The US files its Brief in the Flynn appeal.

It’s signed by some heavy hitters – including IG Noel Francisco.

“This Court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling dismissal.”

Full doc:

The Constitutional power to prosecute belongs to the Executive.

The Federal Rules, “read against the backdrop of that constitutional principle, required the district court to grant the US motion to dismiss the indictment because that motion was unopposed.”

Strong words on Sullivan’s plan:

Sullivan and his amicus “may not conduct evidentiary proceedings based on speculation about the government’s motives.”

Sullivan plans to subject the DOJ decision to “extensive judicial inquiry, scrutiny, oversight and involvement.”

Under Supreme Court and DC Circuit precedents, “it is clear and indisputable that [Sullivan] has no authority to embark on that course.”

SG Noel Francisco

This is a remarkable read. It lays waste to various amici arguments that misconstrued Sullivan’s authority.

(Techno Fog@Techno_Fog,  Jun 1st, 2020)

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi October 22, 2015. (Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

(…) The hearing in the D.C. Circuit came in the case Judicial Watch v. Clinton, a public records case involving a request for State Department documents and communication about the 2012 terror attack at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.  U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

The case also involves Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.  Judicial Watch, a conservative activist watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials, uncovered another 756 pages of emails the FBI was able to retrieve that were part of Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server revealing communications between some prominent Washington figures and classified emails sent by former prime minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair.  The emails were part of the batch “Clinton tried to delete or destroy,” Judicial Watch stated in its press release.  It showed that Clinton had asked Blair to continue using her private email after her confirmation and also revealed that Blair was sending classified information on her unsecured server.  Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information, as ex–FBI director James Comey carefully and rather mildly concluded in July 2016, announcing there would be no charges against her.  Judicial Watch did not drop the case.

On June 2, Clinton’s lawyers challenged a March 2 order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ordered Clinton to testify:

P.5: “The Court is not confident that State currently possesses every Clinton email recovered by the FBI; even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained. For this reason, the Court believes the subpoena would be worthwhile and may even uncover additional previously undisclosed emails. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS this request.”

P. 10: “The Court GRANTS Judicial Watch’s request to depose Secretary Clinton on matters concerning her reasons for using a private server and her understanding of State’s records management obligations.”

P. 10–11: “The Court holds that Secretary Clinton and Ms. Mills [Counselor and Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton during her whole tenure as United States Secretary of State] cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack, but they may be questioned about their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack. Such inquiries would go to the adequacy of the search without expanding the parameters…Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART this request.”

(…) Judicial Watch wants to know about the Benghazi talking points — when senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened by heavily scrubbing the CIA’s talking points regarding terror references on the eve of the 2012 presidential election.  They would want to ask her why she deleted 33,000 emails from her private server and what information they contained — because despite her claims that they were “personal,” the FBI recovered more than 17,000 of them that were work-related.  Did they contain any classified information?  Did they contain human intel?  Did she know about the upcoming terrorist attack?  What measures did she use to prevent the Benghazi attack?  What measures did she use to save American lives?  And many, many more.

And now, despite all the effort to avoid testimony, Madam Secretary will have to answer questions from Judicial Watch, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals submitted the case, which will now be heard on September 9.” (Read more: American Thinker, 6/14/2020)  (Archive)

“Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing will be held on June 2, by teleconference, in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.

The appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify. 

Clinton argues she shouldn’t have to testify because she is a former, high-level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State. Judicial Watch argues neither Clinton nor Mills have demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court’s order and that the case is not moot. Judicial Watch argues that the FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.

The hearing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. (Judicial Watch, 6/01/2020)  (Archive)

The arguments can be heard here: In re: Hillary Clinton (15 minutes per side).

(Credit: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

(…) During Rosenstein’s testimony, McCabe issued a statement saying the former DAG was giving “false” testimony about his recollection regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s memos about his interactions with President Donald Trump.

Interestingly, both men accuse each other of lying, pointing the finger at one another, in one of the biggest hoaxes in modern political history. They lied to each other, all the while creating a hoax to fool the American people and the world. McCabe and Rosenstein, along with their colleagues in the bureau, DOJ and the intelligence community know that eventually they will get caught up in the lies and explanations. This is when the finger-pointing will start.

(…) During the hearing, Rosenstein said during his testimony that McCabe did not share details about Comey’s memos or his conversations with Trump prior to opening the special counsel investigation. Rosenstein claimed that he didn’t know about the memos until they were leaked by Comey’s friend Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman to the media. Comey admitted to Congress during testimony in June 2017 that he purposefully leaked several memos to Richman in an effort to ensure a special counsel investigation.

“Lying is when you ask someone a direct question and get a false answer. Candor is when you’re forthcoming with information someone needs to know,” said Rosenstein. “I believe McCabe should have recognized that when I became acting AG (overseeing the Russia probe), I needed to know about Comey’s memos and he didn’t tell me until a couple of hours before they showed up in the New York Times.”

It didn’t take long for McCabe to fire back at Rosenstein, saying “Mr. Rosenstein’s claims to have been misled by me, or anyone from the FBI, regarding our concerns about President Trump and the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia are completely false.”

“Mr. Rosenstein approved of, and suggested ways to enhance, our investigation of the President,” McCabe added. “Further, I personally briefed Mr. Rosenstein on Jim Comey’s memos describing his interactions with the President mere days after Mr. Rosenstein wrote the memo firing Jim Comey.” (Read more: Sara Carter, 6/03/2020)  (Archive)

“The testimony of former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein is now complete and we are able to make an honest assessment into the motives and intents of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and specifically Chairman Lindsey Graham.

