by House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), was present on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, when the US president asked that Ukraine investigate former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims of pro-Clinton meddling in the 2016 US election.

He was also notably counseling Ukraine on how to counter President Trump’s foreign policy according to the New York Times, which led some to go as far as accusing him of being a double agent.

The now-former White House employee, who admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his concerns over the call, had been rumored to be on the chopping block for much of Friday.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 2/07/2020)  (Archive)

Gordon Sondland (Credit: public domain)

“President Donald Trump on Friday fired Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, just hours after firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official who testified at House impeachment proceedings against the commander-in-chief.

Like Vindman, Sondland testified at the impeachment proceedings.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

The dual firings came days after Trump was acquitted in the Senate on charges that he abused his power by exerting pressure on Ukraine to open up politically charged investigations.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/07/2020)  (Archive)

“President Trump is making good on his promises to “drain the swamp” and cut Obama-era holdovers from his staff, especially the critical and recently controversial National Security Council.

Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200.

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.

The NSC, which is the president’s personal staff, was rocked when a “whistleblower” leveled charges that led to Trump’s impeachment.

(Washington Examiner, 2/10/2020)  (Archive)

Joe diGenova tells D.C. radio show “Mornings on the Mall” that a senior admin official told him the White House has identified the “Anonymous” NY Times writer, and that person’s departure is expected shortly.

*****

The Daily Caller writes:

(…) White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham previously called the anonymous official a “coward” and the claims within the book “nothing but lies.”

“Real authors reach out to their subjects to get things fact-checked–but this person is in hiding, making that very basic part of being a real writer impossible,” she said in response to the news of the book’s release.

Just prior to the book’s release, the Justice Department took steps toward possibly unmasking the official. Joseph Hunt, assistant attorney general for the civil division, sent a letter to the anonymous official’s publisher and literary agency asking about the official’s access to classified information.

“If the author is, in fact, a current or former ‘senior official’ in the Trump administration, publication of the book may violate that official’s legal obligations under one or more nondisclosure agreements,” the letter reads.”

The back cover of the book, A Warning, Anonymous.

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/10/2020)  (Archive)

The Justice Department “established an intake process” for information Rudy Giuliani gathered about the Bidens in Ukraine, saying it “has an obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant.”

“We have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from Ukraine. There are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine. There are a lot of cross currents. And we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.”

Watch Barr’s statement:

(Read more: Axios, 2/10/2020)  (Archive)

“Lou Dobbs shared some incredible information with his audience that highlights just how Machiavellian the DC system of tiered justice can be.

In a tremendous expose’ on Fox Business with Lou Dobbs, the intrepid bringer of sunlight outlined how the Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe leaked the FISA application used against Carter Page and how DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu dropped all charges related to the leak and instead only charged Wolfe with one count of lying to FBI investigators.   Wolfe only received a 60 day sentence.  WATCH:

(Conservative Treehouse, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

Jessie Liu (Credit: Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

“President Trump has reportedly withdrawn his nomination of Jessie Liu to serve as Treasury Department Undersecretary and Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-Calif) seemed to unofficially confirm Tuesday’s news reports on  “Lou Dobbs Tonight” saying, “I am hearing now that the president has actually pulled that nomination so that would be good news.”

Liu, a veteran  Washington, D.C., attorney oversaw many politically-charged cases while including former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s case of lying to the FBI and longtime Trump ally Roger Stone ‘s case of lying to Congress. Liu stepped down from that role once Trump nominated her.

(…) Liu would have become the undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes at the Treasury Department, as the Trump administration imposes economic sanctions as a national security tool. The attorney general said Liu had “served with distinction” as U.S. attorney.

Liu was scheduled for a Senate hearing on Thursday.” (Read more: Fox News, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

“Four prosecutors from the Justice Department (DOJ) have withdrawn from their roles in the Roger Stone case, following the department’s decision to reduce the amount of prison time they are recommending for the Trump associate.

Aaron Zelinsky, Jonathan Kravis,  Adam C. Jed, and Michael Marando

Prosecutors Aaron Zelinsky (pdf), Jonathan Kravis (pdf), Adam C. Jed (pdf), and Michael Marando (pdf) filed notices withdrawing from the case on Feb. 11. The move follows the department’s decision to override the sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years made by the federal prosecutors.

Along with withdrawing from the case, Kravis also will resign from his position as an assistant U.S. attorney. Zelinsky and Jed previously worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

(…) The charges were related to allegations that Stone had made false statements to the House Intelligence Committee during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and attempted to persuade a witness to give false testimony and withhold pertinent information from investigators.

On Feb. 10, the department filed a sentencing memorandum that urged the court to consider a sentence of 87 to 108 months, or 7 to 9 years (pdf). The prosecutors said the lengthy sentence would “send the message that tampering with a witness, obstructing justice, and lying in the context of a congressional investigation on matters of critical national importance are not crimes to be taken lightly.”

Then in a reversal on Feb. 11, the department said it was going to reduce the prison term they were seeking. A senior DOJ reporter told media outlets that the DOJ was not briefed about the recommendation and that the department “finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses.” The department has not announced what sentencing recommendation it would amend to.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

(Donald Trump/Twitter 2/11/2020)

Hours later, The Federalist‘s Sean Davis reported that federal prosecutors were reportedly blindsided by the recommendation, which a Fox News source said the DOJ felt was “extreme, excessive, and grossly disproportionate” to Stone’s crimes.

“The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the DOJ official reportedly told Fox. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.”

The report from Fox News suggested that DOJ was in the process of rescinding the rogue prosecutors’ recommendation. –The Federalist

What’s more, “Sources told The Federalist that Timothy Shea, who was recently appointed to take over as the top federal prosecutor in D.C. earlier this month, was bullied into agreeing to the sentence recommendation by Adam Jed and Aaron Zelinsky, who were originally tapped by Mueller to investigate whether Donald Trump treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

“Former U.S. Attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, is scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing this upcoming Thursday at 10:00am.  There’s also an unreported background story connected to the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein and Ms. Liu so controversial, it’s as big as Spygate.

In the event any Senator on the approval committee would be brave enough to question the participant here’s the story:

EVENT ONE – On February 9th, 2018, the media reported on text messages from 2017 between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer, a lobbyist named Adam Waldman.  In 2017 and 2018 Mr. Waldman represented the interests of dossier author Chris Steele and Russian Billionaire Oleg Deripaska.

There was some initial media discussion of the text messages, and some eyebrows raised over why the Vice-Chairman of the SSCI would make statements saying “he would rather not have a paper trail” around the Steele communication, but generally speaking the DC media dropped the story quickly.  It just didn’t fit the anti-Trump narrative in early 2018.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of media curiosity, some rather elementary questions were never asked (let alone answered).  Questions including: •Why were the 2017 text messages between Mark Warner and Adam Waldman captured?  •Who captured them?.. and, perhaps more importantly: •why were they released?

The February 2018 story soon disappeared, and no-one ever paid enough attention to go back and see the answers to the questions….

We did.

EVENT TWO – Four months after the Mark Warner texts were made public, on June 8th, 2018, another headline story surfaced.  An indictment for Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe was unsealed on June 7th, 2018.

Mr. Wolfe was indicted for leaking information from within the SSCI to four journalists; and lying to FBI investigators.

Within the indictment we discover the FBI were conducting an ongoing leak investigation throughout 2017.  Within that investigation a top-secret document was transferred to the custody of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe on March 17, 2017.  The details inside that document were leaked to the media.

The indictment describes FBI investigators informing Mr. Wolfe in October of 2017 about their investigation of national security leaks.  In December of 2017, Mr. Wolfe was confronted with evidence of his leaking to journalists including a woman now working for the New York Times named Ali Watkins, with whom he was having a sexual relationship – implied as a possible quid-pro-quo.

Wolfe left the SSCI quietly in mid-December and resigned shortly thereafter.   No-one, outside of the principal characters involved, knows about the investigation until six months later, June 2018, when the indictment is made public.  [Keep this in mind]

The June 2018 media coverage of the Wolfe indictment primarily focused on the affair with Ms. Watkins and Wolfe’s lying to investigators.   Headlines quickly disappeared as the case moved into the formality of legal proceedings between the DOJ and Wolfe’s defense.

No-one drew a connection between the February ’18 publicity of SSCI Vice-Chairman Warner’s text messages and the June ’18 release of the FBI investigation of Wolfe from inside the SSCI the prior year (2017).

EVENT THREE – Slightly less than two months after the release of the Wolfe indictment, another headline story.  On July 21st, 2018, the DOJ/FBI declassified and publicly released the FISA application(s) used against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The release was connected to a FOIA case filed by the New York Times the year prior [NOTE THIS].  There has never been a good explanation of why the application was declassified and released.  Despite the pre-existing NYT FOIA case, it never made sense why the DOJ/FBI did not attempt to deny the FOIA request.  The request was a FOIA for FISA information, the highest security classification possible.  It would have been very easy to deny the FOIA simply because the NYT was seeking classified documents.  A no brainer for shielding any release.  FISA is classified as “Top-Secret”.

So, given the nature of the FISA application itself; and considering the DOJ had denied a similar request from congress; why did the DOJ/FBI suddenly decide it was okay to release the FISA application to the public?

The media discussion of the FISA application release was very heavy.  The story consumed a great deal of air time, print coverage and debate from the release on July 21st, 2018, all the way through to the Inspector General Horowitz report of December 2019, and that coverage continues through today.   However, just like the Warner Texts; and just like the Wolfe indictment; no-one bothered to go back and connect the three component stories.

♦ Within the Wolfe indictment you’ll notice the “Top Secret” document picked-up by SSCI Director James Wolfe took place on March 17th, 2017:

♦ Within the Mark Warner text messages you’ll note the SSCI Vice-Chairman went into the SSCI Secured Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on March 17th, 2017, shortly after 4:00pm:

♦ Within the declassified and released FISA application you’ll notice the copy date from the FISA clerk for the FISA application was March 17th, 2017:

The information within the three events (Warner Text release, Wolfe Indictment release, and Carter Page FISA release) shows the connection of the events.  James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA, delivered it to the SCIF, it was reviewed by SSCI Vice-Chair Mark Warner, and then leaked by James Wolfe.

It was the Carter Page FISA application that James Wolfe leaked to Ali Watkins as outlined within the unsealed June 2018 indictment.

Sidebar, a fourth albeit buried public release on December 14, 2018, confirmed everything.  The FBI filed a sentencing recommendation proving it was the Carter Page FISA that was leaked:

I only share the sidebar (out of chronological sequence) to emphasize there is no doubt it was the FISA application that James Wolfe leaked.  (Don’t get hung up here).

This explains (slightly, but there’s a much bigger story) why the DOJ/FBI released the FISA application in July 2018, as the result of a New York Times FOIA request.

The investigators within the DOJ/FBI knew the New York Times already had the FISA application from the James Wolfe leak to journalist Ali Watkins.

It’s going to get complex and I’m likely to lose all except the most dedicated readers who can understand what comes next…..

Keep in mind when the FISA court released the application copy to Wolfe on March 17th, 2017, there was only the original application from October 21st, 2016, and one renewal from January that existed.  [The release was March 17th, 2017 – the April and June 2017 renewals had not taken place.]

Additionally, within the July 2018 public release (of the March 17th 2017 copy), the FBI investigators redacted all dates relating to the copy they released to Wolfe.  AND, in all subsequent releases of any information from the FBI -through the declassification process- (including the initial version of the IG report on FISA) those dates were always redacted.

There has purposefully never been a clean copy release of the original FISA application and the three renewals.  Therefore there has never been a clean copy release without date redactions – which includes the FISC copy dated March 17th.

When the DOJ/FBI released its July 2018 FOIA compliant set of FISA application(s) they didn’t just print a new copy, instead they re-released the Wolfe version and then added the last two renewals.

RECAP Chronology:  February 2018 release of Warner Texts.  June 2018 unsealed Wolfe Indictment.  July 2018 release FISA application.  All three of these releases are connected to one much larger story.

Knowing that James Wolfe was caught by the FBI and DOJ leaking the FISA application, why wasn’t the SSCI Security Director ever charged with leaking classified information?

Here’s where the poop hits the fan.

Here’s the cover-up.

Here’s where another event comes in.

Keep in mind SSCI Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner was the impetus for the FISA Court releasing the March 17th copy; also keep in mind the purpose of the text messages between Senator Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman.

During his initial summer and fall negotiations with the DOJ, James Wolfe threatened to subpoena the SSCI in his defense.  The implication was that Wolfe was directed to leak the FISA by members of the committee; and/or Wolfe was operating independently but under the assumption of alignment with SSCI members who were not averse to Wolfe’s leak.

The investigation of Wolfe (October through December 2017) explains how and why the Warner text messages surfaced in Feb 2018.  It’s highly likely Warner’s communication with Waldman was intercepted by FBI investigators who then questioned the Vice-Chairman about those texts.  Or it’s possible/probable the FBI investigators asked Warner if he was aware of Wolfe’s leaks.

That investigative scenario prompted Senator Warner to attempt to get out in front of the story about his secret and covert communication efforts to contact and meet with Christopher Steele.  Thus in February 2018 the Warner texts hit the media.  The texts go from February 2017 though May 2017 [SEE HERE] and encompass the exact period when Wolfe leaked the FISA application – March 2017 (with April discussion).

As the Wolfe defense team discussions with the DOJ played out throughout the fall of 2018, there was little movement. Then came another event, the November 2018 mid-term election where Democrats took control over the House.

Meanwhile, in the lame-duck congressional period Senators on the SSCI asked the DOJ to go easy on Wolfe:

Immediately after the 2018 mid-terms DC Attorney Jessie Liu dropped most of the charges against Wolfe, and he was allowed -under a plea agreement- to plead guilty to only one count of lying to investigators.

December 11th, DOJ sentencing memo [HERE], and then a very pissed-off FBI follow-up within the DOJ response to the Defense sentencing memo [HERE] dated December 14th.

In essence, after the November election, SSCI Director Wolfe was allowed to avoid prosecution for leaking top-secret classified documents; and the bigger issue was covered-up.

DAG Rod Rosenstein was in charge; the Mueller investigation was ongoing; and DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu signed-off on the plea deal.

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 2/11/2020)  (Archive)

Brandon Van Grack

“One of special counsel Robert Mueller’s former prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, argued in a Wednesday filing that the case against Michael Flynn should not be dismissed in light of “egregious government misconduct,” because the FBI’s extensive FISA abuse uncovered by the DOJ’s Inspector General “has no relevance to his false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017.”

“Beyond failing to identify misconduct that satisfies the legal test cited in his own brief — that the misconduct be ‘so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice’ — the defendant fails to identify any government misconduct in this case,” Van Grack continues.

JUST IN: Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack makes a new filing in the FLYNN case, arguing that the IG’s findings of FBI FISA problems has no bearing on Flynn’s effort to throw out his guilty plea for lying to the FBI. Kyle Cheney@kyledcheney  February 12, 2020

(Brandon Van Grack – court filing)

Except – Flynn attorney Sidney Powell says the FBI excluded crucial information from his ‘302’ form – the original draft of which stated that Flynn was honest with the FBI agents who interviewed him (one of whom was Peter Strzok).

The prosecution filing also argues that a slew of failures that the Justice Department’s inspector general found in the FBI’s handling of surveillance applications merit serious attention but that the faults involved Carter Page, a Trump 2016 foreign policy adviser, and not Flynn.

“The government does not dispute the seriousness of the ‘significant errors and omissions’ described in the Report,” Van Grack wrote. “But the compliance and diligence failures and ‘significant errors’ as they relate to the Page FISA applications do not warrant or necessitate the dismissal of the charge against the defendant.” –Politico

In short – failings by the same cabal within the FBI that handled the Clinton email investigation, the Trump investigation, and the offshoot investigations (Flynn, Stone, etc.) – don’t matter.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 2/12/2020)  (Archive)

John Brennan (Credit: Twitter)

The NY Times notes that over the last several months, “Durham and his team have examined emails among a small group of intelligence analysts from multiple agencies, including the C.I.A., F.B.I., and National Security Agency, who worked together to assess the Russian operation.”

Durham has reportedly interviewed these analysts and has specifically focused on information that the CIA reportedly attempted to withhold from other agencies—including the identity and placement of a CIA source inside the Kremlin.

The article noted that intelligence analysts at the NSA wanted to know more about the “identity and placement” of a specific Russian source, in order “to weigh the credibility of his information.” But, according to the article, the CIA “was initially reluctant to share details about the Russian’s identity but eventually relented.”

Information about the alleged Russian CIA spy was first reported in September 2019 by the NY Times and was the focus of an article by The Epoch Times.

The New York Times noted in the article that the source was “outside of Mr. Putin’s inner circle, but saw him regularly and had access to high-level Kremlin decision-making — easily making the source one of the agency’s most valuable assets.”

But the article also noted that there were some doubts within the CIA. Following the refusal of extraction in late 2016, some officials within the CIA “wondered whether the informant had been turned and had become a double agent, secretly betraying his American handlers.”

The CIA’s Russian source was apparently highly regarded by Brennan, who felt the identity of the source was so important that, according to the NY Times article, he “kept information from the operative out of President Barack Obama’s daily brief in 2016.”

“Instead, Mr. Brennan sent separate intelligence reports, many based on the source’s information, in special sealed envelopes to the Oval Office,” according to the article.

But the nature of the source raises some significant questions. If, for example, the source was indeed so highly placed, why then was the United States so seemingly ill-informed regarding many of Russia’s foreign policy actions, particularly in Syria or Crimea, when Russia forcibly annexed the peninsula from Ukraine?

And if this asset was indeed so highly placed, how is it that Russia was able to hack the DNC’s servers and extract their emails without the CIA’s advance knowledge of the alleged Russian activities?

A June 2017 article from The Washington Post had previously touched on the existence of a “Russian source,” noting that Brennan had received “an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.”

The Post noted that “the intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives—defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.”

This was the same information that Brennan reportedly conveyed “in special sealed envelopes to the Oval Office.” However, as the Post noted, “despite the intelligence the CIA had produced, other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump.”

There is another significant problem, as well. The Mueller report, after two lengthy years of investigation, concluded there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, thereby proving a key part of the alleged Russian activities incorrect.” (Read more: Jeff Carlson/themarketswork, 2/13/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI for all records related to murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) Voter Expansion Data Director Seth Rich.

Rich, 27, was murdered on July 10, 2016, according to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. The DC police reports that Rich was killed at approximately 4:19 a.m. in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW, Washington, DC.

No one has been charged in connection with Rich’s death. The case has not been closed, and the DC police are offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI failed to respond to a July 26, 2019, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all records related to Rich and his murder (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:20-cv-00385)).

