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)