Rod Rosenstein is sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 3, 2020. (Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo/Getty Images)

Without a doubt, it is now clear Senator Lindsey Graham is executing the familiar chaff and countermeasure approach to cover-up the former administration surveillance abuses.

Here are four specific reasons that clarity is assured.  Ranked in order of brutality:

♦ Number Four:

While there was some cursory inquiry into the reasoning of Rod Rosenstein to authorize the direct targeting of Trump campaign officials, not a single Senator inquired about the specifics behind how the August 2, 2017 scope memo was created:

Who specifically identified the targets; what justification was provided by the special counsel to target the officials; why were those specific persons were selected; and under what predicate was Rosenstein authorized to expand the Mueller investigation?

The Senators on the Judiciary Committee, with full knowledge and forethought; and with specific access to the document in question; and with malicious intent to deny justice on behalf of those targeted; totally failed to make an appropriate inquiry.

♦ Number Three:

To make matters worse… The Senate Judiciary Committee members specifically stated they were aware of the content of the Mueller Report.  As a witness, DAG Rosenstein brought a copy of the Mueller report with him to the hearing; and yet not a single member of the committee highlighted the hidden/secret October 20, 2017, scope memo.

There was ZERO inquiry from the Senate Judiciary Committee into a known issue that was/is relevant to the ongoing prosecution of General Michael Flynn; and the underlying evidence, first uncovered within the report; highlighting how Rod Rosenstein authorized a hidden memorandum to target Michael Flynn Jr. as leverage to force a guilty plea from the original target of Rosenstein authorized.   This was completely ignored:

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s lack of inquiry was either because they held no awareness of the hidden scope memo; or, more likely, because they needed to pretend they held no awareness of the hidden October 20th scope memo to avoid exposing it.

♦ Number Two:

Despite the former Deputy AG stating twice that he was troubled by the leaking of the highly classified FISA application to the media, the committee intentionally and purposefully avoided asking the obvious question:

If DAG Rod Rosenstein was so concerned about the leak of the Carter Page FISA, then why did the DOJ under Rosenstein’s tenure purposefully refuse to indict SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for leaking the FISA application?

During his testimony Deputy AG Rosenstein testified this specific leak was alarming to him because it identified the innocent target of the investigation, Carter Page.  However, Rosenstein was NOT alarmed enough to prosecute Wolfe for the leak.  Why Not?

The Senate Judiciary Committee never went near that highly explosive issue.

However, if the purpose and intent of Senator Graham were not crystal clear by those three prior issues that were left undiscussed, the number one proof of his intention is stunning in its brutality.

♦ Number One:

The Senate Judiciary Committee was recently made aware of a letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court written in July of 2018.  The letter was/is a specific example of fraud upon the court during the tenure of Rod Rosenstein.  It is inexcusable that Rod Rosenstein was not asked about the July 12, 2018, material lie to the court.

Please notice this DOJ cover letter (making the committee aware) was personally sent to Chairman Lindsey Graham by the DOJ as ORDERED by the FISA Court.

The content of the communication was a 2018 letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court. The letter below was sent by the DOJ National Security Division on July 12, 2018.

The purpose of the hearing today was specifically about the FISA abuses, yet the committee did not ask a single question about this letter.  Here it is:

This is an incredibly misleading letter to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

How is it even remotely possible for Senator Lindsey Graham to conduct an inquiry into Crossfire Hurricane and FISA abuses, and yet completely avoid asking Rod Rosenstein about the content of a letter that was specifically created during his tenure, and goes directly to the heart of his personal involvement.

The content itself is a complete fabrication of information and it was written by Rosenstein’s DOJ a full fifteen months after the DOJ was fully aware the predicate for the FISA application was fraudulent.

This 2018 justification letter was so alarming the FISA Court itself demanded the DOJ send a copy of it to the Senate Judiciary Committee to use in oversight.  However, Chairman Graham didn’t ask Rod Rosenstein a single question about it.

There is no way to look at the absence of inquiry without accepting the motive and intent of the committee is to bury information; thereby protecting DC entities.

The hearing was intentionally scheduled to give the appearance of Senator Graham taking action; he isn’t.  It’s the all-too-familiar…

.….Chaff and countermeasures!

(Conservative Treehouse, 6/03/2020)  (Archive)

The notoriously political DOJ lawyer who was assigned to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, has joined notoriously political DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissmann as a paid MSNBC analyst. The media are not even pretending anymore.

Laughably, the media assembly of highly partisan DOJ and FBI officials continues.

However, apparently the left-wing media does not think the American electorate will see all of these political operatives, gathering under one collective presence, as an indication of their extreme bias and political intent.  They have no credibility left to burn.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/05/2020)  (Archive)

Republican-led Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee authorizes SenRonJohnson to issue subpoenas FBI Crossfire Hurricane, State Dept contact author “Steele Dossier” and unmasking by former government officials. +30 names READ @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/34g4q8hz6w

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) June 5, 2020

William_M._McSwain (Credit: Wikipedia)

After former Attorney General William Barr said there was no widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s chances of overturning election results were effectively killed.

Many felt that if Trump’s own AG was unable to support his claims of election fraud, the accusations must not have much merit.

However, Trump released a letter Monday he said proves Barr discouraged certain individuals from investigating possible voter fraud connected to the election.

The letter was dated June 9, 2021, and was sent by William McSwain, the U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 2018 until January 2021. McSwain, who plans to run for governor in Pennsylvania in 2022, claimed Barr told him to steer clear of election fraud claim investigations to the extent it was possible.