“There is significant public interest in the Seth Rich murder and the FBI’s game-playing on document production in this case is inexcusable,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 2/13/2020)  (Archive)

“Former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe will not face criminal charges for allegedly lying to agents about a leak to reporters, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) letter released Friday afternoon.

J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston, two officials in the DOJ’s Fraud & Public Corruption Section, wrote to McCabe’s lawyers, saying, “after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client, Andrew G. McCabe.”

McCabe was under investigation for reportedly lying to FBI agents in 2017 who were investigating a leak to the Wall Street Journal which he allegedly authorized. The Washington Post reported that a grand jury was impaneled for the case in 2018. Breitbart’s Joshua Caplan wrote:

In April, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s long-awaited report concluded McCabe made false statements to U.S. officials on at least four occasions and improperly disclosed information to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett “to advance his personal interests over those of the Justice Department.”

(Read more: Breitbart, 2/14/2020)  (Archive)

“In latest eye-popping move by the Department of Justice, Attorney General William Barr has tasked a U.S. Attorney to review the case against former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, is an appointee of President Donald Trump and will reportedly be examining the circumstances of the FBI’s Flynn interview.

Jensen will not be doing this by himself, according to a DOJ official.

Here’s what we know about Jensen.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeffrey Jensen (Credit: Wesley Law/St. Louis Magazine)

Jensen was nominated by Trump in July 2017 and subsequently confirmed by the Senate in Oct. 2017, his DOJ bio notes. Jensen’s office in the Eastern District of Missouri prosecutes all manner of federal crimes, whether terrorism or public corruption.

Jensen’s path to U.S. Attorney is relevant for the Flynn case. After beginning a career as an accountant, he joined the FBI and was an agent for a decade. Suffice it to say, he is plenty familiar with FBI procedures. That, no doubt, played a role in his selection in examining the FBI’s role in the Flynn case.

A Jan. 2019 profile of Jensen shed more light on his time before and after he joined the FBI:

I definitely zigzagged. I started out as a CPA, because at the time I graduated from college, that was the most likely area to find employment. But then the FBI was hiring accountants, because of the savings and loan failures of the late 1980s, and I’d always wanted to be in the FBI.

(…) I was primarily in the white-collar crime group, and for a time I was a member of the FBI SWAT team. When I was an agent, I was just fascinated by what happened in the courtroom. I decided I’d like to be an assistant U.S. attorney. So after 10 years with the FBI, I took five years to go through law school at night. I was an assistant U.S. attorney for 10 years, and then I went into private practice doing corporate compliance work. I’ve got four kids, and I was trying to pay for them. Then this job opened.”

(Read more: Law & Crime, 2/14/2020)  (Archive)

(Crowdstrike header on LinkedIn)

“A lot of people are laughing at the huge mistake the Democrats made by trying to impeach President Trump. Besides being stuck with Trump, the argument goes, they may also pay a heavy price in November for single-mindedly pursuing impeachment without being able even to gesture at any underlying crime.

But it might be a good idea to think a bit before joining in.

All the ruckus Democrats raised over Trump’s concern about the Biden family’s wheeling and dealing in Ukraine turned out to be very useful in ways some Republicans are not calculating. It did, after all, make the rest of us forget the other subject broached in that now historic chat with President Volodymyr Zelensky: the alleged Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee’s servers that we’re all supposed to think netted the emails WikiLeaks published during the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

The Democrats’ apparently self-destructive obsession allowed the media, once more, to distract from the crucial question on which the president keeps trying to focus our attention: Why did the DNC repeatedly reject FBI and Department of Homeland Security requests to examine their supposedly hacked machines?

Whenever Trump raises that question, the establishment press tries to smother public interest by carpet-bombing us with stories about how delusional he is. We’re told over and over again that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary occurred and the words “debunked conspiracy theory” are scattered like shrapnel at anyone bold enough to dissent.

But it’s all misdirection and blatant lies.

FBI Director James Comey and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson both testified to Congress about the DNC’s reluctance to cooperate in a case the Democrats nonetheless relentlessly hyped as tantamount to an act of war.

Jeh Johnson testifies to the House Intel Cmte. on June 21, 2017, the DNC did not cooperate in any way with DHS to respond to the hacks. (Credit: CSpan)

Comey claimed he didn’t know why the DNC rejected the FBI’s “[m]ultiple requests at different levels” to collect forensic evidence. Johnson was so unsettled by the DNC’s refusal even so much as to discuss the case with the DHS that he twice remarked he “should have brought a sleeping bag and camped out in front of” their headquarters.

A week before Comey’s remarks, the DNC even tried to shift the blame, claiming it was all the FBI’s fault for having “never requested access.” Apart from Comey’s testimony, they were also contradicted in no uncertain terms the very next day, when a senior FBI official told The Hill:

The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise . . . This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.

That third party was CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm on the DNC’s payroll. The firm was the only entity ever allowed to inspect the Democrats’ allegedly hacked machines as well as the first to finger Russia publicly for the alleged crime. Trump also mentioned CrowdStrike to Zelensky.

But the establishment press spent a couple of days bullying us into thinking any concerns about CrowdStrike were nuts. Then Democrats started hysterically shouting their patent nonsense that Trump’s remarks about Biden were an impeachable offense. The unrelenting media coverage of their obviously hopeless quest to oust him kicked in.

Within just a few days of hearing their name, everyone had forgotten all about CrowdStrike. And a public discussion of the very questionable role the company played in the Democrats’ efforts to destroy the president was, thus, forestalled.

What a Lucky Coincidence

(Credit: Wikileaks)

Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of her surrogates ever once challenged the authenticity of any of the emails WikiLeaks published. Instead, from the very beginning, her sole strategy was relentlessly hammering home the narrative that there was a Russian plot allegedly responsible for making them public.

Paying any attention to all the proof of her corruption and incompetence would be unpatriotic, Clinton warned, because its publication was part of a nefarious plot hatched by that arch-fiend Putin to throw the election to Trump. The real story here, we were told, is that the Kremlin attacked, not just her campaign, but literally all of America on Trump’s behalf. A New York Times headline published a few days after the DNC emails started dropping said it all: “Democrats Allege D.N.C. Hack Is Part of Russian Effort to Elect Donald Trump.”

The Times supported Clinton’s allegations by citing some unnamed “researchers” who’d claimed that “the D.N.C.’s server had been breached by Russian intelligence agencies.” Besides not naming CrowdStrike, the Times failed to mention that the “researchers” it used to substantiate the Democrats’ accusations were on the DNC’s payroll.

It sure was lucky that CrowdStrike’s conclusions turned out to be so useful for Hillary Clinton. The DNC’s tech firm couldn’t have come up with something better suited to transform WikiLeaks’ disturbing revelations about her into suspicions about her opponent if they’d concocted it out of thin air just for that purpose.

Interestingly, CrowdStrike had first publicly announced the alleged Russian breach of the DNC’s servers exactly two days after WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange had warned that the DNC emails were coming by declaring he had “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails pending publication.”

But CrowdStrike’s conclusions wouldn’t have been very useful at all had they been the only ones fingering the Russians. To get any mileage out of their allegations, Clinton obviously needed confirmation by some authority not on the DNC’s payroll.

A clipping of the NYT headline and featured photo.

And, lo and behold, the very next day she was blessed by yet another remarkable coincidence. Some anonymous FBI officials just happened to leak information to the New York Times for a follow-up story with the incredibly useful headline: “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.”

According to the Times, a “federal investigation, involving the F.B.I. and [other] intelligence agencies” had concluded that “the Russian government was behind the theft” of the emails WikiLeaks had just published. So certain was Russia’s guilt that senior intelligence agency officials had even informed President Obama.

Thanks to that timely leak, Clinton could now cite the authority of the U.S. intelligence community to back her insistence that the dreaded embodiment of evil, Vladimir Putin, was the one responsible for informing American voters about her gross unfitness for office. She was thus spared reliance on the word of a private contractor working on the DNC’s dime whose interest even her allies in the media would have to admit was conflicted.

Or so we were led to believe, at any rate.

A Highly Respected, High-Class Entity

Though the New York Times’ follow-up story did report that the DNC had hired CrowdStrike, the Times either didn’t know or neglected to mention that Comey’s FBI had accepted CrowdStrike’s forensics in lieu of being allowed to collect any themselves. More than five months would pass before Americans learned that the official conclusions Hillary Clinton so successfully wielded as a shield to deflect any damage inflicted by WikiLeaks email releases on to Trump had relied on forensics commissioned by her good friends at the DNC.

James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on ‘Russian intelligence activities’ January 10, 2017. (Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA)

Besides Comey’s January 2017 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the DNC had rejected “[m]ultiple [FBI] requests at different levels,” to collect forensic evidence, he also testified twice more (once before the House in March and again to the Senate in June) about their adamant refusal to cooperate with the federal agencies investigating the alleged Russian espionage Clinton has never stopped hyping.

On all three occasions, Comey repeatedly tried to downplay any natural concern about the DNC’s recalcitrance by quickly adding that they’d allowed someone else to examine their servers who had eventually shared “what they saw there” (as he’d put it in January 2017) with the FBI. Not once did Comey refer to CrowdStrike by name, instead preserving their anonymity by means of descriptions like “the private party.” He also made sure to always toss in at least one confidence-inspiring superlative. In his January testimony, CrowdStrike was “a highly respected private company.” In March, they were “pros.” In June, the assembled Senators learned that the FBI had gotten its evidence from “a high-class entity.”

Apart from sounding like a third-rate salesman with a head injury, Comey also tortured the English language in what seemed like an attempt to disclaim any knowledge of exactly what information CrowdStrike had turned over or even any precise idea of how his investigation had been conducted.

During his June testimony, when Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) pointed out the obvious importance of examining evidence firsthand, Comey responded:

It is but what was briefed to me by the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

But no one seemed to notice that Comey had contradicted this reassuring story of CrowdStrike’s promptness in March, when U.S. Representative Will Hurd (R-Texas) pressed him on exactly when the company turned over its forensics to the FBI. Comey first said he couldn’t recall, that it might have been in June, but that he very well might be wrong. One suspects to his great chagrin, National Security Agency chief Admiral Michael Rogers happened also to be testifying and chimed in, reminding Comey that the handoff had occurred in mid-June 2016. Comey was forced to agree without any commitment-dodging qualifications; meaning that, contrary to his later testimony, a full six weeks had gone by since CrowdStrike had started investigating the DNC breach in early May before they handed anything over to the FBI.

On whichever occasion it turns out Comey had falsely testified about when he’d received CrowdStrike’s forensics, one can understand why he might have wished to palm off responsibility on “the people who were his folks at the time” for accepting it. Even if he had no recourse against the DNC’s dogged determination to keep the FBI from collecting any evidence themselves, that didn’t justify accepting it from a private contractor the DNC had hired as a substitute regardless of how “high class” an “entity” they were.

A Concrete Motive

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo tells his audience “it’s illegal” for them to read Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails but “it’s different for the media.” (Credit: CNN)

Contrary to all the media gaslighting about Trump’s suspicions being utterly groundless, it was exactly as though someone had reported a burglary but then refused to give the cops access to the crime scene. Even if doing so was perfectly within the victim’s rights, that wouldn’t make it okay for law enforcement to accept evidence from a private investigator he’d hired as a substitute.

Indeed, the self-professed victim’s adamance that law enforcement not collect any evidence themselves would make his eagerness to hand over a privately commissioned dossier all the more suspect. Especially if the private eye’s conclusions just so happened to tarnish the reputation of someone possessing proof of his client’s misdeeds.

Forensics gathered without any supervision by a private contractor hired by the DNC couldn’t possibly satisfy any reasonable chain of custody requirements. And the utility of CrowdStrike’s conclusions to the Clinton campaign made mischief more than just an abstract possibility; it provided a concrete motive.

Both WikiLeaks’ DNC emails and those from John Podesta’s Gmail account published a few months later were undeniably authentic. The proof of Hillary Clinton’s corruption and incompetence they contained was all in her own words or those of her closest advisors. None of them ever even once tried denying any of it. Instead, from the moment their own words appeared in public to haunt them, they endlessly chanted “Russia, Russia, Russia!” to try and make them haunt Trump instead.

Absent CrowdStrike’s conclusions, Clinton’s campaign would have had no response whatsoever to all the damaging emails by and about her.

But why on earth had the DNC let CrowdStrike announce they’d been hacked by Russia at all? Publicizing the breach only made the Democrats look bad at a time when Clinton was being battered daily about her unsecured private email server. Comey’s surprise announcement exonerating her was still three weeks away. What purpose could announcing the Russian DNC breach have possibly served if not to deflect attention away from the damaging emails Assange had forewarned would be released just two days before. Why better strategy than to make it seem like they were part of a Russian plot to help Trump? If nothing else, Comey ought to have considered all this before blithely accepting CrowdStrike’s DNC-funded forensics.

Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta’s emails were stolen in March 2016, when he foolishly gave the password to his Gmail account away to a fake representative of Google. Ironically, the pilfered emails themselves contain the correspondence documenting Podesta’s pathetic but immensely consequential blunder. Clinton’s campaign knew almost immediately that a lot of devastatingly irrefutable information had fallen into unfriendly hands. They must have quickly convened some kind of investigation to develop a strategy for dealing with its likely disastrous publication during the campaign. We know the strategy on which they ultimately settled was claiming that Russia had hacked Podesta’s emails as a favor to Trump.

But, of course, we’ve never heard anything about how they first developed it.

Some Hidden Opportunity

What we do know is that, on April 29, 2016, CrowdStrike supposedly completed a five-week investigation for the DNC of an entirely unrelated computer episode that had occurred in mid-December. That means the DNC had called CrowdStrike in to work three months after the incident we’re supposed to think they were investigating but only around five days after they discovered the theft of Podesta’s emails. And, of course, whoever dealt with the technical aspects of Podesta’s stolen emails would need some other excuse for any work they were doing at the DNC.”

(Read much more: Michael Thau/AClearerPicture, 2/14/2020)  (Archive)

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Credit: public domain)

“Several months ago, during the early days of Roger Stone’s trial, the prosecution and defense teams were busy fighting over what jurors would end up making the final cut for the official jury pool and alternates. Obama appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has ruled against every conservative figure or cause that has ever come before her court, would routinely ignore the concerns of Stone’s defense team about juror bias.

Judge Jackson didn’t care that potential jurors had political backgrounds or had given inappropriate and extremely biased answers in their jury questionnaires.

In fact, Judge Jackson agreed with prosecutors to remove a potential juror because she had at one point, nearly three decades ago, held a small role in the Ronald Reagan for President campaign. Politics would not be allowed in her courtroom, Judge Amy Berman Jackson proclaimed.

However, when it was revealed that a potential juror had served in a high-level communications role within President Barack Obama’s administration, objections and questions about bias from Stone’s legal team were laughed off, by both the judge and prosecutors. You see, if a potential juror showed bias against conservatives, Judge Amy Berman Jackson declared that their prior service to an administration or political cause, even if it was that of a far-left socialist like Barack Obama, was not sufficient evidence to bar them from serving on the jury. It was at this moment, that this Gateway Pundit reporter joined Alex Jones on Infowars to sound the alarm.

A high-level Obama communications director with a documented past involvement with the far left was being considered as a prime candidate to make the final cut for the jury in Roger Stone’s trial. We all already know that nearly 91% of the District of Columbia voted for Hillary, so the notion of Stone being judged by a jury of his peers was pretty much out the window, but it was hard to believe that the Judge and prosecutors would be so blatant in their advocacy of selecting highly-partisan jurors.

This interview went viral and the mainstream media and Democrats went insane. They claimed that we were threatening the safety of the juror and the sanctity of the trial, never mind that we never mentioned the name of the juror or any other information that could lead to them being harmed. In fact, mainstream media reporters had already tweeted far more personal information about the juror. However, this did not stop corrupt Judge Amy Berman Jackson and the Mueller prosecution team from doing something unheard of and drastic. Before court the next day, I was informed by several sources that Judge Amy had issued a sealed order of contempt for this Gateway Pundit reporter, there was even talk of having me detained for trying to “intimidate potential jurors” through my reporting.” (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 2/14/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

“A former Justice Department official who is discussed throughout the inspector general’s report on FISA abuse added his name Monday to a petition calling on William Barr to resign as attorney general.

David Laufman, who served as chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section through 2018, said Monday that he joined more than 2,000 former Justice Department employees who signed the petition, which was started by the anti-Trump activist group, Protect Democracy.

(…) Laufman, who appears frequently on MSNBC and CNN, often to criticize the Trump administration, played a key role in both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe.

He conducted interviews alongside disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok during the Clinton email investigation. Laufman and Strzok interviewed Clinton herself July 2, 2016. They also conducted interviews with Clinton aides Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills in which the pair appear to have made inconsistent statements about their knowledge of Clinton’s private email server.

(DOJ IG Report)

The Justice Department inspector general’s report on FISA abuse said Laufman helped arrange a key meeting for FBI and Justice Department officials that would raise significant concerns about the reliability of Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose dossier the FBI used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page.

Donald Trump issues a directive to the intelligence community to cooperate with William Barr’s review of the Trump-Russia investigation and David Laufman responds to that directive on the Maddow Show, May 24, 2019. (Credit: MSNBC)

The inspector general report said Laufman arranged a meeting in January 2017 for Steele’s main source for information in the dossier. Laufman sat in on part of the interview.

Steele’s source disputed much of what was attributed to him in the dossier. The source, who has not been identified, told FBI agents and DOJ officials that Steele embellished or misrepresented information in the dossier that suggested a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government, according to the inspector general report.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/17/2020)  (Archive)

Richard Donoghue (Credit: public domain)

“U.S. attorney has been designated to oversee all Ukraine-related investigations by federal prosecutors around the country.

The Justice Department revealed on Tuesday that Richard Donoghue, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, was assigned to the task by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.

Donoghue will “assist in coordinating … several open matters being handled by different U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department components that in some way potentially relate to Ukraine,” according to a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee.

Donoghue, a St. John’s University School of Law graduate and Army Judge Advocate General Corps veteran, spent more than a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney and was working as the chief litigation counsel for a global tech company before becoming a U.S. attorney in 2018.

“The Deputy Attorney General implemented this policy to avoid duplication of efforts across Department offices and components, to facilitate information sharing, to ensure there are no conflicts among potentially overlapping matters, and to efficiently marshal the resources of the Department,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in the letter.” (Read more: Washington Examiner, 2/18/2020)  (Archive)

John Rood (Credit: CNN)

“The Pentagon’s top policy official who warned against withholding military aid to Ukraine last year resigned on Wednesday at the request of President Donald Trump, according to a copy of his resignation letter obtained by CNN.