“U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was precluded from investigating election fraud allegations. Outrageous!” Trump said in a statement accompanying the letter.

McSwain went on to allege Barr told him “not to make any public statements or put out any press releases regarding possible election irregularities.”

McSwain resides in Pennsylvania, where the state attorney general is a Democrat named Josh Shapiro. On Oct. 31, 2020, Shapiro tweeted Trump would not win the election after all the votes were counted. (Read more: Western Journal, 7/14/2021)  (Archive)

Senators Grassley and Johnson release an unredacted copy of Annex A, a 2-page report included in the January 7, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Trump Russia collusion during the 2016 Election. Please see this timeline entry for an update on this document. (Grassley’s letter doesn’t provide the clearest of docs so you may want to go to the archived source link and zoom in for a little bit clearer view.)

(Senator Grassley, 6/9/2020)  (Archive)

“Famed Clinton Foundation investigators John Moynihan and Larry Doyle have the Justice Department and IRS — as well as the Clinton Cartel — running for cover. The investigative duo just quietly dropped a massive bomb on all parties, as detailed exclusively on the Thomas Paine Podcast. Listen Above

And now the FEDs are scurrying to help cover up yet another massive national scandal. And covering for the Clinton’s. Again. But why? Paine has the dirt. Truly incredible NEW Intel.” (The True Pundit/Thomas Paine)

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped negotiate who would score a $100 billion government-backed contact tracing contract in August 2019 — six months before the ‘pandemic’ arrived in the United States and four months before it swept through China.

The shocking revelations were unveiled on the Thomas Paine Podcast and the Moore Paine Show on Patreon by the two investigators who blew the whistle on the massive Clinton Foundation tax fraud during a Congressional hearing in 2018. John Moynihan and Larry Doyle testified in Congress, detailing the fraud and schemes utilized by the Clinton’s to avoid paying up to $2.5 BILLION in federal taxes.

The investigative duo, in their first interview since that bombshell Congressional testimony, revealed to Paine that representatives from the Gates Foundation met with U.S. Congressman Bobby L. Rush at a sit down in Rwanda, East Africa in mid-August 2019 to hash out who would score the windfall from a government contact tracing program. And just last month — nine months after the meetings with the Gates Foundation in Rwanda —  Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the $100 BILLION H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.

Rush’s bill would establish a program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for national coronavirus testing and contact tracing.

Paine has since learned Congressman Rush traveled to Rwanda with his spouse from August 12th to 19th, 2019 to take part in talks and a week-long event underwritten by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

But how can you negotiate the byproducts of monitoring a pandemic six to seven months before the outbreak of the virus even happens?” (The Liberty Beacon, 6/10/2020)

Over a year later:

New Exclusive on the Thomas Paine Podcast —

Moynihan & Doyle gave Fauci & Gates Enough Rope and the ‘Good Doctor’ and the Crazed Billionaire Did the Rest …

Moynihan & Doyle Expose Fauci & Bill Gates’ Global Vax Con

#ClintonFoundationWhistleblowers
In our only public interview given in June ’20, my partner/I projected w/specificity as to who, what, why, + how our public health debacle would unfold. On Aug 3, ’21 Tony Fauci laid out the future + confirmed our projections. Listen, learn, share https://t.co/q6TwCPvTQj

— Financial Bounty Hunters USA (@LWDoyleUSA) August 19, 2021

The Clintons are also connected to the contract tracing program:

“Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former president Bill Clinton and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, sits on the Board of Trustees of an organization that is officially conducting Coronavirus “Contact Tracing” for the state of Massachusetts. This arrangement raises serious concerns about the perceived politicization of the Contact Tracing process, by which teams of investigators track people who are potentially exposed to the virus and the people that those people come into contact with. Chelsea Clinton even did a Clinton Foundation “Why Am I Telling You This” podcast with Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners in Health, the contact tracing group that Chelsea Clinton sits on the board of. In the interview, Chelsea calls Farmer her “mentor’ and disparages America’s “bounty” of riches, calling it “bounty hoarded, and not easily distributed or accessible.”

Partners in Health was recently selected by Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker to conduct Coronavirus “contact tracing,” a process that involves teams of investigators finding out who infected people have come into contact with. The group is already “training and deploying hundreds of contact tracers.” Some citizens fear the potential for mass surveillance posed by contact tracing, especially in light of a Democrat-introduced bill in Congress to authorize contact tracing “at individuals’ residences.” Partners In Health’s involvement will not assuage many fears, considering the group has received funding from George Soros and Bill Gates organizations and counts Chelsea Clinton on its board of trustees.

Partners in Health lists George Soros’ Open Society Foundations as an official partner, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Partners In Health lists Open Society Foundations on its 2015 annual report as a supporter to the tune of $1 million or above, along with the Gates Foundation. Chelsea Clinton serves on Partners in Health’s Board of Trustees, according to its 2019 annual report.

Partners in Health co-founder Paul Farmer’s achievement.org bio notes: “Farmer’s work attracted the support of philanthropists, including George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates. In 2002, PIH received a $13 million grant from the Global Fund for improvements in the Cange complex. In 2005 the William J. Clinton Foundation funded a Partners in Health AIDS program in Rwanda.” Farmer and Chelsea Clinton did a Clinton Foundation podcast together in 2019.

In response to a 2007 tuberculosis outbreak in Africa, NBC News reported: “Soros’ Open Society Institute announced a $3 million grant to the non-profit organization Partners in Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The donation will be used to design a model project of community-based XDR-TB treatment in Lesotho. Once treatment guidelines are developed, experts hope the program will be adopted in other poor countries.”

Soros personally announced the grant and said he hoped it would spark a larger project. For this initiative, Partners In Health was cited by name in the propaganda book The Philanthropy of George Soros: Building Open Societies.

In 2011, International Women’s Health Coalition noted, “YP Foundation Founder to Join Paul Farmer, George Soros, at IWHC Gala.” Farmer was honored at the gala, which Guest of a Guest noted had David Rockefeller in attendance.

In 2014, Partners In Health co-founder Paul Farmer secured multi-million dollar Soros financing for a coalition project in Africa. Farmer was featured in an October 2014 video interview on Soros’ Open Society Foundations website, which stated, “In between trips to Liberia, Paul Farmer of Partners In Health visited Open Society’s offices to discuss his work on Ebola. Paul talked about the need to ensure sustainable health systems for people in nations where the virus has spread.” Farmer blasted “fear and conspiracy theories around fatal illnesses” in the video and talked about how to “attack” conspiracy theories with activism.

The video I highlighted of Bill Clinton discussing a potential “Contact Tracer Corps” was taken down, but here is another version of it that features Bill talking to Cuomo and Newsomhttps://t.co/cr1aDlY8X0

— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) May 9, 2020

(Read more: National File, 5/16/2020)  (Archive)

Twitter

Some notes:

Moynihan, Doyle, and Michael Moore discuss the corrupt deal between the Clinton AIDS Initiative (CHAI) and Ranbaxy Laboratories who produced and distributed worthless AIDS medicines.

The FBI raids Ranbaxy in May 2013, yet even after the raid and during the ensuing investigation,  Deborah Birx continues to give them taxpayer funds knowing they were producing useless medicines.

In April 2013, Bill Clinton praises Ranbaxy and Cipla for “their stellar contribution in the fight against the HIV/AIDS scourge, saying their cheap drugs saved millions of lives.”

The whistleblowers also noticed many involved in the CHAI/AIDS drug program are now involved in the Covid vaccine response.

Months later Gates stated, “more testing and contact tracing is needed to safely reopen the US.” (Credit: CNN, 4/26/2020)

In August 2019, Bill Gates negotiates a $100 billion contact tracing deal with Congressman Bobby Rush. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped negotiate who would score a $100 billion government-backed contact tracing contract — six months before the ‘pandemic’ arrived in the United States and four months before it hit China.

In May 2019  Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the $100 billion H.R. 6666, COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.”

Rush’s bill would establish a program for national coronavirus testing and contact tracing and run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The former head of the World Bank Group, Dr. Jim Yong Kim, founded a non-profit called Partners in Health and they will work with governors across the country to roll out contact tracing.

Bobby Rush (Credit: public domain)

Corey’s Digs does a good deep dive into the contact tracing scandal.

(…) “To summarize, Bobby Rush has a long history of pay to play and disregarding paying taxes of any kind. Just last August, he traveled to Africa for an Aspen Institute congressional conference of approximately 45 individuals and spent time with Obama and Clinton award winners, Dr. Paul Farmer from Partners in Health who is currently running the contact tracing program in Massachusetts while his partner Jim Yong Kim is rounding up other states, Dr. Jonathan Epstein from EcoHealth Alliance who just had their NIH funding cut due to connections with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and two representatives from the Gates Foundation, while the Gates, Rockefellers, Democracy Fund, and others paid toward the $19,000 dollar expense Rush incurred for this sponsored event. Nine months later, he introduced a bill to dispense $100 billion dollars to NGOs and other organizations to carry out home-to-home contact tracing throughout the country.”

(…) The real alarm bells went off on April 18, 2020 when the Clinton Global Initiative organized a virtual conference and rolled out video clips with Bill Clinton, Gov. Cuomo, Gov. Newsom, Chelsea Clinton, Ophelia Dahl of Partners in Health, and others all discussing the need for contact tracing “armies.”

But the plan had long been masterminded and was already in place for Partners in Health (PIH). Their goal was to dominate the U.S. in these efforts, and they began by announcing their work in Massachusetts, with Paul Farmer leading the way, while Jim Yong Kim was behind the scenes meeting with governors across the country.

Less than two weeks after Congressman Bobby Rush introduced H.R.6666 for $100 billion to NGOs for contact tracing, Partners in Health put out a press release announcing their new ‘contact tracing accompaniment unit’ which would “coordinate and harmonize” approaches across the country by PIH providing small teams of experts, advisers, collaboration, and online toolkits and materials for free.

Yes free, because they will be seeking grants, or shall we say taxpayer dollars. Their initial funding came from The Audacious Project, which is a collaborative funding initiative housed at TED that launched in 2018. Their partners include the Gates Foundation, Virgin Unite, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and about 20 others.

PIH is already supporting programs in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, as well as advising in California, Minnesota, and Maryland.” (Read more: PIH, Bobby Rush, and The Truth Behind Contact Tracing Surveillance/Corey’s Digs, 5/15/2020)  (Archive)

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

“Notes and emails that have been kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

(…) While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz’s narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.

(…) But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz’s report that have largely escaped public attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson’s Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.

For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz’s report.

The agent sought advice July 13, 2016, on how to handle the sensitive election-year allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.

“ASAC 1’s notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: ‘law firm works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80] at some point,’” the Horowitz report stated. “ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him.”

Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.

Footnote 233 – FISA Report – December 2019

Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about Steele’s credibility.” (Read more: Just the News, 6/10/2020)  (Archive)

Solicitor General Noel Francisco (Credit: public domain)

“The case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is inevitably heading toward its conclusion. While the presiding district judge, Emmet Sullivan, is trying to keep it going, there’s only so much he can do, chiefly because there’s nobody left to prosecute the case after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped it last month.