John Rood, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, is the latest senior national security official involved in the Ukraine controversy to be forced out following Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, but sources told CNN that he broke with the administration on several issues, in addition to the handling of aid to Ukraine, leading to a loss of support from leadership.

“It is my understanding from Secretary Esper that you requested my resignation from serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Senior administration officials appointed by the President serve at the pleasure of the President, and therefore, as you have requested, I am providing my resignation effective February 28, 2020,” Rood wrote in his letter to President Donald Trump, dated Wednesday.

(…) Officials tell CNN that Rood has differed with the administration on a number of issues including Afghanistan and Ukraine. Officials have said Rood often was perceived as not embracing some of the changes in policy the White House and senior Pentagon officials wanted.

One official said some examples of Rood’s differing views from some of Trump’s key policy stances included being skeptical about peace talks with the Taliban as well as the administration decision to scale down military exercises with South Korea during talks with North Korea and him pushing for a more aggressive approach to Russia by supporting Ukraine.

Rood is the Pentagon’s top policy official and oversees aspects of the Pentagon’s relationship with US allies and partners.

He was involved in certifying to Congress that Ukraine had embarked on significant reforms to justify its receipt of $250 million in security assistance.

That certification undermined one of the justifications — concerns about corruption in Kiev — that some members of the Trump administration made to defend blocking aid to Ukraine.

Hours after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a conversation that was at the center of impeachment proceedings, Rood emailed Secretary of Defense Mark Esper — who had been in the job two days — informing him about an upcoming deputies meeting, “to discuss the President’s concern about endemic corruption in Ukraine and his reported view that US should cease providing security assistance,” according to emails reviewed by CNN.

Rood notes in his email to the secretary that “placing a hold on security assistance at this time would jeopardize this unique window of opportunity and undermine our defense priorities with a key partner in the strategic competition with Russia.” (Read more: CNN, 2/19/2020)   (Archive)

A thread by Twitter sleuth,  ghost of daniel parker@seekerOTL:

“On June 6, 2016, a defense contractor met with an FBI special agent working the Hillary Clinton email investigation codenamed Mid-Year Exam.

Thanks to the great work of @walkafyre, we have a good idea what lies behind the redactions in the 302 of that interview.

Having long suspected, I think there is enough information out in the latest Mueller drop to say that we now know the “Unknown Defense Contractor” hired by Judicial Watch and Barbara Ledeen is Donald Berlin, of Investigative Consultants, Inc. pic.twitter.com/UQedCQ2WF8

— walkafyre (@walkafyre) November 2, 2019

The defense contractor, Donald Berlin, was contacted by Barbara Ledeen in the summer of 2015.

Ledeen wanted Berlin to determine if Clinton’s server had been breached by a foreign entity. The investigation was to be financed by Judicial Watch.

Barbara Ledeen is on the staff of Senator Chuck Grassley.

She is also the wife of Michael Ledeen. I’ve chronicled several of his numerous intrigues in previous threads.

1\

Spygate: Origins

The Final Thread

Part I

Let me tell you a story about the time regime change in Iran was planned on the back of a napkin. pic.twitter.com/9xK4gBE7op

— ghost of daniel parker (@SeekerOTL) January 14, 2020

The defense contractor handed over documents produced as part of his investigation to the FBI. They can be found in the FBI vault here:

Clinton Vault, Part 33

Most of the docs concerned an alleged plan by Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal to appropriate the hidden assets of deposed Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Also included was possible evidence that the Russians hacked Clinton’s server.

RealClearInvestigations, 9/09/2019

So in June 2016, the FBI was aware that Ledeen was searching for HRC’s emails.

Gen Mike Flynn’s “Field of Fight,” co-authored with Michael Ledeen, was published on July 1st, 2016.

In late July, Wikileaks released the DNC emails. On July 26, the Australian government officially notified the US government that they had learned Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “had some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).”

From July 28 to July 31, officials at FBI Headquarters discussed whether to open counterintelligence investigation.

Investigation Crossfire Hurricane officially launched on July 31, 2016.

According to the IG report, Peter Strzok and Case Agent 2 worked on both Mid-Year Exam and Crossfire Hurricane.

So at least some members of the Crossfire Hurricane team would have known that Ledeen was searching for Clinton’s emails and that the Russians were suspected of possessing them.

The Crossfire Hurricane team then tasked Stefan Halper with determining if the Trump campaign was planning an October Surprise, specifically if the Russian government planned on releasing Clinton’s emails in coordination with the Trump campaign and Wikileaks.

---

Before we go any further, let’s address the most famous October Surprise.

As the presidential election day grew closer in 1980, the campaign of Ronald Reagan feared that the Carter administration would engineer the release of the American hostages from Iran in the weeks prior to the election.

Ironically, this most famous October Surprise actually never happened. The hostages were not released before the election; they were released on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration.

The historical debate is whether or not the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.

1\

Book Review

(a thread) pic.twitter.com/NuHgAcvpRn

— ghost of daniel parker (@SeekerOTL) July 27, 2019

You’ve probably read about Stefan Halper’s link to the October Surprise.

 CIA,gov

What you probably haven’t read are these paragraphs from Robert Parry’s book, “Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq”:

That’s right. Michael Ledeen was neck deep in the October Surprise.

In 1999, the House of Representatives created the October Surprise Task Force to investigate the conspiracy theory.

Perry claims that during his exhaustive research of the October Surprise, he discovered a draft copy of a report from the Task Force that stated Ledeen was an unofficial member of the Reagan campaign’s October Surprise Group.

(Robert Perry: The Original October Surprise (Scoop)

So Halper and Ledeen were both allegedly part of the Reagan campaign’s “dirty tricks” operations.

So they’re on the same side, right?

Well, no. At some point they had a falling out, if they were ever truly allies.

The Reagan campaign was comprised of two very distinct camps: hard-line defense hawks associated with Ronald Reagan and moderate “realists” associated with George H W Bush.

The Bush team was comprised of a large contingent of current and former CIA employees, which included Halper and his father-in-law Ray Cline.

Ledeen fell squarely in the first camp; Halper in the second.

Washington Post 3/01/1980

In 1983, Halper was forced out of the Reagan administration when a New York Times article exposed him as the ringleader of an operation to gather information on the Carter campaign.

New York Times 7/03/1983

Halper had been accused of stealing a copy of Jimmy Carter’s debate prep book.

However, when Halper was outed as an FBI informant in 2018, Craig Shirley, the author of several books on Ronald Reagan, wrote an article for the Washington Post denying that Halper stole Carter’s “debate books.”

An article from UPI reports that according to former Reagan campaign workers the charges against Halper were part of a larger plan to by defense hawks to displace James Baker from the Reagan White House.

UPI 7/07/1983

James Baker was Reagan’s White House Chief of Staff.

However, he’s more often associated with George H W Bush. Baker was Bush’s Secretary of State during the first Persian Gulf War.

Baker has drawn the wrath of neoconservatives over the years for espousing the use of prudence, restraint and diplomacy in foreign policy decision-making.

Foreign Policy 8/09/2012

---

So the rivalry between Halper and Ledeen dates wayyyy back and has continued over the years, at least on the level of policy.

In his book, The Silence of the Rational Center, Halper cites Ledeen as a staunch advocate of reckless regime change.

In 2004, Halper was one of the first authors to identify the neocon influence on the presidency of the younger Bush in his book, America Alone: Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order.

There’s yet another person involved in Crossfire Hurricane who’s very familiar with the history of the October Surprise: David Laufman was the Republicans’ senior associate counsel on the October Surprise Task Force.

Yes, Laufman is a Republican.

It’s almost completely forgotten today how vigorously the left opposed George W Bush’s nomination of Laufman for the position of Defense Department Inspector General.

Daily Kos 11/08/2006

So Laufman was one of the primary individuals involved in both Mid-Year Exam and Crossfire Hurricane and he had knowledge of the 1980 October Surprise as well as the roles Halper and Ledeen played in the Reagan campaign.

I provide this backstory in hopes of providing some context to the August 11 and 12, 2016 meetings between Halper and the members of Crossfire Hurricane.

Note the objective of the initial meeting with Halper was to ask him questions about his experience working on presidential campaigns.

The following day, when Halper and the team met again, “Source 2 provided additional information about the role of a foreign policy advisor in a presidential campaign.”

Did they discuss the October Surprise in 1980?

I think so.

Now, there is no evidence that Halper was told about Barbara Ledeen’s investigation into HRC’s emails.

However, Halper was certainly aware that Michael Ledeen co-authored Flynn’s book “Field of Fight” that was published a couple of months earlier.

Keep in mind that the FBI did not open a counterintelligence investigation into Mike Flynn until AFTER they met with Halper.

Did the CH team based their decision on what they learned in their meetings with Halper?

During their meeting in August 2016, it was Halper who brought up the 1980 October Surprise to Page. The subject is raised again later in their conversation.

The discussion of a possible October Surprise was not incidental; it was exactly what the Crossfire Hurricane Team was searching for.

Later in early September, Halper met with a “high-level Trump campaign official,” Sam Clovis, and the conversation once again turns to a possible October Surprise.

There’s nothing subtle about it either. Halper asks Clovis directly if the Trump campaign was planning an October Surprise.

When Halper meets with George Papadopolous, he doesn’t use the term “October Surprise,” but he’s clearly tasked by the Crossfire Hurricane team with finding evidence of such a plan.

That Halper never attempted to approach Mike Flynn should not come as a surprise. The CH team must have assumed that Ledeen would have tipped off Flynn about Halper’s intelligence background.

The CH team already believed someone had coached PapaD in how to respond to Halper’s questions.

In general, there is little in the IG report about the Flynn investigation beyond noting that SSA 1 (Joe Pientka) attended a strategic intelligence briefing in which Gen Flynn was in attendance.

The open EC for the Flynn investigation states there was “an articulable factual basis” that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf other Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the nation security.”

But there’s scant evidence of a Russia investigation in either the IG report or the Mueller report. (We know, though, a FARA investigation Flynn’s connection to Turkey was opened).

What the Mueller report does reveal is how seriously the FBI took the pursuit of Clinton’s emails (“Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.”)

The Ledeen/Smith investigations are discussed at length.

Perhaps most significant are the footnotes that reveal that in 4 different interviews with the special counsel’s office, Mike Flynn discussed the Ledeen/Smith investigations.

I have some issues with how the Ledeen/Smith investigations are presented in the Mueller report; however, that’s a discussion for another thread.

What I hope to establish in this thread is the importance the FBI placed on Ledeen’s search for HRC’s emails.

It’s telling that when the 4 Crossfire Hurricane cases were divvy upped that Strzok assumed program management responsibilities for the Flynn and PapaD cases.

1\

SPYGATE: ORIGINS

Thread Six

The Italian Connection Part II pic.twitter.com/QFMgR3FCUs

— ghost of daniel parker (@SeekerOTL) August 4, 2019

These cases were the two most likely to have a connection to Ledeen. Flynn, directly. PapaD indirectly, via his Hudson Institute and Israeli connections.

And I have to say the FBI’s suspicion wasn’t without justification. Michael Ledeen has a very long history of such intrigue.

In his memoir of his involvement in the Iran-contra affair, Ledeen explains the role of a “trusted envoy.”

Three Days In Rome

Did the FBI suspect Page and PapaD were being used as trusted envoys, wittingly or unwittingly?

Perhaps.

It should be acknowledged that an October Surprise involving emails did occur when Wikileaks released John Podesta’s hacked emails.

And Peter Smith, who conduct a search for Clinton’s emails, did commit suicide.

So perhaps an investigation was justified. HOWEVER, the results were no evidence was found that Ledeen or Smith or anyone else on the Trump campaign recovered Clinton emails.

When Halper provided the FBI with EXCULPATORY evidence after his final meeting with PapaD, why did the investigation continue?

It was almost immediately after this final meeting between Halper and PapaD when the Crossfire Hurricane team received their first reports from Christopher Steele.

The timing is curious. It’s at the point the investigation seems to go off the rails.

I have no answers as to what happens after this point or why. Any conspiracy theory would have to account for Case Agent 1’s and Kevin Clinesmith’s blatant investigatory misconduct.

I have seen some speculation that Halper was feeding information to Steele.

I dunno. Maybe.

That’s a possibility, but only a theory at this point.

Some readers may want to be told who’s a white hat and who’s a black hat.

Sorry, I can’t give you that, especially when the subject is the world of intelligence and political intrigue. Characters like Halper and Ledeen aren’t so easily labeled.

I admit to possessing a certain sympathy for Mike Flynn. 33 years of honorable military service goes a long way with me.

Flynn’s declaration on Jan 20th is how I’ve always viewed him. There’s no shame in admitting that one’s life has not prepared him for a world without honor, a world in which the ends justify the means.

I have attempted to keep the discussion in this thread narrowly focused on what is revealed in the Mueller and IG reports.

(ghost of daniel parker@SeekerOTL, 2/19/2020)  (Archive)

Joseph Maguire (Credit: Ron Sachs/CNP)

“The New York Times and a host of allied political narrative engineers attempted to spin up another Russia narrative yesterday.  The claim surrounds a briefing by DNI Joseph Maguire (pictured below) to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  Adam Schiff and house Democrats in the briefing claim DNI Maguire stated Russians favored President Trump and would work to assist his re-election.

The Democrat spin was to claim President Trump replaced Maguire as an outcome of this briefing, and Trump wants to ignore Russia interference assistance. etc. etc.  The media ran with the framework of the Democrat narrative; and the political operatives piled-on.

However, in a surprise move Jake Tapper actually undercuts the narrative engineering through his own sources with information on the reality of the briefing:

(1) DNI Joseph Maguire never said Russia was, would, or is working to interfere in the election to help President Trump.  Rather the briefing nuance was that Russia has an understanding of Trump and would likely view him as a deal-maker they could work with and Sanders, Buttigieg et al were unknowns.

(2) President Trump wasn’t angered at the Maguire briefing; however, he was angered that he had to find out about the briefing from GOP members of the HPSCI instead of Maguire briefing the President on the material prior to briefing congress.  The executive office was blindsided by committee members asking questions of the White House when Maguire never informed the President of his briefing material in advance.

Those two points were spun wildly by the left-wing media.  Kudos to Jake Tapper for setting the record straight.

However, it is not a surprise for President Trump to end the tenure of Maguire as DNI given this end-run around the President and the possibility Maguire’s motives might just be another example of the intelligence community undercutting the office of the President. [I would say that’s highly likely]

The fact DNI Joseph Maguire would brief Congress without informing the White House of the briefing material highlights a possible intent by Maguire to undermine the President.  Whether that intent is accurate is a moot point.  The action by Maguire leaves open the possibility, and his lack of judgment created a mess for the White House.

Therefore Maguire’s action showed poor judgment and a compromise within his position.  Given the sensitive nature of the position he holds, both issues are fatal flaws.

Hence, President Trump selected a more dependable Richard “Ric” Grenell to replace Maguire as interim Acting DNI.”

(Conservative Treehouse, 2/21/2020)  (Archive)

Michael Sentonas (Credit: Crowdstrike)

“Endpoint security firm CrowdStrike announced on Wednesday that Michael Sentonas has been appointed chief technology officer (CTO) after Dmitri Alperovitch decided to leave the company to launch a non-profit policy accelerator.

Alperovitch, one of the founders of CrowdStrike, has been acting as CTO since the company’s launch in 2011. In its announcement, CrowdStrike only said he had transitioned out of the company, but Alperovitch has shared some information about his future plans on social media.

“I have left CrowdStrike to launch a non-partisan, non-profit policy accelerator,” Alperovitch said. “Since founding CrowdStrike and during my tenure, I helped transform the cybersecurity industry and want to apply the same ingenuity and a venture approach to galvanize solutions to pressing cybersecurity national security and foreign policy challenges.” (Read more: SecurityWeek, 2/20/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch announced today it received letters from both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) stating they will neither confirm nor deny the existence of emails and other communications related to CIA official  Eric Ciaramella, who reportedly worked on Ukraine issues while on detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses.

These letters were received in response to two December 2019 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits filed after the CIA and DOJ failed to respond to November 2019 requests for communications between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-03809)) and all of Ciaramella’s emails from June 1, 2016, to November 12, 2019 (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency (No. 1:19-cv-03807)).

Ciaramella is widely reported as the person who filed the whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment proceedings. His name reportedly was “raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.”

The CIA letter stated:

In accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the requests. The fact of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself exempt from FO IA under exemption (b )(3) and Section 6 of the CIA Act of I 949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507, and, to the extent your request could relate to CIA intelligence sources and methods information, the fact of the existence or nonexistence of such records is exempt from FOIA under exemption (b)( I) and exemption (b)(3) in conjunction with Section 102A(i)(l) of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C § 3024(i)( I).

This completes our response to the above referenced cases.

The Justice Department also refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records, citing, among other justifications, the personal privacy of Ciaramella.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 2/20/2020)  (Archive)

Kash Patel (Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

“Kash Patel, a former top National Security Council official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer in helping Republicans discredit the Russia probe, is now a senior adviser for new acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, according to four people familiar with the matter.

It’s not clear what exact role Patel is playing in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community. He started at ODNI on Thursday, according to an administration official.

Patel, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, joined the National Security Council’s International Organizations and Alliances directorate last February and was promoted to a senior counterterrorism role at the NSC in mid-summer.

He had previously worked as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)’s top staffer on the House Intelligence Committee and was the lead author of a report questioning the conduct of FBI and DOJ officials investigating Russia’s election interference. Republicans later used the report to bolster arguments that the probe was a plot to take down President Donald Trump.” (Read more: Politico, 2/20/2020)  (Archive)

“Nate Cain is a Patriot. He risked everything to reveal the active cover-up of FBI Director Comey and his efforts to protect the Clinton Global Crime Network. Comey suppressed huge troves of FBI investigative files; Nate found them and turned them over to Rep. Devin Nunes and IG Michael E. Horowitz. This is Nate’s story, many of the details never before disclosed.

Bards Of War Podcast explores politics, culture, economics, faith, war, and human nature by building context through story and narrative. Effective research will cross-reference material to create a hybrid map built on qualitative and quantitative data cycling. This allows narratives to be developed, assessed and analyzed. This is the foundation of cultural analysis.

The podcast episodes are presented by Scott Kesterson, a U.S. documentary filmmaker, backpack journalist, researcher and writer.”

“Former Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not brief the white house prior to taking Shelby Pierson, the person in charge of evaluating intelligence regarding election security, to lead the presentation to the house intel committee (HPSCI).   That’s the key takeaway from a taped preview of National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien on Face The Nation.