In the latest developments, the District of Columbia appeals court set a hearing in the case on June 12, while the DOJ’s solicitor general himself, as well as five of his deputies, urged the court to order the lower-court judge to accept the case dismissal.

“I cannot overstate how big of a deal this is,” commented appellate attorney John Reeves, former assistant Missouri attorney general, in a series of tweets on June 1.

Personal involvement of the solicitor general “is highly unusual and rare,” he said.

“Unusual” seems a fitting euphemism for the Flynn case, which has been filled with contradictions, falsehoods, apparent blunders, extraordinary moves, and strange coincidences.

The Epoch Times has so far counted 85 such instances.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 6/11/2020)  (Archive)

“DNI John Ratcliffe has declassified the Appendix to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). [Source Document Here] The appendix known as “Annex A” was the material the FBI and CIA did not include in the body of the ICA; however, it was used to brief congress.

There was always suspicion that “Annex A” was the ridiculous claims by FBI source Christopher Steele; those suspicions are confirmed today.  The ICA was written in late December ’16 & early January 2017, and the purpose was to politicize intelligence by making outlandish claims of the Trump-Russia conspiracy the official position of the U.S intelligence apparatus (CIA, FBI, DOJ and NSA).

(NOTE: the document quality/clarity is very poor as released)

(Original pdf)

The “Annex A” supporting the narrative was made out of claims by Christopher Steele. The two-page document is stunningly obtuse by design; and despite the FBI knowing the purpose of Christopher Steele, the Annex pretends not to know his agenda.

By keeping the ridiculous Steele claims in the annex the FBI was able to use the claims yet it afforded them plausible deniability under the pretense of non-verification.  When James Comey briefed President Trump about the claims he pretended not to know the political intents of the information; and worse still, he covered-up that Clinton’s campaign had paid for the information.  A stunningly political move based on deception.

In many ways, the refusal of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to admit their knowledge of the material from Chris Steele is the biggest example of how those same agencies were playing politics.   None of the Steele claims were based on actual evidence; everything was hearsay, gossip, innuendo, and entirely made-up.  The agencies knew this and yet they pretended not to know the motives for the fraudulent intelligence.

As bad as it was to not clearly disclose to FISA court the Steele Dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, it was far worse to not disclose this to President-elect (and outgoing President) in the intelligence community assessment.

Deceptive and fraudulent official intelligence documents, purposefully designed to achieve a political agenda, outline a level of serious misconduct even beyond the fabricated claims within the Carter Page FISA application.

The release of this “Annex A” document shows something beyond the willfully blind intentions of James Comey and John Brennan, and speaks to an intentional effort to fabricate claims against the incoming administration on the weakest of possible grounds.

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

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/11/2020)  (Archive)

Brandon Van Grack (Credit: public domain)

(…) “I didn’t figure this issue out — I think the credit goes to Margot Cleveland at The Federalist — but Van Grack was not accurate in his unnecessarily precise drafting of the “Factual Statement” in support of the plea, especially given that he knew that there was “wiggle room” in the actual words used by Gen. Flynn in both the transcript of his calls with Kislyak, and his answers to the questions by the FBI agents as reflected in their 302.

In setting forth BACKGROUND FACTS — mostly unnecessary except to make reporters happy — with far more specificity than he needed, he wrote:

On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia…

By using that language, he has defined for all purposes thereafter what were the “sanctions” that were the subject of the order.  He never says at any point later in the Factual Statement that the “sanctions” referenced in the Flynn-Kislyak calls were the same sanctions as outlined in EO 13757, or if they included some other actions that might generically be called “sanctions.”  It would have been easy to do with just one sentence.

The problem is that the EO dealt with a series of very specific steps taken by the Obama Administration against Russian government interests.  One thing the EO did NOT cover was the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats thought to be Russian intelligence officers.  Those expulsions were announced on December 29, the day after the EO.

While this might seem to be “picking nits”, the fact is that the document Van Grack drafted said term “sanctions” applied to a very specific thing — the steps set forth in the EO.  That did not include the expulsions.  The factual basis described Gen. Flynn’s denials that he talked about “sanctions” with the Russian Ambassador.  But the comments he made during the phone call were about the “expulsions” when he made reference to asking the Russians to not “escalate” the matter, and to make any response “reciprocal.”   Just before Flynn makes this comment, according to the summary, he mentioned to Kislyak that he understood the Obama Administration was going to “dismiss some number of Russians out of the country” — i.e., the “expulsions.”

Kislyak then comments on the fact that the GRU and FSB are “sanctioned” — which they were among the steps announced in the EO Van Grack referred to — making the two issues separate subjects in the call between Flynn and Kislyak — with them discussing briefly that the “sanctions” on the GRU and FSB would make it more difficult for the two groups to work with the US on Middle East and Syrian issues.

I’m not arguing that when Flynn was answering questions, in his own mind he was differentiating between “sanctions” discussions and “expulsions” discussions in the call with the Ambassador.  What I am saying is that Van Grack made a stupid error in wanting to be overly precise in laying out his “gotcha” facts about the EO and “Sanctions” so he could make the Factual Statement as sexy for the press as possible.  And it wasn’t just one instance.  The Statement of Facts also says the following:

On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT official”)… to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions.

Is that a “generic” all-inclusive “sanctions” including the expulsions, or the “Sanctions” set forth in the EO as he specified earlier?

FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

He conflated the two again and now confused it further because Flynn asked the Russians to respond to the exclusions in a reciprocal manner — not the EO 12757 as Van Grack had defined “Sanctions” to be.  He repeats this same problem 2-3 more times.”  (Read more: RedState, 6/12/2020)  (Archive)

“HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has an interview on OAN news to discuss FBI legal counsel Dana Boente and his exit from the FBI this month.  As Nunes notes Mr. Boente is at the center of an information flow which put him in a position to know the underlying evidence.  As an outcome of that position Boente is either a participant or a witness to corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ.

In prior positions as U.S. Attorney for Virginia; and while leading the DOJ National Security Division; and then later shifting to the FBI as chief legal counsel under Chris Wray; Dana Boente was at the epicenter of corrupt intent and malign activity toward the Trump administration.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

♦June 2019 – Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray – This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].

♦April 24, 2020 – Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents. AG Bill Bar intervenes. This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]

♦April 26, 2020 – CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr – Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid. The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO’s that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that’s the final straw? Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting “Spygate” and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon. Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller’s team reported to Boente, including David Archey.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/12/2020)  (Archive)

D.C. Court of Appeals judges Neomi Rao (l), Robert Wilkins (c) and Karen Henderson (Credit: public domain)

“A lawyer representing the judge overseeing the Michael Flynn trial suggested Friday that the court will eventually dismiss the case against the former Trump national security adviser, arguing that the judge’s decision to call in outside opinions on the matter was merely an issue of seeking advice before the probable dismissal.

The lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, made the acknowledgment during a roughly two-hour federal appeals court hearing on whether the court should order a lower court to immediately dismiss the case, as was requested last month by the Justice Department, or allow the case to proceed through at least July.

“There’s no reason at this point to fear that the District Court is going to deny the government’s motion to dismiss,” she told the three-judge panel Friday morning, stating that the lower court is simply “getting advice” from third parties before likely doing so.

It was unclear at the end of the hearing, at about noon, when the panel of judges—Neomi Rao, Robert Wilkins and Karen Henderson—would make a decision. A ruling could come before the weekend but is expected to likely happen no sooner than Monday.” (Read more: Just the News, 6/12/2020)  (Archive)

Sergei Millian/Twitter/June 14, 2020

Sergei Millian/Twitter

Sergei Millian/Twitter

Sergei Millian/Twitter

James Baker (Credit: Twitter)

“Twitter announced Monday that it has hired the former FBI lawyer who approved key steps taken during the investigation into the Trump campaign, including the decisions to surveil former campaign aide Carter Page and to use an FBI agent to secretly monitor Michael Flynn during a national security briefing for the campaign.

James Baker will serve as deputy general counsel of Twitter, said Sean Edgett, the general counsel of the social media company.

Baker “is committed to our core principles of an open internet and freedom of expression,” Edgett said in a statement. Baker “brings experience navigating complex, global issues with a principled approach.”

Baker joins Twitter amid a battle with President Donald Trump over censorship of conservative users of the platform.”  (Read more: The Daily Caller, 6/16/2020)  (Archive)

“Unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has hit out at President Donald Trump saying the country and the world is “desperately in need for a change in the American Presidency”. Ms. Clinton told Sky News UK the President tried to characterise the “peaceful protesters” in Washington DC as “thugs” when he sent in the national guard to clear them from the square outside the White House.

She said she is going to “work like crazy to make sure” Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the November election, but there is “no doubt in my mind” if the election was held on Tuesday Mr Biden would win. “I just have to do everything I can so it’s also true on the first Tuesday of November”. Ms. Clinton said President Trump needed to “go away quietly” and said to him “don’t continue to mess with our country”. (Sky News UK 6/17/2020)

Stefan Halper (l) and James. H. Baker (Credit: public domain)

“The Iowa Republican on Thursday sent a follow-up letter to the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment Thursday asking about the actions of James Baker, its director since early 2015. ONA is the Pentagon’s internal think tank, gaming out military and other geopolitical scenarios decades into the future.

Last month, a Defense Department official denied allegations that Baker leaked classified information to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius related to Flynn’s conversations with then Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak, during the 2016-17 transition period before President Trump took office.

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, responding to a November court filing, said Baker is “believed” to be behind the leaks that are part of the focus of the Russia investigation inquiry spearheaded by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

“The reference by the defense team for Mr. Flynn was a note in their court filing. At no time since that filing has anyone within the DoD or the DOJ investigated Mr. Baker, nor given any credence to this ‘belief,’” a DoD official told the Washington Examiner.

However, documents revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch, show Baker regularly conversed with Ignatius, whose Jan. 12, 2017, column first detailed Flynn’s phone calls with Kislyak during the presidential transition. A follow-up article was written by the Washington Post on Feb. 9, 2017.

Grassley writes to Baker in his June 18 letter:

“Included in these 143 pages of email communications are several heavily redacted communications between you and Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and Deputy Director of ONA, David Epstein, which would presumably be about Ignatius given the subject matter of the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request.”

He continues, “Given the overlap in time between the majority of the emails and the leak of the call, your apparent close relationship with Mr. Ignatius, and your communications with Mr. Work and Mr. Epstein, please provide all 143 pages of email communications in unredacted form and all email communications among and between you, Mr. Work, Mr. Epstein, and Mr. Ignatius from July 1, 2016, to March 1, 2017, no later than July 2, 2020.”

Grassley asks, among other questions of Baker: “Did you provide any information relating to any Flynn-Kislyak call to the media? If so, what information?”

(Read more: Washington Examiner, 6/21/2020)  (Archive)

“An interesting new discovery amid revelations into the background motives of President Obama to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against his political opposition.