Shelby Pierson (Credit: public domain)

With NSA O’Brien confirming what many suspected it begs the question why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House? The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and democrats on the committee, and there was no intelligence presented to support the claims made by Democrats and media.

Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, now Acting DNI Grenell has asked the intelligence community, including Shelby Pierson to produce the underlying intelligence within her briefing. It is reported that Pierson and the alliance of intelligence around her are going bananas. Sounds like Ms. Pierson might not last long. (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 2/22/2020)  (Archive)

“…anonymous intelligence officials are reporting to CNN that Ms. Pierson “overstepped” her position, was “misleading” in her briefing, and “mischaracterized” the underlying intelligence. Imagine that.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

Washington (CNN)–The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.

[…] “The intelligence doesn’t say that,” one senior national security official told CNN. “A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it’s a step short of that.

[…] One intelligence official said that Pierson’s characterization of the intelligence was “misleading” and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the “nuance” needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where Pierson is a senior official, did not respond to CNN’s request for comment. (more)

Why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House?

The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and Democrats on the House Intel Committee; and there was no intelligence presented during the briefing to support the claims made by Pierson, Democrats, and media. (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 2/23/2020)  (Archive)

Joseph Mifsud and George Papadopoulos (Credit: Financial Times Graphic)

“Newly declassified FBI memos directly conflict with court filings that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team made in asking a federal judge to send former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos to prison, further calling into question the government’s conduct in investigating the now-debunked “Russia collusion” narrative.

The memos, released under federal Freedom of Information laws, are likely to focus renewed attention on former Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, who played a key role in prosecuting Papadopoulos before working on the case of longtime GOP operative and Trump confidant Roger Stone.

(…) Zelinsky was one of three Mueller team prosecutors who signed a sentencing memo in August 2018 seeking prison time for Papadopoulos. They argued there that Papadopoulos hindered federal prosecutors’ ability to question or arrest a European professor named Joseph Mifsud in mid-February 2017 while the Maltese academic was in Washington.

According to the sentencing memo signed by Zelinsky and fellow Mueller prosecutors Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Goldstein: Papadopoulos’ “lies undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States. The government understands that the Professor left the United States on February 11, 2017, and he has not returned to the United States since then.”

Aaron Zelinsky (l) Jeannie Rhee (c) and Andrew Goldstein (Credit: public domain)

But FBI 302 reports detailing agents’ interviews with Papadopoulos show that he had in fact supplied information that would have enabled investigators to challenge or potentially detain or arrest  Mifsud while he was in the United States.

Papadopoulos, a former volunteer foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, told agents during an interview on Feb. 10, 2017 that he “inquired to Mifsud about how he knew the Russians had [Clinton’s] emails, to which Mifsud strangely chuckled and responded, ‘they told me they have them.’”

According to the Mueller Report, in an interview with the FBI on the same day, Feb. 10, Mifsud “denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton.”

Mifsud did not leave Washington until the next day, Feb. 11. Papadopoulos’ information should have enabled investigators to confront Mifsud with conflicting testimony on a point of critical importance to the stated purpose of the Russia collusion investigation before the professor’s departure. But this information was not mentioned in Team Mueller’s original statement of offense, or plea agreement, filed Oct. 5, 2017, nor its later sentencing recommendation. In contrast, those documents portray Papadopoulos as trying to thwart the investigation.

According to Zelinksy, Rhee, and Goldstein’s August 17, 2018 sentencing memo filed with U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, “the defendant’s false statements were intended to harm the investigation, and did so.” Papadopoulos’ “lies negatively affected the FBI’s Russia investigation,” they argued, “and prevented the FBI from effectively identifying and confronting witnesses in a timely fashion.”

The FBI interview memos, however, paint a far different picture. They show, for example, that Papadopoulos expressed his willingness to participate actively in helping the bureau locate Mifsud personally even before Feb. 10, 2017.” (Read more: Lee Smith/JustTheNews, 2/24/2020)  (Archive)

Viktor Shokin and Joe Biden (Credit: Volodymyr Petrov/Agence France Presse)

(…) Unfortunately for Biden, Shokin refused to go quietly into the night.

French media outlet Les Crises reported in January that Shokin filed a federal complaint with Ukraine’s National Bureau of Investigation (NABU) which accuses Biden of abusing his power. At that time, Ukrainian District Court Judge S. V. Vovk ordered the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Bureau of Investigations to review Shokin’s claim.

In April, Just the News’ John Solomon reported that Vovk ordered the country’s law enforcement services to formally list the fired prosecutor, Victor Shokin, as the victim of an alleged crime.

Still, Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies “refused to name Biden as the alleged perpetrator of the crime, instead listing the potential defendant as an unnamed American.”

All of that has recently changed. Vovk ruled that “anonymous listing was improper and ordered the law enforcement agencies to formally name Biden as the accused perpetrator.” Vovk’s ruling states:

A competent person of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine who conducts procedural management in criminal proceedings No. 62020000000000236 dated February 24, 2020 to enter information into the Unified register of pre-trial investigations … a summary of facts that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense under Paragraph 2 of Article 343 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine on criminal proceedings No. 62020000000000236 dated February 24, 2020, namely: information on interference in the activities of the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine Shokin, Viktor Mykolaiovych performed by citizen of the United States of America Joseph Biden, former U.S. Vice President…

The order of the court may not be appealed.

(Ukraine Court Ruling (English Translation): 4-21-20 Shokin Case)

(Read more: Redstate, 5/20/2020)  (Archive)

“The latest dossier defense, offered up by Arthur Snell, a managing director at Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, suggests that former FBI cybersecurity official Anthony Ferrante has validated the dossier.

Arthur Snell (Credit: public domain)

Anthony Ferrante (Credit: public domain)

But what Snell failed to disclose is that BuzzFeed News reportedly paid Ferrante $4.1 million to investigate only a narrow part of the dossier as part of a lawsuit that the website faced for publishing Steele’s report.

Ferrante was unable to corroborate Steele’s allegations, despite the hefty payday. But that didn’t stop Orbis from citing the former FBI official in its latest dossier defense.

“Orbis maintains the highest standards of professionalism. We stand by the integrity and quality of our work,” Snell wrote in the letter to The Sunday Times.

Snell, whose letter is entitled “Trump-Russia dossier was valid,” was responding to a Sunday Times story published on Jan. 26 that criticized Steele’s work.

“You ignore more recent assessments of Steele’s work by intelligence professionals such as John Sipher, Chuck Rosenberg, and Anthony Ferrante,” wrote Snell.

Sipher is a former CIA officer, and Rosenberg is a former FBI chief of staff to James Comey. Both wrote essays defending aspects of the dossier, but that was before the release of the special counsel’s report and the inspector general’s report, both of which undermined key allegations in the dossier. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/27/2020)  (Archive)

“House Republicans have found evidence that Russia Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team may have misled the courts and Congress and are considering making criminal referrals asking the Justice Department to investigate those prosecutors, a key lawmaker says.

Aaron Zelinsky (l) Jeannie Rhee (c) and Andrew Goldstein (Credit: public domain)

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Just the News that his team has been scouring recent documents released by the FBI, including witness reports known as 302s, and found glaring evidence that contradicts claims the Mueller team made to courts and Congress.

“We’re now going through these 302s, and we’re going to be making criminal referrals on the Mueller dossier team, the people that put this Mueller report together,” Nunes said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast set to air on Tuesday.

Nunes specifically reacted to a story in Just the News disclosing that FBI interview memos of key figure George Papadopoulos show he was helpful in trying to locate a witness named Joseph Mifsud but that Mueller’s prosecutors portrayed Papadopoulos as trying to thwart or frustrate the investigation’s efforts to question Mifsud.

The new FBI memos provide “our first evidence of the Mueller team lying to the court. It a lie. It’s a total lie,” the lawmaker said, referring to the Mueller team’s claim that Papadopoulos tried to hinder efforts to locate and question Mifsud.

“I always assumed that Papadopolis probably was helpful. I mean, he’s kind of alluded to that, that he offered to be helpful, but we had never seen the actual 302s,” Nunes said.

You can listen to the Nunes interview here.

(Read more: John Solomon/JustTheNews, 2/24/2020)  (Archive)

Viktor Shokin (l) and Joe Biden (Credit: public domain)

“The State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) has registered a criminal case on pressure from former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden on former Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Shokin.

“The SBI has added information on the criminal offence to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations,” Shokin’s lawyer Oleksandr Teleshetsky said during a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency on February 27.

The case was opened under an appeal from Shokin. The court obliged the SBI to register the proceeding.

In his motion, Shokin spoke of pressure put on him by Biden, Teleshetsky said.

“The reason for the pressure was the investigation being conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine into grave crimes of international corruption linked with the activities of former Ecology Minister of Ukraine Mykola Zlochevsky and top managers at the Burisma company,” he said.

Shokin’s motion was filed with the State Bureau of Investigations back on January 28, 2020, but information about the criminal offence was added to the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations only on February 24 after the country ordered the bureau to register the case, Teleshetsky said.” (Read more: Interfax-Ukraine, 2/27/2020)  (Archive)

The Crossfire Hurricane Scheme Team (Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

The Daily Caller News Foundation and the watchdog group Citizens United sued the Justice Department and its inspector general on Tuesday for a slew of records from the watchdog’s report on the FBI’s abuse of surveillance of the Trump campaign.

Citizens United filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on behalf of the DCNF related to public records requests that both organizations filed Feb. 24.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeks all transcripts, summaries and notes from 27 individuals interviewed as part of the inspector general’s probe, including Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier, and former FBI executives like James Comey and Andrew McCabe.

Citizens United filed the lawsuit after the DOJ and IG’s office failed to provide documents within the 20-day window required under the Freedom of Information Act.

(…) The Citizens United/DCNF lawsuit seeks records from former FBI officials who took part in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, including Comey, McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, James Rybicki and Michael Kortan. 

The lawsuit also seeks the records of current and former DOJ officials Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, Bruce Swartz, Stuart Evans, John Carlin, Mary McCord, George Toscas, and David Laufman.”  (Read more: The Daily Caller, 4/14/2020)  (Archive)

“An FBI agent faulted for some of the most significant problems laid out in the Justice Department’s inspector general report on FISA abuse against a Trump campaign associate has been identified.

The New York Times, citing people familiar with the FBI’s Russia probe, identified Stephen A. Somma, a counterintelligence investigator who works out of the bureau’s New York field office, as “Case Agent 1” from the inspector general’s (IG) report.

The upper-level DOJ/FBI officials also responsible for FISA applications. (Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(…) According to the IG report, he was the FBI agent who initially sought a surveillance warrant against Page. Somma pushed for a FISA warrant “almost immediately” after the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, the IG said.

Somma’s initial request was rejected, but FBI lawyers later approved seeking a FISA warrant on Page after the bureau received information from former British spy Christopher Steele. In his dossier, Steele alleged that Page was a key player in the Trump campaign’s “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

The IG report said the FBI failed to verify the allegations about Page before using Steele’s information in FISA applications. The special counsel’s investigation undercut the idea that Page or anyone on the Trump team worked with Russians.

Somma was in charge of verifying the accuracy of information included in the FISA applications. He was also the FBI handler for Stefan Halper, a former Cambridge professor who met with and secretly recorded Trump campaign aides Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos.

The IG report said Somma failed to disclose potentially exculpatory information that Page and Papadopoulos told Halper. He also failed to disclose that the CIA told him on Aug. 15, 2016, that Page had been an “operational contact” for the agency years earlier.

Perhaps Somma’s most egregious omission deals with an interview he conducted in January 2017 with Steele’s primary source for information in the dossier.

According to the IG report, the Steele source, referred to as “Primary Sub-Source,” told FBI agents that Steele misrepresented information attributed to him in the dossier, including about Page. The FBI and Justice Department failed to disclose the information in its final two applications for FISA orders on Page.

Largely because of the omission, the Justice Department has deemed the two orders to be invalid.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/24/2020)  (Archive)

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

“The FBI agent who ran the bureau’s warrantless spying program said Wednesday he warned ex-Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe that the program was a useless waste of taxpayer money that needlessly infringed Americans’ civil liberties but his bosses refused to take action.

Retired Special Agent Bassem Youssef ran the FBI’s Communications Analysis Unit from late 2004 until his retirement in late 2014. He told Just the News he fears the deeply flawed program, which was started in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, was allowed to keep going to give Americans a false sense of security in the war on terror and possibly to enable inappropriate spying, such as that which targeted President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“I have no doubt, or very little doubt, that it was used for political spying or political espionage,” Youssef said during a lengthy interview for the John Solomon Reports podcast.

Retired Special Agent Bassem Youssef tells The Hill in an interview March 2018, that the surveillance program was responsible for helping disrupt just one possible terror plot over more than a decade, searching through thousands of Americans’ records. (Credit: The Hill)

Youssef confirmed that the FBI performed an audit of the highly classified program (also known as the NSA program because it searched call records captured by the National Security Agency) after Edward Snowden leaked its existence.

The audit showed that while the program had generated two moderate leads for counterterrorism cases, it had not helped thwart dozens of terrorism attacks as officials had claimed, despite costing tens of millions of dollars per year.

In fact, the program was generating large numbers of “false negatives and positives,” Youssef said.

The audit, he added, also showed “there was collateral damage in terms of civil liberties” of Americans whose phone records were unnecessarily searched or who were falsely identified as connected to terrorism.

Youssef said he discussed the concerns with McCabe both when McCabe served as assistant director for counterterrorism and then when he was promoted to acting executive assistant director, the No. 3 job in the bureau. But his efforts to pause the program and reform it so it could work better, cost less, and infringe less on American privacy fell on deaf ears, he said. (Read more: JustTheNews/John Solomon, 2/26/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

“In November of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020:

WASHINGTON – Attorney General William Barr told Senate Republicans on Tuesday that the Trump administration could support a clean extension of contentious surveillance laws set to expire next month. And Barr said he could make changes on his own to satisfy President Donald Trump and his allies who have railed against the use of the law to monitor his 2016 campaign, according to senators at a party briefing.

But Barr also clashed with GOP critics of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has three key provisions set to lapse on March 15.

(…) Republicans emerged from the lunch meeting mostly supportive of a clean extension of the law to avoid a gap; doing so is a top priority of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“The attorney general just wanted to underscore again the importance of these provisions that were enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attack. They’re still relevant to our effort to go after terrorists today like they were after 9/11,” McConnell told reporters.

But Barr also sparred with skeptics, primarily libertarian-leaning Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Barr told Lee his criticisms of surveillance law are dangerous, while Paul said Americans shouldn’t be subject to secret FISA courts, one of the people said.

(…) Senate Republicans prefer kicking a broad FISA debate to as late as 2022, when other pieces of the law expire. In the interim, Barr would make administrative changes to address complaints from conservatives that surveillance authorities were abused during Trump’s campaign — something the president continues to seethe over.

“You’ve got three provisions to deal with. I think it’d be smart to keep them in place. It would give us some time to work on FISA writ large, we’ve got three years,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is preparing hearings on FISA.

(…) “A lot will happen between now and March 15. We may do a placeholder and take it past March 15. We’ve got to get this right,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “Anybody who reads the Horowitz report on misfire hurricane will understand what I’m talking about.” (read more)

Prior to the December 9, 2019 inspector general report on FISA abuse, FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA bulk database collection program being exploited for unauthorized reasons. For the past several years no corrective action taken by the intelligence community has improved the abuses outlined by the FISA court.

The sketchy programs, and abuse therein, has public attention yet congressional representatives are not responding to the findings.

Worse still, there is a confluence of current events pointing toward a likelihood Congress and the intelligence apparatus writ large want to reauthorize the FISA surveillance and collection authorities without further sunlight and without public input.

Keep in mind the deadline for the DOJ to respond to the FISA court about the abusive intelligence practices identified in the Horowitz report was February 5th, more than two weeks ago. The responses from the DOJ and FBI have not been made public.

FISA Court Order – FISA Court Notice of Extension.

It appears the DOJ is trying to get the FISA reauthorization passed before the FISC declassifies the corrective action outlined from the prior court order. This response would also include information about the “sequestering” of evidence gathered as a result of the now admitted fraudulent and misrepresented information within the FISA applications.

The FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], again all parts of the Patriot Act, must not be reauthorized without a full public vetting of the abuses that have taken place for the past several years.

At a minimum the pending DOJ/FBI response to the FISA court needs to be made public prior to any reauthorization by congress.  And to better understand the scale of the issue, the consequences when the system is abused, the upstream sequester material needs to be made public.

Let the American public see what investigative evidence was unlawfully gathered, and let us see who and what was exposed by the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants. At a minimum congress and the American people need to understand the scale of what can happen when the system is wrong – BEFORE that exact same system is reauthorized. (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 2/25/2020)  (Archive)

Carter Page speaks with reporters following a day of questions from the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 2, 2017. (Credit: Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

“Carter Page, the informal Trump campaign adviser victimized by invalid FBI wiretaps, says there are more abuses to be uncovered in the coming months.

Mr. Page tells The Washington Times that he has been conducting his own inquiries for a project he cannot yet detail. The goal, he said, is to go beyond the surveillance abuses uncovered by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

“Tip of the iceberg is a good way to describe it,” said the U.S. Naval Academy graduate and energy investor, who has spent the last three years clearing his name.

“It was a broad array of people, and so far there has been no accountability,” Mr. Page said. “I have a lot of questions that IG Horowitz never covered. These need to be answered ASAP. I am also going to be taking some action. There’s much more to come.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has announced a new probe into Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse and asked 17 Justice Department and FBI players to testify.

Mr. Page has drafted 19 questions he wants the committee to ask Mr. Horowitz.” (Read more: Washington Times, 2/25/2020)  (Archive)

Ukrainian authorities have launched a criminal investigation into an HIV nonprofit that receives huge sums of money from the U.S. government as well as leftwing billionaire George Soros. The foreign probe exposes one of many outrageous collaborative efforts between Uncle Sam and the Hungarian philanthropist who funds a multitude of projects worldwide aimed at spreading a radical globalist agenda. Learn more about the financial and staffing nexus between Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the U.S. government in a Judicial Watch special report.

In this latest case, the U.S. and Soros-funded nonprofit helped another Ukrainian group embezzle international assistance, according to a Ukrainian news report that cites a member of parliament. The elected official requested that the country’s National Police launch an investigation, which was officially announced a few days ago. The probe partially targets a controversial civil rights activist named Vitaly Shabunin who operates a scandal-plagued group—also funded by Soros—called Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC). During the 2016 U.S. presidential election Ukrainian prosecutors tried investigating the group’s activities but were ordered to stand back by the Obama administration. At the time Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office was looking into AntAC while investigating whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption had been improperly diverted.