Today former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Walid Phares identified himself as the fifth target in the August 2, 2017, Rosenstein scope memo.  [The redacted section above] With this admission/discovery a more interesting background makes sense.

(Via John Solomon) (…) Phares is speaking out for the first time, suggesting that one of the motives of those who made the allegations and sustained the investigation was to hamper the early Trump presidency’s foreign policy goals, including the 45th president’s long-promised plan to cancel the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.

“In my view, the push against the Trump campaign, and then the transition, and then the administration was on behalf of those who wanted to defend the Iran deal, to protect the interests of the Iran deal,” Phares told Just the News. (link)

As the story is told, the DOJ team led by Robert Mueller targeted Phares under the same FARA auspices they used against George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Carter Page.  The accusation that Phares was an unregistered foreign lobbyist.

Both George Papadopoulos and Walid Phares were involved in connecting Egyptian leader Fattah Abdel al-Sisi with President Trump in New York for their first meeting.

(2016 meeting between candidate Donald Trump and President Fattah Abdel al-Sisi)

President al-Sisi was a key political nemesis of President Obama because of al-Sisi’s position against the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically against Mohammed Morsi, the brotherhood installed dictator of Egypt during the Islamist Spring.

Walid Phares (Credit: Twitter)

President Obama supported the extremist regime of Morsi, and when the Egyptian people rose up behind General al-Sisi to remove Morsi, President Obama was furious.  Both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were consistently at odds with al-Sisi while they were in office.  However, there’s a lot of nuance because the Obama administration was very concerned about allowing the visibility of their support for the Brotherhood to surface.

CTH was very deep in the weeds during this entire timeframe in Egypt, long before candidate Donald Trump ever stepped into the picture.  This new admission by Walid Phares, a highly visible critic of the Brotherhood, now makes a ton of background activity make sense.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 6/18/2020)  (Archive)

“Officially it’s being called a “resignation” according to the Associated Press.  However, all the right Lawfare “beach friends” are going bananas as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, is being replaced.  (DOJ Announcement Here)

According to the DOJ release Berman is being replaced by the nomination of Jay Clayton, currently the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Additionally, “Craig Carpenito, currently the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, will serve as the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, while the Senate is considering Jay Clayton’s nomination.”

(Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

(Via AP) (…) Geoffrey S. Berman is stepping down as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. The office is one of the nation’s premiere districts, trying major mob cases and terror cases over the years.

It was unclear why Berman was leaving his position after serving more than two years. The announcement was made late Friday and came after Barr visited New York City to meet with local police officials. And Trump is nominating the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to the job, a lawyer with virutally no experience as a federal prosecutor. (link)

UPDATE: USAO Geoffrey Berman is refusing to leave:

Well, there we have it.  That explains things; Geoffrey Berman is a member of the Lawfare resistance, a “beach friend” per se…

It’s worth keeping in mind that Berman’s office was the lead in several high profile cases assembled by Robert Mueller.  Additionally, AG Barr brought in five+ outside U.S. attorney’s to review all of the Mueller cases as an outcome of the FISA court order to conduct a sequestration review of any/all evidence that might have been used as an outcome of the fraudulently obtained Carter Page FISA warrant.

As CTH noted at the time…. “If you consider that several DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York; The Eastern District of New York; The Eastern District of Virginia; The Washington DC District, and even Main Justice itself; it makes sense that outside DOJ personnel would be needed for this review.”

There’s no evidence the moves are connected to the sequestration review, but with USAO John Durham looking deeply into the background of DOJ and FBI activity surrounding the effort to target candidate Trump, and later President Trump, there could be a possibility that several lanes are merging.   Obviously, AG Barr feels very confident to make the moves and subsequent recommendations to President Trump for replacements.

All of the exit moves and incoming replacements are coming to a head at the same time; early July. The current SDNY move is effective July 3rd, which is the same time that FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente is leaving his position.  Both Boente (FBI) and Jeffrey Berman (DOJ-SDNY) appear to be resigning by Bill Barr’s request; essentially being told to leave.

Other activity this week that may hold deeper connection:

♦On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦On Tuesday, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept effective “early July”. (LINK) Mr. Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦On Wednesday the DOJ announced that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

♦And now on Friday Geoffrey Berman is removed and replaced at the SDNY office; and his exit is also timed for July 3rd. (LINK)

In addition to an identical exit time, one thing all of these departures have in common, including FBI legal counsel Dana Boente’s exit, is their connection to former AG Jeff Sessions (appointments) and DAG Rod Rosenstein (oversight); and ultimately each of these individuals is connected to the larger Robert Mueller special counsel activity.

Their previous work in the DOJ and FBI during the soft-coup insurance phase; which specifically involved the use of the special counsel appointment; in conjunction with the ongoing –and expanded– internal investigation by John Durham; which now includes seven or eight outside U.S. attorneys offices; just seems too coincidental.

The media are framing the use of outside attorneys as Bill Barr working on behalf of President Trump to undermine current and former prosecutions. However, understanding the January FISC order requiring the sequestration effort, the use of outsiders is absolutely necessary.  This is a big shield that AG Barr is likely keeping in his back pocket until after Nadler launches his impeachment attack.

The same U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors and FBI agents who used evidence gathered from the fraudulent FISA warrants cannot be the same attorneys, agents and prosecutors making decisions about what parts of the warrants were used to gather evidence and how each part of any case was assembled by the use therein. It is a simple matter of a conflict of interest carried by any prosecutor that used corrupt evidence.