Now officials in the former Soviet republic allege that a Ukrainian HIV charity that gets boatloads of money from American taxpayers as well as Soros, helped AntAC embezzle a chunk of it. Formerly known as All-Ukrainian Network of PLWH, the nonprofit is now called 100% Life and its mission is to fight for the life of people living with HIV in Ukraine’s 25 regions. Thanks to the generous contributions of donors such as American taxpayers, the group annually provides services to nearly 200,000 patients throughout Ukraine. The Ukrainian lawmaker who prompted the investigation says the scheme involved “embezzlement of international technical assistance through the All-Ukrainian Network of PLWH (now 100% Life Charity Fund).” From 2015 to 2017, PLWH-controlled structures received around $142 million, the Ukrainian official revealed in the news report.

A generous portion of it came from American taxpayers, according to government records obtained by Judicial Watch. They show that, since 2012, the U.S. has doled out more than $25 million in grants to 100% Life. Most of the money has flowed through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), though one grant for $3.5 million came from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It is not clear whether the criminal probe will have an impact on the U.S. government’s funding. The head of 100% Life’s board of directors, HIV-infected activist Dmytro Sherembey, is also named in the recently launched investigation. Last year he published a book about AIDS that promotes the legalization of sex work and illicit drug use without punishment.” (Judicial Watch, 2/26/2020)  (Archive)

Barbara Novick (Credit: public domain)

“BlackRock Inc vice chairman and co-founder Barbara Novick will step down from her day-to-day duties at the asset manager, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

Novick, 59, will continue in her current role until her successor is chosen, after which, she will serve as a senior adviser to the company, according to the memo.

She will also assist in conducting internal and external searches to find her successor.

“Much of the post-financial crisis policy work that Barbara led is largely implemented, and she has greatly enhanced our stewardship practices, including our commitment to transparency”, Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink said in the memo.

Less than half of BlackRock’s original slate of eight co-founders will remain at the firm once Novick leaves.” (Read more: Reuters, 2/26/2020)  (Archive)

***********

According to Ukraine investigators, two American companies have been implicated in a money-laundering scheme to help former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych ship millions out of Ukraine. Interfax-Ukraine reports the two companies are Franklin Templeton Investments and BlackRock.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a Russian-British historian’s lawsuit against several U.S. newspapers and Stefan Halper, a former Cambridge professor who served as a confidential human source for the FBI during the Trump-Russia probe.

Judge Leonie Brinkema (Credit: public domain)

Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that the statute of limitations had expired for many of the allegations in the defamation lawsuit, which Svetlana Lokhova filed on May 23, 2019. Brinkema also ruled that news articles that Lokhova cited in her lawsuit were not defamatory.

(…) Beginning in February 2017, stories began appearing in British and U.S. media outlets suggesting without evidence that Lokhova and Flynn had improper contact during the Cambridge event, which Halper co-convened with Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.

The Wall Street Journal published a story on March 18, 2017 that suggested that Flynn had improperly failed to disclose his interactions at the 2014 event with Lokhova, a British citizen who was born in Russia.

Lokhova has argued that the story and several others created false innuendo that she and Flynn were having an affair, or that she was a Russian spy. She has vehemently denied both allegations.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 2/27/2020)  (Archive)

President Trump is threatening to blow up an extension of expiring intelligence programs as he backchannels with a cadre of top allies who want to use the bill to reform a shadowy surveillance court.

Congress has approximately 10 working days to reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 bill that overhauled the country’s surveillance laws, with Attorney General William Barr and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) backing a “clean” extension.

But Trump threw a grenade into those already fragile plans Thursday when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters that the president supports his effort to include broader reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as part of any reauthorization of the intelligence programs.

“I’ve talked to the president, and I plan on insisting on getting a vote,” Paul said, asked by The Hill about including broader FISA reforms in a bill would authorize the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act.

Paul wants a vote on an amendment that would prevent FISA warrants from being used against Americans. Paul’s proposal would also prevent FISA information from being used against Americans in a domestic courtroom. The president, according to Paul, is supportive of his amendment.

Trump’s apparent support for including broader changes to the surveillance court associated with FISA comes as he’s railed repeatedly about his campaign being “spied” upon by the Obama-era FBI.” (Read more: The Hill, 2/27/2020)  (Archive) 

This is a good timeline entry as a refresher on Steven Schrage and why his appearance at Ms. Lokhova’s panel on Russiagate is significant.

Steven Schrage’s name also surfaces in this July 2019 interview with Carter Page, after the Mueller Report was released.

“Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is preparing to issue the panel’s first subpoena as part of an investigation into Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company linked to Hunter Biden, he said in a letter on Sunday.

Andrii Telizhenko (Credit: Twitter)

Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told Democratic Michigan Sen. Gary Peters of his plans to subpoena Andrii Telizhenko, a former Ukrainian embassy official and former consultant for Blue Star Strategies, a firm that Burisma hired to fight against corruption allegations.

Telizhenko, who was a consultant for Blue Star from July 2016 to June 2017, has provided some documents to the committee, according to Johnson. But he says that he cannot turn over others without a subpoena because they are protected by a non-disclosure agreement.

“He cannot provide this responsible information unless he is compelled to do so by subpoena,” Johnson wrote to Peters in his letter, which was first reported by CBS News.

Republicans have been investigating whether Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position as vice president to help Burisma, which has long been dogged by allegations of corruption.

Hunter Biden, who joined Burisma’s board in April 2014, is reportedly who linked the energy company up with Blue Star Strategies. Biden served on the board of the Truman National Security Project, a liberal national security think tank, with Sally Painter, one of Blue Star’s co-founders.

“As part of the Committee’s ongoing investigation, it has received U.S. government records indicating that Blue Star sought to leverage Hunter Biden’s role as a board member of Burisma to gain access to, and potentially influence matters at, the State Department,” Johnson said in the letter.

State Department records show that Painter and her Blue Star co-founder, Karen Tramontano, reached out to top State Department officials through 2016 to set up meetings to discuss Ukraine and Burisma.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 3/02/2020)  (Archive)

******

Sally Painter (c) Karen Tramontano (r) U.S. -Ukraine Business Council members Greenbrier/Amsted Rail, Deloitte Ukraine, Blue Star Strategies, LLC and others for attending the event. (Credit: Burisma Group)

On February 18, 2020, Blue Star Strategies lobbyist, Karen Tramontano participated in a discussion on CSpan where she discusses Ukraine, Trump’s impeachment and where to go from here. It was introduced on CSpan as follows:

Impeachment Inquiry

The Institute of Politics, Policy and History at the University of the District of Columbia hosted a discussion that dissected the impeachment process, as well as the next steps moving past impeachment. Speaking at the event were House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele, former deputy Clinton White House deputy chief of staff Karen Tramontano, and Georgetown University law Professor Paul Butler. Sharon Pratt, former Washington, D.C., mayor and the founding director for the Institute of Politics Policy and History, moderated. (CSpan Video)

(Twitter)

“Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Defense Department official now running for Congress in New York’s 17th Congressional District, can often be found railing against President Trump’s efforts to investigate Burisma Holdings from her platforms on cable news and social media.

The analyst-cum-candidate has called Trump’s actions “illegal,” brushed off concerns about money laundering at the Ukrainian energy giant (“nothing to see there”), and argued that scrutiny of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma just ends up “helping Russia.”

“The beneficiary of @realDonaldTrump ‘s fake @JoeBiden story is the Kremlin,” wrote Farkas in one tweet. “This is why ppl call @realDonaldTrump a Russian intel asset.”

Left unmentioned in her public statements is that Farkas was an integral part of a muscular effort by Burisma to rehabilitate its reputation both in the United States and abroad. As a part of that effort, Farkas traveled to Ukraine on Burisma’s dime and spoke at an Atlantic Council conference bankrolled by the energy company in 2018.

Evelyn Farkas and the Atlantic Council’s John Herbst wearing Burisma-branded clothing. (Credit: Twitter)

At the time of her trip, Farkas was a nonresident senior fellow specializing in Ukraine policy at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C., think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Burisma for its Eurasia programming.

The conference attracted a spate of local news coverage that broadcast the fact that “American diplomats” were visiting Burisma’s oil fields. Photos from the trip show Farkas wearing a jacket with a Burisma logo while touring the gas company’s facilities in the region.” (Read more: The Washington Free Beacon, 3/02/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch today announced that U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her emails and Benghazi attack documents. The court also ordered the deposition of Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills and two other State Department officials.

Additionally, the court granted Judicial Watch’s request to subpoena Google for relevant documents and records associated with Clinton’s emails during her tenure at the State Department.

The ruling comes in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014 that the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House. This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery into whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

Judge Lamberth today overruled Clinton’s and the State and Justice Department’s objections to limited additional discovery by first noting:

Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers.

Additionally, Judge Lamberth said that he is troubled by the fact that both the State Department and Department of Justice want to close discovery in this case:

There is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery.

With respect to Clinton, the court found that her prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

“Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal and we’re pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.” (Judicial Watch, 3/02/2020)  (Archive)

A federal judge has ruled that Hillary Clinton and her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills must sit for a deposition within 75 days.   Judicial Watch won the court ruling despite the ongoing efforts by the DOJ to block their inquiry. (JW Link)  (PDF)

Cheryl Mills (l), walks with Hillary Clinton as they arrive at Caracol, Haiti, October 22, 2012. (Credit: Getty Images)

From the Ruling – “The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.”

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 3/02/2020)  (Archive)

Greg Jarret writes:

“It’s not over yet, Hillary. The Clintons have become accustomed to the mainstream media and bureaucracies forgiving their misdoings. Not this time. Judicial Watch, the conservative activist group issued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States District Court for D.C. regarding Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State.

Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has skated through the serious issue that she used her personal email account surely compromised national security. She did not even face consequences while running for the President of the United States. Democrats were more than thrilled to put corrupt Clinton in the White House over Donald Trump.

Revenge is sweet, particularly when a Clinton has evaded consequences for far too long. The Federal court ruled today that the former Secretary of State must “sit for a deposition where she will be questioned on matters relating to her use of a private server during her time at the State Department” reports Fox News.

With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers…

Previously, the court had ordered, “discovery into three main areas: whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; whether the State Department had previously attempted to settle the case in ‘bad faith’; whether the State Department had ‘adequately searched’ for records pertinent to Judicial Watch’s request.”

Not surprisingly for those who are not under the spell of the Clinton cult, further discovery was required. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth stated, “Although discovery in FOIA cases is rare, the Court again reminds the government that it was State’s mishandling of this case – which was either the result of bureaucratic incompetence or motivated by bad faith – that opened discovery in the first place.” (Read more: Gregg Jarrett, 3/02/2020) (Archive)

On January 22, 2020, Crowdstrike’s editorial team publishes an article that appears to create distance from Ukraine and Russia’s connections to Wikileaks.

“For more than three years, the mainstream media promoted the biggest fraud in US history – that the Russians hacked the DNC’s emails and gave the emails they hacked to WikiLeaks who then leaked the emails before the 2016 election.

Now, suddenly the firm at the center of this fraud, Crowdstrike, is taking a step back from their previous actions related to the entire sham.

(…) A week ago Personal Liberty ran a wire story originally published in the Los Angeles Times.

In the article ‘Editor’s Notes’ were added in places where the LA Times piece reported fake news.  One of the editor’s notes concerned the MSM trope that “Russian intelligence operatives stole and released thousands of internal emails and other documents in an effort to boost Trump’s chances, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.”

The Editor’s note was as follows:

This is fake news. While it’s oft-repeated by the propagandists in the MSM legacy corporate media, there is no evidence that the emails were stolen and released by “Russian intelligence operatives.” The emails were released by WikiLeaks and an entity called Guccifer 2.0. WikiLeaks denies it got them from any Russians, and Julian Assange has hinted that they were stolen by murdered DNC operative Seth Rich. The FBI was denied access to the emails and the conclusion that they were stolen and released by “Russian intelligence operatives” was made by the DNC-hired cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which has ties to Ukrainian oligarchs and the Council on Foreign Relations. –BL

John Eddy (Credit: Goldin Solutions)

A few days later, this past Tuesday, Personal Liberty reportedly received an email from John Eddy, Executive Vice President of the PR firm Goldin. The email follows:

My firm works with CrowdStrike and we read your article titled “Trump seeks to boost Sanders and foment discord among Democrats”  (personalliberty.com). We need to request important updates to the article.

The article states that the “FBI was denied access to the emails and the conclusion that they were stolen and released by ‘Russian intelligence operatives’ was made by the DNC-hired cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which has ties to Ukrainian oligarchs and the Council on Foreign Relations.” This is incorrect.

CrowdStrike’s founders have no connections to Ukraine. The company also provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI that they requested, and the conclusions have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/). Additionally, CrowdStrike was hired by the DNC to respond to the suspected breach of its servers, and did not do any investigations around the release of the information.

Could you please update the article for accuracy to clarify that CrowdStrike does not have ties to Ukraine, and that the company was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack of the servers?

Note the phrase from Crowdstrike’s PR firm, stating that Crowdstrike “did not do any investigations around the release of the information.

January 2018 Crowdstrike blog features a Russia-based actor we call VOODOO BEAR. (Credit: Crowdstrike)

UPDATE—  We contacted the Crowdstrike’s PR Firm Goldin Solutions and they confirmed their email to Personal Liberty.

Now after three and a half years of the fraudulent Russia collusion scam being repeated so often that half of America believes that Russia hacked the DNC and gave their emails to WikiLeaks, Crowdstrike announces that it had nothing to do with assessing that Russians gave the emails to WikiLeaks??!!

So why is Crowdstrike announcing this now?  Are they liable for fraud by not announcing this years ago? Their lack of response allowed the coup against the President of the United States to progress!  If they didn’t confirm the Russians gave the emails to WikiLeaks, then who did?

The Mueller report clearly states that Russians hacked the DNC and gave the hacked emails to WikiLeaks:

So if Crowdstrike now claims they didn’t confirm that Russians gave emails to WikiLeaks, then who the hell did?

We believe that both Mueller and Crowdstrike are lacking candor!”  (Read more: The Gateway Pundit, 3/06/2020)  (Archive)

**********

Personal Liberty also published an update that says the following:

Update: On March 3, 2020 we received an email from the PR firm Goldin which claimed to represent Crowdstrike asking us to correct information in the editor’s note referencing Crowdstrike’s “owners” ties to Ukrainian oligarchs and claims that the DNC denied the FBI access to the servers. A Mr. John Eddy requested we publish a clarification stating “that Crowdstrike does not have ties to Ukraine that the company was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack of the servers.” We responded by informing Mr. Eddy that we did not state Crowdstrike’s owners had ties to Ukrainian oligarchs, but that the company did, and we linked several articles published in the MSM stating as much and what those ties were. We also provided Mr. Eddy with links from the MSM in which FBI Director Comey had testified and other sources had verified that the FBI was denied access to the servers and emails.

“Crazy” was the term the FBI agent used to describe the behavior of Christopher Steele, author of the now-debunked Trump-Russia dossier. “I’ve seen crazy source-related stuff in 20 years in New York and this was one of the craziest,” the veteran agent testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Christopher Steele: “I’m very upset about – we’re very upset – about the actions of your agency,” Steele said, according to Gaeta. Using the first person plural, Steele likely meant himself and his client, Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson. (Credit: Victoria Jones/The Associated Press)

Nevertheless, the FBI continued to rely on Steele’s allegations – that Donald Trump and his team were conspiring with Russians who possessed compromising information – to justify its surveillance of the Trump campaign. Without evidence to verify Steele’s claims, the FBI fell back on its assertion that the former British intelligence agent was reliable.

The previously unreported testimony [published August 18, 2020] of FBI agent Michael Gaeta is found on page 900 of the fifth and final volume of the Senate committee’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It raises new questions about the basis of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, Crossfire Hurricane, and the declarations it made to the FISA court in four separate applications submitted to spy on American citizens.

Gaeta had a long history with the London-based Steele, who had started his own firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, after leaving the British spy service MI6 in 2009. Between 2013 and 2016, the bureau had paid Steele $95,000 to pass along tidbits on Eurasian organized crime; Gaeta was his contact at the bureau. It was Gaeta whom Steele approached in July 2016 with wild and depraved stories of collusion and kompromat. Gaeta became the “handling agent” for Steele’s participation in Crossfire Hurricane. Among his tasks was to get Steele paid (a process that came along slowly) and to see to it that Steele didn’t violate the FBI’s rules on confidentiality.

Michael Gaeta attends a forum in Rome to discuss “The Challenges of Transnational Organized Crime Today” in October 2016. (Credit: public domain)

Here’s how Gaeta recounted that conversation to the Senate: “Listen, is it about the money?” Gaeta asked Steele. “Because we have the money now. Is it about the money?” The FBI had promised but had yet to deliver to Steele, $15,000 for one meeting with Crossfire Hurricane agents. The bureau had further promised Steele he would be paid “significantly” for his Trump-Russia research.

Gaeta assumed at first a delay in payment had made Steele go rogue.

“Yes, I’m owed the money, but that’s secondary,” Steele told Gaeta. “I’m very upset about – we’re very upset – about the actions of your agency.” By the “we” in “we’re very upset” one can reasonably infer that Steele was speaking about himself and his client, Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson (whose client, not counting cutouts, was Hillary Clinton’s campaign).

The handling agent was shocked: “I had no idea what he was talking about.” Before Gaeta could inquire further, Steele started railing about ”your Director” and his “reopening of the investigation.” This was an apparent reference to former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server after 340,000 copies of State Department emails between Clinton and her close personal aide, Huma Abedin, were discovered on a laptop used by Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner. He was a disgraced congressman under investigation by the bureau’s New York office for sending sexually explicit messages and photos to an underage girl.

At which point it all became clear to the handling agent: “I’m now understanding that he did this because he was upset that the Director’s reopening of the investigation was going to negatively affect the election for Hillary Clinton.”

The handling agent described his reaction to Steele’s behavior as “surprise and disbelief.”  Gaeta told the Senate that Steele’s actions and attitude weren’t just “crazy source-related stuff,” but “one of the craziest” the veteran agent had seen in two decades of handling sources. The words are significant: Steele’s behavior with the FBI has been characterized as a sort of professional disagreement, uncomfortable perhaps but not unreasonable. Gaeta’s blunt assessment casts things in a much harsher light and undercuts subsequent efforts by the FBI’s top officials to rehabilitate Steele in order to justify using his “reporting.”

Although it has been downplayed until now, Steele’s acting out – and his overtly declared partisan motivations — constituted  a crisis for the bureau, so much so that the handling agent describes it in violent terms: “After that point – after everybody digests what happened,” Gaeta told the Senate committee, “[p]hones were ringing at that point; people’s ears were bleeding.”

“Management said we were going to close him,” Gaeta told the Senate. “At that point it’s just obvious. That’s all you could do.” The “management” was Priestap, according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “Priestap decided that Steele had to be closed immediately.” Gaeta drew up the paperwork and Steele was removed from the list of official bureau sources on Nov. 17, 2016.” (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 9/09/2020)  (Archive)

Donna Brazil is very offended that anyone suggests the DNC would rig the 2020 Democratic primary.

(Illustration on examining the FISA court by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times)

“Justice Department and FBI officials under review for their role in the flawed wiretaps of former Trump campaign associate Carter Page are banned from having any involvement in the pursuit of electronic monitoring through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Judge James Boasberg issued a 19-page opinion on Wednesday, ordering that “no DOJ or FBI personnel under disciplinary or criminal review relating to their work on FISA applications shall participate in drafting, verifying, reviewing, or submitting such applications to the Court.”

“Any finding of misconduct relating to the handling of FISA applications shall be promptly reported to the Court,” the U.S. District Court judge added.

Boasberg said, “The frequency and seriousness” of the errors found by the DOJ independent watchdog “called into question the reliability of the information proffered in other FBI applications.” The judge said the government has been “acknowledging its deficiencies” and “undertaking multiple remedial measures” in response to Horowitz’s report and to court orders but also noted that “the errors the OIG pointed out cannot be solved through procedures alone” and that everyone at the DOJ and FBI “must fully understand and embrace the heightened duties of probity and transparency” in the secret court proceedings.

Boasberg touched on three main areas of the FBI’s internal FISA reforms: improvements to procedures for preparing FISA applications, improvements to training and other efforts to institutionalize the importance of accuracy and completeness, and oversight more broadly.

“While more rigorous procedures for preparing FISA applications should prove helpful, the Court is also mindful that changes in culture will require more than checklists,” Boasberg said.” (Read more: The Washington Examiner, 4/04/2020)  (Archive)

******

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

The Conservative Treehouse writes:

(…) The issues of what evidence the FBI/DOJ gathered from the exploitation of the fraudulent warrant is not addressed.  Nor does the court deal with the downstream issues of what cases may have been enhanced with illegally obtained surveillance authority.  Additionally, how the DOJ and FBI are attempting to round-up (“sequester”) any evidence that was gathered as a result of the fraudulent and unlawful FISA application is also not addressed.

Instead, within his opinion & order Judge Boasberg focuses exclusively on the recommendations from Amici Curiae David Kris, the appointed arbiter and liaison between the court and the DOJ, along with the changes proposed by FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. AG Bill Barr to the FISA application process.

The FISC opinion and order is embedded below and available in pdf form here.  I would strongly urge everyone to read it and make up your own mind.  From my perspective the 19-page outline is ridiculous.

The only FISC reform proposed, that could dissuade corrupt exploitation of the court, is simply a ruling that no DOJ or FBI official is allowed to participate in the FISA process if they are caught -and under review- for engaging in illicit conduct.   There are no legal consequences upon any DOJ or FBI member for any fraud upon the court in the past, present or future; they just get put in time-out. (Read more)

“Democratic congressional candidate Evelyn Farkas sent out a fundraising letter on Thursday slamming a Washington Free Beacon report on her ties to a lobbying effort by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, and arguing that she is the best candidate to stand up against foreign political influence.

Farkas, a former Obama administration official, participated in Burisma’s extensive public relations campaign in Washington, going on a trip to Kharkiv, Ukraine, bankrolled by the gas company while working at a think tank that received funding from Burisma, the Free Beacon reported on Monday.

Farkas, whose campaign had declined to comment on her involvement with Burisma prior to publication, blasted the Free Beacon report as “a false article” and claimed it tied her to “a fake scandal.”

The fundraising email included an image of the Free Beacon website with the article’s headline covered by a large box labeled “FALSE,” obscuring any mention of Farkas’s association with Burisma.

(…) The campaign asked supporters to “rush a donation” to Farkas, who is currently running against over a dozen other Democrats in New York’s 17th Congressional District primary. She has billed herself as the candidate who can best prevent “foreign interference” by the Russian government in U.S. elections, according to her website.” (Read more: The Washington Free Beacon, 3/05/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit Conservative Treehouse)

“For much of the last three years, key law enforcement leaders have insisted they did nothing wrong in pursuing counterintelligence surveillance warrants targeting the Trump campaign starting during the 2016 election. And, they’ve added, if mistakes were made, they were unintentional process errors downstream from them and not an effort to deceive the judges.

But in a little-noted passage in a recent order, U.S. District Judge James A. Boasberg, the new chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, took direct aim at the excuses and blame-shifting of these senior Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials.

In just 21 words, Boasberg provided the first judicial declaration the FBI had misled the court, not just committed process errors. “There is thus little doubt that the government breached its duty of candor to the Court with respect to those applications,” Boasberg wrote.

(…)”The frequency and seriousness of these errors in a case that, given its sensitive nature, had an unusually high level of review at both DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have called into question the reliability of the information proffered in other FBI applications,” Boasberg wrote.

(…) For those who have begged the FISA court for years to more aggressively rebuke the conduct in the Russia case, Boasberg’s ruling was a welcome step in the right direction and a first effort to end the excuse-making. But those critics are holding out for more, including prosecutions or disciplinary action.

In the meantime, those who led the FBI and DOJ through that turbulent time — Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as well as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Rosenstein — must come to grips with this new reality. A judge has formally concluded that his court was misled by the work product they oversaw and signed. (Read more: JustTheNews, 3/09/2020)  (Archive)

Graphic by: Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty Images)

(…) Speaking to students at Oxford University in England, he described the probe into Russian interference as having failed to do any “drilling down into financial networks and leverage,” which he said was “the way Russian influence works.”

His appearance at the Oxford Union, a 200-year-old debating society, was held in private but attended by The Daily Beast.

Steele said he had been interviewed by Robert Mueller’s team probing potential collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government for “two whole days” but said: “I was surprised that very little of what I had discussed with them appeared in the final report.”

He criticized the report for being “too narrow” and failing to follow up on crucial evidence. “There were many things about the report that were good… but other (aspects) that were not so good,” he said.

Steele said the fact that “a number of witnesses—including for instance, Donald Trump Jr.” had avoided being interviewed “wasn’t great.”

The former head of the Russia desk at Britain’s MI6 said it was no surprise that Trump did not appreciate the work of the secret service. “Trump himself doesn’t like intelligence because its ground truth is inconvenient for him,” he said.

Steele also attacked the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general report on the Russia probe, which criticized the FBI’s interactions with him, when The Daily Beast asked him about its findings.

Steele described having cooperated with the inquiry over “4 to 5 months” but he said he had seen some “very bad qualities” from U.S. officials, whom he accused of acting in “bad faith.” (Read more: The Daily Beast, 3/06/2020)  (Archive)

“An attorney for Michael Flynn says [s]he’s reached an agreement with the federal government in which the attorneys who represented her client in the Russian collusion investigation will be interviewed — a major step in the former national security adviser’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea in connection with the probe.

In late-January, Flynn’s legal team filed a motion to withdraw the retired general’s guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Powell argued that Covington Burling was “laboring under a severe conflict of interest” when it advised its client to plead guilty.

The firm was, at the time, facing government scrutiny over a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing that it had submitted on Flynn’s behalf.

(…) Sidney Powell recently discussed the progress of the case with Just the News‘ John Solomon. Listen here. (Just the News, 5/06/2020)  (Archive)

On March 6, 2017, Senator Grassley writes a letter to former FBI Director Comey regarding payments to Steele.

On March 7, 2017, messages (pg. 25) are exchanged between Steele (redacted name) and Bruce Ohr about the Grassley letter:

(Judicial Watch – Ohr/Steele Messages pg. 25)

(Judicial Watch, 7/17/2020)  (Archive)

“A top House Republican said a memo from the British government disavowing British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the author of the anti-Trump dossier, has gone “missing.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Sunday that Republicans have asked around for the communique a top United Kingdom national security official is said to have delivered to the Trump transition team a week before President Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

“Now look, that document went missing,” the California Republican said on Fox & Friends Weekend, noting that the letter is “critical” for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s defense.

“Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have asked, but like everything on this Russia hoax, the documents seem to disappear that are really important for the Trump administration and Republicans,” Nunes added.

A letter from the British Embassy to the incoming national security team after Trump was elected to the White House was mentioned in an unsealed filing in federal court by former national security adviser Flynn’s lawyers. The filing claimed this letter was also sent to outgoing national security adviser Susan Rice and “apparently disavows former British Secret Service Agent Christopher Steele, calls his credibility into question and declares him untrustworthy.”

North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, a Republican ally of Nunes and Trump, said in May that he sent a referral to the Justice Department for the memo after its existence was revealed by a whistleblower.

“Based on my conversations with that individual, and the credible timelines that are supported by other events, I made a referral to Attorney General William Barr and Inspector General Michael Horowitz for further investigation,” Meadows said at the time. “There now is overwhelming evidence to suggest that on multiple occasions the FBI was warned that Christopher Steele and the dossier had severe credibility issues.” (Read more: Washington Examiner, 3/09/2020)  (Archive)

(…) In Chinese culture, choosing an auspicious name for a new member of the family is an ancient art. The name not only determines one’s fate and future but also affects the happiness of the entire family and surrounding community. A name is chosen to harmonize various factors such as the metaphorical meaning of the name, the visual aesthetic of the characters, combined with consideration of time and place of birth, and other esoteric elements of Chinese culture like principles of yin-yang.

Due to these delicacies, westerners seeking to translate their given names into Chinese often seek the advice of a native Chinese speaker to guide them through this process.

In mid-2014 Sergei Millian sought out the wisdom of master calligrapher Johnny Lu, a world-renowned artist who has done work for President Barack Obama, the United Nations, and other charitable causes.

According to legend, the sinology professor meditated on the issue for a month, and then produced Sergei’s Chinese name by hand:

赛 天 龙 = Sài Tiàn Long

Sergei has been using this name for official business in China ever since. Several examples can be found in print and digital media.

(…)  Sergei’s official Chinese name, given in 2014, is the literal Google translation of the CODE NAME discussed in the October 18, 2016 email by Crossfire FBI team members Lisa Page and Peter Srzok:

(Read more: Monsieur America, 3/09/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department for all text and other electronic messages of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin after discovering an email that strongly suggests Clinton used text messages for official business (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-00441)).

In January 2020, Judicial Watch released emails that included an August 2011 email from Abedin to Clinton stating: “Sent you a couple of text messages.” The email was among other emails that had only recently been found by the FBI and produced to the State Department. Last week, a federal court criticized the State and Justice Departments for providing no explanation about how these emails were found at this late date:

State failed to fully explain the new emails’ origins when the Court directly questioned where they came from.

Judicial Watch filed its recent FOIA lawsuit after the State Department denied any responsive records exist in response to two January 2020 FOIA requests for:

• All text messages, encrypted app messages and instant messages involving official government business sent or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013.
• All text messages, encrypted app messages and instant messages involving official government business sent or received by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013.

“Where are Hillary Clinton’s text messages?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch uncovered the hidden Clinton emails and now we’ve uncovered that Secretary Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin used text messages.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 3/10/2020)  (Archive)

“Lawmakers are debating ways to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from abusing its surveillance authority again. While they’re at it, they have an obligation to address their own privacy transgressor, Rep. Adam Schiff.

Brendan Carr (Credit: public domain)

That’s the gist of a pointed letter from Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr, which landed Thursday at the House Intelligence Committee. Chairman Schiff spent months conducting secret impeachment hearings. His ensuing report revealed that he’d also set up his own surveillance state. Mr. Schiff issued secret subpoenas to phone carriers, to obtain and publish the call records of political rivals. Targets included Rudy Giuliani and another attorney of the president, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee (Rep. Devin Nunes) and a journalist (John Solomon).

Impeachment is over, but Mr. Carr hasn’t forgotten this abuse of power, and his letter, which I obtained, calls for answers and reform. The FCC takes call privacy seriously, only recently having proposed some $200 million in fines on phone carriers for failing to protect customer data. Mr. Carr’s message to Mr. Schiff is that Congress doesn’t get a pass. It is not automatically entitled to “a secret and partisan process that deprives Americans of their legal right to maintain the privacy of this sensitive information.”

Mr. Carr doesn’t dispute that Congress may, “in at least some circumstances,” have the legal authority to obtain call records under the Communications Act. The offense, he writes, was denying his targets the right to fight the subpoenas: “Courts long ago established a process for Americans to seek judicial review before Congress obtains and then publishes documents in response to a congressional subpoena.” (Read more: Fox News, 3/12/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch announced today that lawyers for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills have asked the Court of Appeals to overturn a U.S. District court order granting Judicial Watch’s request for their depositions about Clinton’s emails and Benghazi attack records. Lawyers for Clinton and Mills filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” earlier today.

(…) In December 2018, Judge Lamberth first ordered discovery into whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” The State and Justice Departments continued to defend Clinton’s and the agency’s email conduct.

Judge Lamberth overruled Clinton’s and the State and Justice Department’s objections to limited additional discovery by first noting:

Discovery up until this point has brought to light a noteworthy amount of relevant information, but Judicial Watch requests an additional round of discovery, and understandably so. With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers.

Additionally, Judge Lamberth said that he is troubled by the fact that both the State Department and Department of Justice want to close discovery in this case:

There is still more to learn. Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails. Instead, the Court will authorize a new round of discovery…

With respect to Clinton, the court found that her prior testimony, mostly through written sworn answers, was not sufficient:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

“This desperate act is yet another attempt by the Clinton machine to delay truth and accountability for her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under FOIA,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 3/13/2020)  (Archive)

BREAKING: On March 16, 2020, Anthony Fauci was informed that Hydroxychloroquine was being effectively used to treat COVID-19 in China, yet he continued to publicly criticize the drug, according to released email. pic.twitter.com/gyuV8SoY7m

— Patrick Webb (@RealPatrickWebb) June 3, 2024

Comment on Clip above:
There’s no way that Cuomo didn’t know. Their questions weren’t confused or inquisitive they were leading and deceptive. I’ll have a lot of comments below and add more in time. But quickly:
– HCQ was presented in Week 3 of the Scam by Trump. No one knew if…

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 8, 2024

Comment on Clip above:

There’s no way that Cuomo didn’t know. Their questions weren’t confused or inquisitive they were leading and deceptive. I’ll have a lot of comments below and add more in time. But quickly:

– HCQ was presented in Week 3 of the Scam by Trump. No one knew if it would work but Docs Everywhere knew it was safe.

– Trump presented hope where there was none. “We don’t know if it works but we know it’s safe. Please try, You have nothing to lose”. Over and Over he said this offering hope where there was none.

– Media jumped on a smear campaign led by Cuomo and others discrediting HCQ. Headlines everywhere – “Studies show it’s Ineffective…” then spun into “Not only does it not work it’s not safe”. Turns out it did.

– HCQ is one of the safest Drugs in history.

– Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a staff Doc at CNN. If he didn’t know this he shouldn’t have a medical license. He should’ve spoken up and given the same advise. “Hell, We got nothing else. Please Try HCQ rather than Die”. He didn’t. Instead he fed the narrative.

– Cuomo saying “We didn’t Know… Docs didn’t tell us” is bullshit. He had access to a staff physician to investigate and present all sides. He didn’t do that. instead he watched his brother receive an Emmy for lying to the world.

– They don’t talk of HCQ because it was the treatment that worked 3 weeks in. Ivermectin presents as 5 months of chaos until anyone had any ideas…. Bullshit. This scam was solved 3 weeks in. None of it had to happen.

– I’ll post more clips and hopefully someone does a space. I’ve been screaming this since day one. This is my 10th Account. DO NOT LET THE CONVERSATION DRIFT TO IVERMECTIN.

Much of the footage is from a Documentary called “Epidemic of Fraud” from @BrokenTruthTV

It’s excellent but very long. Many won’t sit for 2.5 hrs. I’ve broken it up into short clips Please go watch the full at http://EpidemicOfFraud.com

🧵#2 OF MANY HCQ/IVERMECTIN COVERUP
What do you Have to Lose. Trump Pushes Hard for Public to Try HCQ. MSM Intentionally misled the public. pic.twitter.com/q1lSwsbGXA

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 20, 2024

🧵#4 OF MANY HCQ/IVERMECTIN COVERUP
FOX Demands a Local Dallas News Anchor Stop Discussing HCQ. She chose integrity over a mandate and walked away. pic.twitter.com/e5C5aJ3ptT

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 20, 2024

🧵#6 OF MANY HCQ/IVERMECTIN COVERUP
Dr. Simone Gold explains how she successfully treats patients with HCQ and calls out the FAKE PAPER in the lancet used to vilify a safe and effective treatment. pic.twitter.com/5NWQaZwrvh

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 20, 2024

🧵#8 OF MANY HCQ/IVERMECTIN COVERUP
Dr. Peter McCullough explains to @joerogan that a fake paper was allowed to be printed in the Lancet, which was sed to vilify HCQ. Had this not happened, the scam was over. pic.twitter.com/GI8Y7sYmyH

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 20, 2024

🧵10 HCQ/IVERMECTIN COVERUPpic.twitter.com/UkSeMS3BZL

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 30, 2024

Stop Lamenting about Ivermectin. There was an option 6 months before that. HCQ. Truth is coming out. pic.twitter.com/iANsrcwemo

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 8, 2024

After you watch that short clip above here’s a 2 hr doc about it. Worth watching. https://t.co/AlfYNm7Qwp

— SRT 126 (@lindeman126) May 12, 2024

Jimmy Dore: “I took the Moderna vaccine, I got vaccine injured… When I looked into it, I found out we were being lied to about everything.”

“They lied about masks, they lied about herd immunity, they lied about natural immunity, they lied about transmission, they lied about… pic.twitter.com/aZFLbtdKZT

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) June 5, 2024

An incredibly powerful compilation of the barefaced lies and contradictions propagated by Anthony Fauci since the start of the "pandemic".

Credit: @tomselliott @GrabienMedia @mazemoore pic.twitter.com/G0S6jmgKGx

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) June 5, 2024

Almost everyone who researched the substance behind Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller’s heavily promoted Russian indictments knew the underlying claims were centered on the thinnest of evidence.

A few Facebook memes were used to accuse Russian company Concord LLC of violating FARA and FEC election laws.

In July 2018, Robert Mueller asked a federal judge in Washington for an order that would protect the handover of voluminous evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of three companies and 13 Russian nationals charged in a February 2018 indictment. They are accused of producing propaganda, posing as U.S. activists and posting political content on social media as so-called trolls to encourage strife in the U.S.

Indeed, to an incurious media, a Russian catering company posting Facebook memes might sound like a good justification for a vast Russian election interference prosecution; however, when Concord & the accused Russians show up in court and request to see the evidence against them, well, the prosecutors might just have a problem.  It’s that problem that dogged the Mueller prosecution since 2018.   Today, predictably and finally, the DOJ dropped the nonsense case (full pdf below):

The prosecution was always just a farce.  The ridiculous Russian indictments were only created to give some sense of validity to a premise that did not exist and to allow the Robert Mueller investigation to continue operating when there was never a valid justification for doing so.

This was perhaps the biggest shell game operation, with a non-existent pea, using the DOJ and FBI to give the impression that something nefarious had happened; when factually the ‘Russian Conspiracy Narrative’ was all just one big hoax upon the American people.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 3/16/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit: Getty Images)

“Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee claimed in court filings this week that the Steele dossier’s statements regarding Trump campaign aide Carter Page were “substantially true,” a defense that is at odds with the findings of the Justice Department’s inspector general.

“Here, the ‘gist’ of the complained-of statements — that Page coordinated with Russian government contacts as an adviser to the Trump campaign — aligns with Page’s own description of his conduct,” the DNC lawyers asserted in a court filing on Monday.

The filing was the DNC’s first in response to a defamation lawsuit that Page filed on Jan. 30 accusing the DNC and two lawyers for its outside law firm, Perkins Coie, of providing false information to journalists that came from Christopher Steele, a former British spy.

Perkins Coie, which also represented the Clinton campaign, hired the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS in turn hired Steele to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Russia. Steele produced 17 memos as part of the project, alleging a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

(…) Steele also asserted that Page met with two Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, during a highly-publicized trip he made to Moscow in July 2016. The dossier says that Page met with Sechin to discuss a bribe involving a contract related to Rosneft, the Russian oil giant that Sechin controls. Steele also alleged that Page and Diveykin discussed exchanging blackmail material related to both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Page has insisted for years that he did not meet with Sechin and Diveykin in Moscow.

The special counsel and IG found no evidence that Page met either Sechin or Diveykin during his Moscow trip.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 3/21/2020)  (Archive)

(Glenn Simpson (l) and Christopher Steele (Credit: Neil King and public domain)

(…) Steele recently testified in a British court that he believed both then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and then-Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice were aware of his dossier research as it was going on in summer 2016.

The testimony makes his most direct link yet between his Russia collusion research and the top of the Clinton campaign and Obama White House.

Steele told a British court he believed he had been hired by the Fusion GPS firm owned by Glenn Simpson through the Democratic National Committee-linked law firm Perkins Coie to assist the Clinton campaign during the election, according to a transcript of the testimony.

“I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that. But I was not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins Coie,” Steele testified in March under questioning from lawyers for Russian bankers suing over his research.

“You knew it was the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign didn’t you?” a lawyer for the businessmen asked.

“I believed it was the campaign. Yes,” he answered.

“The leadership of the Clinton campaign?” he was asked.

“Fine, the leadership of the campaign,” Steele conceded.

The lawyer persisted.

“You also understood that Hillary Clinton herself was aware of what you were doing?” the lawyer asked.

“I think Glenn had mentioned it, but I wasn’t clear,” Steele answered.

Then Steele was confronted with what lawyers said were notes he took at a meeting with the FBI in 2016 in which he purported to tell agents that Clinton was aware of his research. The lawyers read from those notes during the court proceedings.

The notes, according to the transcript, read: “We explained that Glenn Simpson/GPS Fusion was our commissioner but the ultimate client were the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign and that we understood the candidate herself was aware of the reporting at least, if not us.”

The lawyers prodded: “It’s your note, so we assume it’s accurate?”

“Yes,” Steele answered during the March 17 testimony.

You can read that testimony here:

File
SteeleTestimonyonClinton.pdf

(Read more: JusttheNews, 4/28/2020)  (Archive)

A Fancy Bear Report, December 22, 2016 (Credit: Crowdstrike)

By Larry Johnson

“Here is the bottom-line—despite being hired in late April (or early May) of 2016 to stop an unauthorized intrusion into the DNC, CrowdStrike, the cyber firm hired by the DNC’s law firm to solve the problem, failed abysmally. More than 30,000 emails were taken from the DNC server between 22 and 25 May 2016 and given to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike blamed Russia for the intrusion but claimed that only two files were taken. And CrowdStrike inexplicably waited until 10 June 2016 to reboot the DNC network.

CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company hired by a Perkins Coie lawyer retained by the DNC, provided the narrative to the American public of the alleged hack of the DNC, But the Crowdstrike explanation is inconsistent, contradictory and implausible. Despite glaring oddities in the CrowdStrike account of that event, CrowdStrike subsequently traded on its fame in the investigation of the so-called Russian hack of the DNC and became a publicly traded company. Was CrowdStrike’s fame for “discovering” the alleged Russian hack of the DNC a critical factor in its subsequent launch as a publicly traded company?

The Crowdstrike account of the hack is very flawed. There are 11 contradictions, inconsistencies or oddities in the public narrative about CrowdStrike’s role in uncovering and allegedly mitigating a Russian intrusion (note–the underlying facts for these conclusions are found in Ellen Nakashima’s Washington Post story, Vicki Ward’s Esquire story, the Mueller Report and the blog of Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch):

Two different dates—30 April or 6 May—are reported by Nakashima and Ward respectively as the date CrowdStrike was hired to investigate an intrusion into the DNC computer network.

There are on the record contradictions about who hired Crowdstrike. Nakashima reports that the DNC called Michael Sussman of the law firm, Perkins Coie, who in turn contacted Crowdtrike’s CEO Shawn Henry. Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch tells Nakashima a different story, stating our “Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

CrowdStrike claims it discovered within 24 hours the “Russians” were responsible for the “intrusion” into the DNC network.

CrowdStrike’s installation of Falcon (its proprietary software to stop breaches) on the DNC on the 1st of May or the 6th of May would have alerted to intruders that they had been detected.

CrowdStrike officials told the Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima that they were, “not sure how the hackers got in” and didn’t “have hard evidence.”

In a blog posting by CrowdStrike’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, on the same day that Nakashima’s article was published in the Washington Post, wrote that the intrusion into the DNC was done by two separate Russian intelligence organizations using malware identified as Fancy Bear (APT28) and Cozy Bear (APT29).

But, Alperovitch admits his team found no evidence the two Russian organizations were coordinating their “attack” or even knew of each other’s presence on the DNC network.

There is great confusion over what the “hackers” obtained. DNC sources claim the hackers gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. DNC sources and CrowdStrike claimed the intruders, “read all email and chat traffic.” Yet, DNC officials insisted, “that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken.” However, CrowdStrike states, “The hackers stole two files.”

Crowdstrike’s Alperovitch, in his blog posting, does not specify whether it was Cozy Bear or Fancy Bear that took the files.

Wikileaks published DNC emails in July 2016 that show the last message taken from the DNC was dated 25 May 2016. This was much more than “two files.”

CrowdStrike, in complete disregard to basic security practice when confronted with an intrusion, waited five weeks to disconnect the DNC computers from the network and sanitize them.

Let us start with the very contradictory public accounts attributed to Crowdstrke’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch. The 14 June 2016 story by Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post and the October 2016 piece by Vicki Ward in Esquire magazine offers two different dates for the start of the investigation:

When did the DNC learn of the “intrusion”?

(Read more: Larry Johnson, 3/17/2020)  (Archive)

“Christopher Steele told a British court last month that he no longer has documents and other information from his meetings with the main source for his Trump dossier, suggesting that the former British spy has no way of backing up his side in a dispute with the Justice Department’s inspector general (IG), according to a deposition transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Steele also told the court that his communications regarding the dossier, including with Fusion GPS, were “wiped” in December 2016 and January 2017, the transcript shows.

The former MI6 officer made the disclosures during a March 17-18 deposition in a defamation case related to the dossier. The DCNF obtained a transcript of the deposition.

Steele suggested in a Dec. 10 statement that he had evidence that would shed light on what his main dossier source told him back in 2016 when Steele was working for the firm Fusion GPS to investigate the Trump campaign.

Steele’s statement was a response to an IG report released the day before that said that Steele’s source — dubbed the “Primary Sub-Source” — told the FBI in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented or embellished information in the dossier.

(…) The status of the information was revealed during an exchange Steele had on March 18 with Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for Petr Aven, German Khan, and Mikhail Fridman, the owners of Alfa Bank.

Mikhail Fridman (l), Petr Aven (c), and Lord Browne at the L1 Energy launch in New York, May 2015. (Credit: LetterOne Group)

The three Russian bankers are suing Steele for defamation over a memo in the dossier that accused them of making illicit payments to Vladimir Putin.

Tomlinson pressed Steele over the accuracy of his memo, as well as his relationship with “Primary Sub-Source,” the transcript shows.

The lawyer asked Steele about the existence of the documents and recordings that his attorneys mentioned in their rebuttal to the IG report.

“But none of these documents exist, so they have all been destroyed?” a lawyer asked Steele.

“They no longer exist,” Steele said.

(Read more: Daily Caller, 4/23/2020)  (Archive)

Michael Sussmann (l), Christopher Steele (c) and Marc Elias. (Credit: Perkins Coie and public domain)

A lawyer representing the DNC and Clinton campaign provided Christopher Steele with information in 2016 regarding an alleged secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, the former spy told a British court last month.

That now-debunked tip, from Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann, set off a chain of events that led to Steele publishing a Sept. 14, 2016 memo accusing the founders of the bank, Alfa Bank, of having “illicit” ties to Vladimir Putin. A week after Steele wrote that memo, he had another meeting with Sussmann’s colleague, Marc Elias.

Steele disclosed the previously unreported meetings with Sussmann and Elias during testimony in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by the Alfa Bank founders, according to a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Steele’s testimony about Sussmann and Elias provides insight into how deeply involved the two lawyers were in the Trump investigation and suggests they helped shape Steele’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 4/27/2020)  (Archive)

Left to Right: Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton, John Durham, Michael Sussmann, Mark Elias

A lawyer representing the DNC and Clinton campaign provided Christopher Steele with information in 2016 regarding an alleged secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, the former spy told a British court last month.

That now-debunked tip, from Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann, set off a chain of events that led to Steele publishing a Sept. 14, 2016 memo accusing the founders of the bank, Alfa Bank, of having “illicit” ties to Vladimir Putin, according to a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News.

A week after Steele wrote that memo, he had another meeting with Sussmann’s colleague, Marc Elias, according to the transcript.

Steele disclosed the previously unreported meetings with Sussmann and Elias during testimony in a defamation lawsuit filed against him by the Alfa Bank founders, the transcript shows.

Steele’s testimony about Sussmann and Elias provides insight into how deeply involved the two lawyers were in the Trump investigation and suggests they helped shape Steele’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.

(…) The three owners of Alfa Bank have sued Steele in the U.S. and U.K. over the Sept. 14, 2016 memo, which is referred to as “Company Intelligence Report 112” in the dossier.

Steele testified under oath in London on March 17 and 18.

He revealed that Sussmann, a former Justice Department official, told him during a meeting on July 29, 2016 about suspicious network traffic between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, according to the transcript.

He also said that the theory about the computer server traffic was the catalyst for the dossier memo he would write six weeks later about Alfa Bank, the transcript shows.

“I’m very clear is that the first person that ever mentioned the Trump server issue, Alfa server issue, was Mr. Sussman [sic],” Steele told Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for the Alfa Bank owners, on March 17, the transcript shows.

Steele went on to say that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson instructed him at some point after the Sussmann meeting to write a report about Alfa Bank, according to the transcript.

“I was given the instruction sometime after that meeting by Mr. Simpson,” said Steele, adding that the instruction from Simpson “was absolutely, definitely linked to the server issue,” the transcript shows.

It was not previously known whether Steele keyed in on Alfa Bank on his own initiative, or if someone else tasked him with investigating the bank.

Steele said that he directed his dossier source to collect information from Russia about the bank, the transcript shows. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 4/27/2020) (Archive)

“Judicial Watch today released 80 pages of new emails recently found by the FBI that further document how former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her unsecure, non-government email to transmit classified and other sensitive government information. The documents include 11 new Clinton email documents. The emails include an email sent by Mrs. Clinton a month after the Benghazi terrorist attack referencing a “Benghazi security” issue. The emails also include talking points, which are redacted, for a meeting with President Obama. (This is the second release from the batch of Clinton emails the FBI inexplicably found late last year.)

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 this year.

Robert Barnett (Credit: public domain)

The new emails include an October 13, 2012, message from Clinton telling private attorney Robert Barnett about a conversation with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff, about Benghazi: “Jake and I were discussing the Benghazi security issue since he tried to tell [Redacted] would be asked about it but they didn’t think so. Might be good for you to call Jake too.” Clinton also mentions then-candidate Mitt Romney’s “47% remark,” referring to his dismissal of Obama voters as irresponsible.

On August 29, 2011, Sullivan sends a “cheat sheet” with “key issues” to Clinton, Abedin and Clinton’s confidential assistant Monica Hanley including “Talking Points for POTUS” for a briefing that day. The talking points are completely redacted.

The new email cache includes an email dated August 31, 2011, that former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman sends to former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, William Burns and others, which is heavily redacted as classified. Burns forwards the email to Sullivan. Sullivan forwards it to Clinton’s private email, and she responds: “I called him [redacted.] Didn’t you get memcon?”

Joseph Wilson (Credit: Getty Images)

On December 22, 2009, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson emails Clinton “directly … rather than Sid [likely Sidney Blumenthal]” about Afghanistan, disparaging “cost plus contractors” and promoting his company, Symbion Power. Wilson includes a memo from his boss, an Inspector General audit of USAID in Afghanistan’s power sector activities and a memo of USAID management’s comments regarding the audit. Clinton forwards the email to Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jacob Lew, Mills and Sullivan with the following instructions:

Please check out what Joe is saying here. He is now working for a company that has a good track record building in Iraq and wants to do so in Afghanistan. Let me know. Thx.

On August 30, 2011, Melanne Verveer emails Clinton an article titled “Family planning as a pro-life cause,” and tells Clinton “I know you are going off to France for the Libya meeting.” Clinton forwards the message to Sullivan.

David Hale (c) exits a closed-door congressional deposition during Trump’s impeachment inquiry, November 21, 2019. (Credit: Getty Images)

On August 28, 2011, Clinton aide Lona Valmoro sends Clinton, Abedin and Sullivan a copy of Clinton’s sensitive daily schedule, which is fully redacted.

On November 1, 2012, Valmoro sends Clinton, Abedin and Hanley a copy of Clinton’s sensitive schedule that includes a briefing with President Obama and afterward a meeting with then-Special Envoy for Middle East Peace David Hale, Burns and Sullivan.

In a September 1, 2011, email marked sensitive Abedin notifies Clinton that United Arab Emirates’ money for the Transitional National Council of Libya is blocked in the U.S. financial system. The assumption was that the money was actually frozen Libyan assets. The UAE claimed it was not Libyan money.

“Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that are classified, involve Benghazi, and detail communications with President Obama,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This drip, drip game that the DOJ, FBI, and State are playing is a key reason a federal court authorized more discovery, including the sworn deposition of Hillary Clinton.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 3/20/2020)  (Archive)

Tedros Anhanom Ghebreyesus and Bill Gates attend a Rotary convention to discuss WHO and the Gates Foundation’s collaborative initiatives focusing on primary health care on June 13, 2017. (Credit: Tedros AdhanonGhebreyesus/Facebook)

The current head of WHO is a Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, formerly the head of the Ministry of Health in Ethiopia, a speaker at the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, and named chair of the board of the Global Fund in July 2009: Global Fund Board appoints Minister of Health of Ethiopia as Chair

The Global Fund is an independent Geneva-based financing entity launched in 2002 to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The US government provides 1/3rd of its funding totaling $18B to date since inception:

The U.S. & The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

This updated fact sheet examines the key role played by the United States in the Global Fund, an independent, multilateral financing entity designed to raise significant new resources to combat HIV…

Not widely known or broadcasted is the fact that the Clinton Foundation and Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (an unauthorized and unapproved program by IRS codes) has been a sub-recipient of Global Fund money (pages 8, 9, 11, 25, 51): Independent Progress Report Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative in Indonesia 

During Tedros Adhanom’s tenure as board chair of the Global Fund, the organization gets rocked by claims of fraud and misappropriation of funds. The US House Committee on Foreign Relations drafts a report:

Fraud and Abuse of Global Fund – Investments at Risk Without Greater Transparency

“…to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to correct and prevent the misuse of Fund resources.”

(page 6/10) The Congressional report and other reviews minimize the size of the fraud and misappropriation of funds. Others with a more discerning eye had a more critical take.

A full 67% of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund’s board of directors. So did [sic] 36% of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, 30% of grants to Djibouti”

How Did the Global Fund Fire Its Inspector General and Then Claim He Worked Without Interference?

The problem here — the loophole the Congress left open and the State Department drove its certification process through — is secrecy.

Who was minding the purse strings of USAID which was the source of funds that went from the US State Dept to the Global Fund at this juncture? Documents we sourced from the State Department show that none other than Secretary Hillary Clinton herself oversaw the USAID funds.

How did the State Department view this fraud at the Global Fund?  From a letter we sourced written by the Government Accountability Project on April 22, 2016, we learned:

“…this documentation strongly indicates an irregular and improper collusion between the Global Fund and the State Department in Washington that cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the succeeding years. It is tantamount to fraud.”

At the same time, the Clinton Fdn and Clinton HIV/AIDs and Clinton Health Access Initiative were collecting millions in fees, the Global Fund and also other recipients of Global Fund money who in turn were donors to the Clinton Foundation (classic money laundering). These donors include the governments of the Dominican Republic, Rwanda, and Lesotho. Where was the State Department IG while all this was going on? Oh, yes, that’s right there was no IG for the State Department during HRC’s tenure. How does that happen? Perhaps the same way a Secretary of State sets up a secret server. Rule of law, anybody?

State Department Lacked Top Watchdog During Hillary Clinton Tenure

The State Department had no permanent inspector general during Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary, leaving in place an acting inspector who had close ties to agency leadership.

So when you hear from @BillGates and the World Health Organization @WHO and the Global Fund @GlobalFund and a host of others about WHO leader Tedros Adhanom and for another version of the Global Fund to battle coronavirus, please retweet this thread.” (Financial Bounty Hunters/USA @LWDoyleUSA, 3/27/2020)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: The Twitter thread that includes this source material has been reformatted for an easier read.)

A clipping of the DOJ OIG memorandum released on March 30, 2020:

Clippings from the DOJ OIG memorandum released on March 30, 2020:

“After the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz presented his December 2019 findings of the FISA application used against U.S person Carter Page, the gross deficiencies and intentional fraud were so extensive the IG said he was going to review a sample of FISA applications to identify if the fraud and abuse were widespread.

The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”).  The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019.  Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.

The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here].  Within the 17-page-memo the IG notifies Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases, there is zero compliance with FISA standards.  The IG memorandum is presented before the IG even looks at the specifics of the non-compliance.

Below is the report/memorandum.  Additionally, I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:

• The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.
• The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.
• The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.
• All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application.  Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.

♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File.  Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application.  [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the Woods File requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20.  Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated.  [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]

♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s).  The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.

♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days.  None of the renewals had any re-verification.  Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

But wait… it gets worse.

The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism.  The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications.  One per field office (25 to 30 field offices), which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.

Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review.  Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself.  The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.

However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application.  The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.

So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review.  The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel.  However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.

The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed).  These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate.  Let that sink in…” (Read more: The Conservative Treehouse, 3/31/2020)  (Archive)

Sidney Powell (l), General Michael Flynn (c) and Lee Smith

“A lawyer for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said her client was prepared to “audit” the U.S. intelligence community as White House national security adviser.

And that, according to former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, is partly why federal agents “set up” Flynn.

Flynn, 61, is fighting to dismiss the government’s case against him. He pleaded guilty in December 2017 for lying to investigators about his conversations with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak on sanctions on Russia and a United Nations resolution on Israel, but in January, he told the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that he was “innocent of this crime.”

Powell, who took over Flynn’s defense last summer, told the Vicki McKenna Show on 1310 WIBA Madison on Tuesday that her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.

Powell offered no evidence during the interview to support the claim, but her comments echo the findings of investigative journalist Lee Smith, the author of The Plot Against the President.

During a November interview on Maria Bartiromo’s Insiders on Fox Nation along with Powell, Smith said Flynn was scrutinizing possible misconduct by the U.S. intelligence community.

“In addition to Gen. Flynn’s name being cleared, I hope that his initiative to get to the bottom of what these people were doing — to audit the intelligence community … that’s something else we need to look at again,” Smith said. “As well, his initiative to clean out the deep state.” (Read more: The Washington Examiner, 4/01/2020)  (Archive)

“Stung by new evidence of surveillance errors, the nation’s intelligence court on Friday ordered the FBI to review more than two dozen wiretap applications to determine if they were so flawed as to have led to inappropriate spying on Americans.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Chief Judge James Boasberg gave the bureau until June 15 to complete the review, moving quickly to react to a Justice Department inspector general’s memo earlier this week that found 29 FISA warrants to spy on Americans contained inaccurate or unverified information in violation of the FBI’s so-called Woods Procedures.

The judge’s order requires the FBI to determine if the errors were material enough to void the already approved warrants.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(…) The court signaled on Friday additional action may be taken given the widespread problems now revealed about the FBI’s handling of FISA warrants dating back five years. “When problems are identified in particular cases, furthermore, the Court must evaluate what remedial measures may be necessary,” Boasberg wrote.

The FBI said Friday night it would cooperate with the court and noted that since the problems with the Page warrants were revealed it has taken more than three dozen corrective actions to ensure future FISA would meet the standard of accuracy required by the court and the bureau’s rules.

You can read the IG’s memo here.

You can read the ruling here.

(Read more: JusttheNews, 4/03/2020)  (Archive) (Ruling Archive)

(Credit: CNN)

“Judicial Watch announced today that it and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses opposing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills’ Writ of Mandamus request to overturn a U.S. District Court order requiring their testimony under oath regarding Clinton’s emails and Benghazi attack records. At the same time, the government argued that it did not engage in “bad faith” in failing to disclose the Clinton non-government email system to Judicial Watch and the court. The briefs were filed on April 3 with the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The filings come in the appeals court’s proceedings concerning Judicial Watch’s lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State

Judicial Watch argues that Clinton and Mills “must demonstrate that they have no other adequate means of relief,” which they failed to show. Also, Clinton and Mills do not demonstrate “that the District Court’s order was a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion, or that [Clinton and Mills] have a clear and indisputable right to a writ.” In fact, “the District Court reasonably concluded that Clinton’s previous explanations for using a personal email server are cursory, incomplete, and seemingly at odds with what discovery has yielded to date.”

Judicial Watch further argues that Clinton and Mills are trying to avoid their deposition testimony by relying on, “their status as former high-level government officials.” Clinton and Mills, “do not offer a single case from this Court or any other, holding that former high-level government officials should not be required to follow regular appellate channels to challenge a discovery order.” Particularly in Mills’ case, Judicial Watch notes that they, “identify no case in which a court entertained a mandamus petition to stop the deposition of even a sitting cabinet member’s chief of staff.” [Emphasis in original]

Judicial Watch also argues against Clinton’s argument that she held the server under “claim of right,” when it contained thousands of federal records. Judicial Watch states that unlike other Secretaries of State, like Henry Kissinger, Clinton did not obtain an opinion from State’s Legal Adviser on whether she could take the federal records prior to her departure from State. Clinton’s “claim of right” argument over her server would be like a bank robbery:

A bank robber who stuffs bills into a duffle bag during a robbery may own the bag, but has no “claim of right” to the stolen cash. Is Clinton claiming a legal right to the agency records stored on the server? If so, Petitioners offer no factual or legal support for such a claim. While the server may have been Clinton’s property, the agency records on the server plainly were not.

Though they repeatedly sought to shut down any further inquiry in the lower court proceedings, the State and Justice Departments also argue against Clinton and Mills’ appeal to overturn the order for their depositions:

The government did not seek and thus does not support the extraordinary relief of mandamus due to the unique circumstances of this case.

(Read more: Judicial Watch, 4/06/2020)  (Archive)

…The recent IG report outlining Atkinson’s gross incompetence in the FISA scandal, vis-a-vis the 42 DOJ-NSD Accuracy Reviews, is the atomic shield against the political narrative….

President Trump has sent a letter to congress giving them 30-days advance notice and informing them of the removal of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson:

The necessary, albeit politically controversial, move comes about two months after President Trump assigned Ric Grenell to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Grenell is ultimately the acting boss of the overall intelligence community. It is likely DNI Grenell provided some key insight into the sketchy background activity in/around Atkinson’s office, and the overall intelligence apparatus writ large.

Additionally, former congressman Mark Meadows is now President Trump’s Chief-of-Staff; and Meadows has been a critic of those within the intelligence apparatus who attempted a soft-coup twice: Once by special counsel (Russia investigation) Robert Mueller; and once by impeachment (Ukraine investigation) using CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and NSC operative Alexander Vindman.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

Also, in the recent FISA review by the OIG the DOJ inspector general specifically identified issues with the “accuracy reviews” conducted by DOJ-NSD chief legal counsel.  Who was that former DOJ-NSD chief legal counsel?  That would be current ICIG Michael Atkinson…

Currently, former CIA Director John Brennan is under investigation for his role in the FBI spy operations against the Trump campaign and administration.  Brennan is being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham, an assignment from AG Bill Barr.

Few people have asked why it would take a U.S. attorney to conduct a review of the CIA considering ICIG Atkinson should have been doing that oversight already.  The answer within that non-discussed dynamic points to the reason why Ric Grenell as ODNI was needed.

Intelligence Committee member John Ratcliffe has been nominated for the permanent ODNI role, but his nomination has not been taken up by corrupt Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Chairman Richard Burr.   Ironically, Senator Burr is now under investigation for insider trading related to his selling of Wall Street stocks prior to the financial collapse due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Since our original research into ICIG Atkinson revealed he was part of a corrupt effort to cover-up his own involvement in the FBI operation against candidate Trump, there have been some rather interesting discoveries.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 4/03/2020)  (Archive)

Mainstream Media mocked Trump for months:

One of the most bizarre and disturbing aspects of President Trump’s nightly press briefings on the coronavirus pandemic is when he turns into a drug salesman. Like a cable TV pitchman hawking “male enhancement” pills, Trump regularly extols the virtues of taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat malaria and lupus, as a potential “game changer” that just might cure covid-19.

On Saturday, he even said: “I think people should — if it were me — in fact, I might do it anyway. I may take it. Okay? I may take it.” I’m not only the president of the Hair Club for Men, I’m also a client.

But the evidence that hydroxychloroquine could actually be an effective treatment is, at this point, extremely thin. Might it be some kind of aid in treating the disease, for some patients? Yes, it’s possible. But Trump’s enthusiasm for it is so out of proportion, and so relentless, that one has to ask: What the heck is going on here?

Some people are inclined to believe that Trump must have a financial motive, and the New York Times did report that he owns some stock in Sanofi, a company that makes the name-brand version of the drug. But I doubt that’s what’s at work. Instead, I think there are two reasons Trump is working so hard to convince everyone that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure, neither of which are about Trump’s own bank account.

The first is that Trump is listening to all the wrong people. We know that he finds those with advanced degrees extremely intimidating, activating his contempt and envy for experts. So when all the doctors and public health experts and epidemiologists tell him that while we can look into the potential of hydroxychloroquine, there’s no reason to think it’s going to be transformative, it makes him more, not less, convinced that it must be spectacular.

Trump compensates for his own insecurity by working to convince himself and everyone else that the experts don’t know what they’re talking about, and he knows more than them about everything. As he said in an appearance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.” The scientists standing with him neither burst out in laughter nor began weeping uncontrollably, a tribute to their self-control. (Read more: Washington Post, 4/07/2020)

Anthony Fauci also mocked Trump for months:

The great Covid cover up. After Donald Trump had just announced his support for the use of hydroxycloroquine, Anthony Fauci said this…
“Hydroxychloroquine is not effective in the treatment of coronavirus disease or COVID-19.” #COVID19#COVID pic.twitter.com/qq3JdF2Pf9

— Freyja™ (@FreyjaTarte) April 9, 2024

Interestingly, Fauci’s National Institute of Health published a study in August 2005 discussing the effectiveness of chloroquine against the SARS coronavirus:

“Everything anyone needed to know about the motives and intents of fired Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson is evidenced by his releasing a political statement tonight protesting his termination.

Atkinson doesn’t write a “letter”, his diatribe is not addressed to anyone, it is just a political “statement” designed to be exploited by the same people, for the same intents, as his prior ICIG work product.  This transparently political effort is ridiculous.

Just as pathetic and political as Atkinson’s statement is the statement expressed by current DOJ IG Michael Horowitz on behalf of Atkinson:

…“Inspector General Atkinson is known throughout the Inspector General community for his integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight.”…

What makes this Horowitz statement so ridiculous, political and hypocritical, is that only four days earlier IG Horowitz was so alarmed at the gross incompetence of Atkinson that he submitted an interim memorandum noting extreme deficiencies in the FISA work product of Michael Atkinson as legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 4/05/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 12, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.”  The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack.

Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch.  Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.

The State Department previously told a federal court that the Kandil document wasn’t responsive to Judicial Watch’s request and resulting lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)) seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

But the State Department then produced this information last month to Judicial Watch.  The records, the State Department told the Court, were found among thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December 2015 – again, two months after the key Kandil document was first produced to the Benghazi Committee.

Under court order, the State Department released 11 documents responsive to the Judicial Watch request with large blocks of information redacted. The documents also include phone conservations between Clinton and other foreign dignitaries and heads of state during the period of the deadly terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

At 10:08 p.m. on September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yet the next day, in her 3:04 PM September 12 conversation with Kandil, Clinton said:

“We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack – not a protest.”  Clinton went on to add, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”

On September 15, in a telephone call with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr, Clinton emphatically portrayed the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence. Clinton told Amr:

“I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film… But we have to exercise more self-discipline… otherwise we’ll be in a vicious downward circle against everyone who has ever felt offended, particularly on the internet….”

Clinton’s telephone call with Amr also contained a curious reference to what the former secretary referred to as a “very successful investment visit led by my deputy Tom Nides, and on the very day they left this series of incidents began to unfold.” According to the Washington Post, Nides, who was deputy secretary for management and resources at the State Department, was at the same time responsible for “communications with donors” to the Clinton Foundation. Nides was also involved in the scandal involving Clinton’s efforts to provide special access to State Department officials for hedge fund clients of her son-in-law, Marc Mezinsky.

In a September 12 call with Afghan President Hamid Kharzi, Clinton says at some point they need to talk about “about religious feelings and insults and defamation.”  Islamists seek to criminalize criticism (“defamation”) of Islam.  The Obama administration worked closely with advocates for restrictions on free speech as part of their Benghazi video pr campaign.

The documents also show that Clinton referenced the “actions of a mob” to Tunisian Prime Minister Jebali on September 14.  Jebali responded that he condemned “these terrorist actions.”

“There are two scandals here.  The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The second is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents.  The State Department is forcing Judicial Watch to play ‘whack-a-mole’ with Clinton and Benghazi documents.  It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.” (Judicial Watch, 4/06/2016)  (Archive)

It has been so long since the original 2018 congressional request that many people have forgotten what was included in the “Bucket Five” declassification request.

George Papadopoulos is released from prison, December 7, 2018. (Credit: Fox News)

Bucket Five – Intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all exculpatory intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court.

Bucket Five includes transcripts of the FBI wiretap operations using confidential human sources that were run against members of the Trump campaign; including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

One of those transcripts, from the operation against Papadopoulos was declassified on April 1st, and released last night and today.

(…) ♦ A note of caution…the declassification of documents in/around the core issues of Spygate may indicate a more political approach to sunlight, and not any criminal investigation, at least in part, of the overall IC schemes.  Whatever U.S. Attorney John Durham is looking into (seems targeted to John Brennan) does not appear to be related to a criminal finding of wrongdoing by the FBI actors.   However, don’t be alarmed by that nuance because it has long been visible that the FBI position would boil down to a claim they were hoodwinked by an unknown political agenda within the CIA.

Former FBI Director James Comey has leaned into the “we were duped” approach; but the “we” in that deflection doesn’t necessarily apply to the reality of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s participation.   Comey may have been willfully blind, and incompetent toward his responsibilities, thereby holding plausible deniability as his exit strategy; thus Comey kept all those notes and memos to cover his ass. However, McCabe was not a mere bystander, subject to the manipulation of bad actors within the schemes. McCabe was an active participant, that’s the essential difference between the two.

OK, now on to the transcript as released…

In May 2016 George Papadopoulos was contacted by two members of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Terrence Dudley and Greg Baker, working out of the U.S. embassy in London. Two American spies working in London put Papadopoulos in contact with their ally/counterpart in the Australian Embassy, Erika Thompson. [ie. ‘unofficial channels’] After meeting with Downer’s aide, Erika Thompson on May 6th, she sets up a meeting between George Papadopoulos and her boss for May 10th.

On May 10th, 2016, Ms Erika Thompson and Mr. Alexander Downer then meet with George Papadopoulos.  After the meeting, Ambassador Downer reports back to the Australian government on his conversation with Papadopoulos. [document release]. It is from this May 10th, 2016, meeting where communication from Downer, July 26th, 2016, is referenced as the origin of Crossfire Hurricane July 31st.

On August 2, 2016, Special Agent Peter Strzok and another agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation met with Alexander Downer in London to discuss his conversation with Papadopoulos further. Strzok then received reading materials, which he texted about to Lisa Page.

A month later September 2016, the FBI used a longtime informant, Stefan Halper, to make contact with George Papadopoulos, pay him $3k and fly him to London for consulting work and a policy paper on Mediterranean energy issues.  As part of the spy operation, the FBI sent a female intelligence operative (a spy) under the alias Azra Turk to pose as Halper’s assistant and engage Papadopoulos.

A month later, October 21, 2016, the FBI used Papadopoulos as a supplemental basis for a FISA warrant against Carter Page.

(Carter Page FISA Application)

A few weeks after the FBI received the FISA warrant against Carter Page, they ran another operation against George Papadopoulos using a friend as an asset; a wired asset.

The FBI labeled Papadopoulos as “crossfire typhoon”, and ran a confidential human source (CHS #3) recently identified as Jeffrey Wiseman.

Former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy, told Maria Bartiromo in May 2019 that he had seen the transcripts of the FBI’s Jeffrey Wiseman operation and those transcripts exonerate Papadopoulos.  WATCH:

(Transcript Video 01:10) Bartiromo: I’m really glad you brought that up; the FBI agents’ discussion with George Papadopoulos. Because when the FBI sends in informants to someone they’re looking at, typically those conversations are recorded right? Those people are wired?

Gowdy: Yeah, I mean if the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired; and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls there’s going to be a transcript of that.

And some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist; but they haven’t been made public and I think one in-particular is going – it has the potential to actually persuade people.  Very little in this Russia probe I’m afraid is going to persuade people who hate Trump, or who love Trump, but there is some information in these transcripts that I think has the potential to be a game-changer if it’s ever made public.

Bartiromo: You say that’s exculpatory evidence and when people see that they’re going to say: wait, why wasn’t this presented to the court earlier?

Gowdy: Yeah, you know, Johnny Ratcliffe is rightfully exercised over the obligations that the government has to tell the whole truth to the court when you are seeking permission to spy, or do surveillance, on an American.  And part of that includes the responsibility of providing exculpatory information, or information that tends to show the person did not do something wrong.  If you have exculpatory information, and you don’t share it with the court, that ain’t good.  I’ve seen it, Johnny’s seen it, I’d love for your viewers to see it.

Today the transcript of the Wiseman operation was released.  This is the transcript where Papadopoulos’s friend Jeffrey Wiseman is wired by the FBI for a meeting in Chicago.

Papadopoulos told Wiseman that he knew “for a fact” that nobody on the Trump campaign was involved in hacking the DNC.

The IG report said the FBI tapped Wiseman, referred to as “Source 3” in the report, due to a previous “connection” with Papadopoulos. The report said Wiseman indicated years earlier during an interview for a separate investigation he would be willing to work with the FBI.

After lunch, Wiseman and Papadopoulos traveled to a casino, where they played blackjack. According to the transcript, in addition to discussing Russia and the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos said he had worked for Israeli businesses, “to lobby for them in Washington.”  This conversation appears to be taking place in late October or early November 2016, prior to the election.

Despite all of the surveillance operations against Papadopoulos, the target was not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017. None of the exculpatory information was included in the January FISA renewal or the two subsequent renewals.

It’s likely the FBI will justify not including the exculpatory evidence based on the fact that Carter Page and not Papadopoulos was the primary target of the FISA application.

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

With the release of the Papadopoulos transcript, this interview from May 2019 also takes on new context.

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 4/09/2020)  (Archive)