The Robert Mueller team of FBI investigators and special counsel prosecutors certainly used the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants as part of their investigative evidence collection. Common sense would tell us this had to be the case or the FBI and Mueller team would not have requested July 2017 renewal of the FISA warrant two months after the special counsel team was assembled.

If the FBI & Special Counsel were not using the FISA warrant(s) to capture information, they would not have needed them renewed. Despite media spin to the contrary, the simple truth of renewals holding investigative value is evident in the renewal itself (ie. common sense).

Under this rather extensive effort to find exactly which investigations -over the course of three years- were touched directly, or indirectly, by the four FISA warrants; and/or which investigative paths may have been influenced downstream or enhanced -by varying degrees of importance- by evidence stemming from the FISA warrants; a reasonable person could see how AG Bill Barr would need to put a team together to retrace the investigative steps and make the sequestration determinations.

Overlay USAO John Durham doing a deeper and more lengthy investigation that touches the edges of the underlying warrant, and, well, that’s quite a lot of review ongoing.

Obviously, for reasons of biased intent, corporate left-wing media would like to ignore why outside prosecutors are needed under this framework. The media ignore in part because honest reporting would require an admission the FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained; and in part, because the left-wing media have never informed the public of the DOJ/FBI sequestration effort in the first place. Likely well more than half the country has no idea the DOJ and FBI have been told to go find the material.

There have been numerous articles, thousands of words, and endless hours of pundit protestations about Bill Barr using outside DC lawyers to review all of the previous DOJ attorney activities; yet not a single time have they ever acknowledged the originating order from the FISA court requiring the DOJ/FBI to conduct the review.

Imagine that?

(Washington Post Link) (…) Shortly after the McCabe announcement on Friday, officials said that Barr had assigned Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, to review and “assist” prosecutors currently handling the case of Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is still awaiting sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The Jensen appointment marks the latest iteration of an unusual trend inside the Justice Department of tasking outside U.S. attorneys with reviewing, managing, or reinvestigating work that would otherwise not be in their portfolio. Much of the effort seems aimed at re-examining the work of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign infuriated the president, or at targeting the president’s foes.  (read more)

Like I said, the Washington Post (above) and the New York Times (LINK) have both written pearl-clutching articles about Barr using DOJ “outsiders”; yet never once have they noted the FISA Court order that preceded all of these outside USAO’s entering the picture and receiving instructions from Bill Barr.  In order for media ideologues to continue advancing their political narrative and to pretend not to know things…

But Truth Has No Agenda!

“Newly released documents reveal the FBI never had even preliminary evidence of a Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia, and instead used a rarely enforced statutory relic – the Foreign Agents Registration Act – as the legal rationale for opening investigations in 2016-2017 and surveilling Trump campaign aides.

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign’s alleged ties with Russia – nicknamed Crossfire Hurricane – not under espionage conspiracy laws but under FARA.

The next month the FBI opened four separate FARA cases into people associated with the Trump campaign. Two other FARA cases were added the next year. Only one involved an individual with connections to Russia: Carter Page.

The recently disclosed documents, which surfaced thanks to declassification efforts, court filings and FOIA lawsuits, reveal that the initial target of the probe – then-Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos — was suspected of working for Israel, not Russia. Other FARA cases involved alleged ties to Turkey (Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn), Ukraine (campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates) and Egypt (Trump Mideast adviser Walid Phares).

All six sensitive cases were approved through the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section, run at the time by former Justice official David Laufman.

(…) One Senate investigator told RealClearInvestigations that Laufman, then Justice’s top counterintelligence official, was the “mastermind” behind the strategy to dust off and “weaponize” FARA against Trump campaign officials.

Investigators for at least one committee seek to question Laufman under oath. His name appears on a subpoena list of witnesses approved by the GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee.

Laufman signed off on the wiretapping of Trump campaign adviser Page, which the Department of Justice inspector general determined was conducted under false pretenses involving doctored email, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and other malfeasance.

(…) When the FBI initially launched its Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump camp on July 31, 2016, the opening case memo written by Strzok stated that “this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the government of Russia.”

However, the FBI assigned the investigation a case number used internally by the bureau for possible violations of FARA. That means even the FBI’s larger umbrella case was at its core a regulatory, not a national security, matter.

The revelation is contained in a redacted version of the Electronic Communication obtained last month by Judicial Watch as part of a FOIA lawsuit the Washington watchdog group filed against the FBI.

“It shows there was no serious basis for the Obama administration to launch an unprecedented spy operation on the Trump campaign,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “We now have more proof that Crossfire Hurricane was a scam.”

In August 2016, Laufman began huddling with Strzok about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, according to the IG report, getting regular briefings on all the Trump-related cases that flowed from it.” (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 6/19/2020)  (Archive)

“This morning there were headlines in the NYT and WaPo — and Twitter was ablaze — about a “standoff” between AG Barr and US Attorney Berman.

(Berman appears for work the following day. (Credit: The Hill/Twitter)

(…) But developments this afternoon are that AG Barr has released a letter he wrote to “former” US Attorney Berman setting forth for public consumption their meeting yesterday, what was discussed with regard to the US Attorney’s position in the SDNY, and what further capacities Berman might continue to serve in the Trump Administration.

(…) In the press release issued by DOJ on Friday evening, the leadership changes in the US Attorney’s Office would not have taken place until July 3 — two weeks from now.

But by virtue of today’s action, Berman has likely received — or is in the process of receiving — the Jim Comey treatment.   He’s likely been locked out of all his DOJ accounts, his computer and/or laptop has been taken, his key card access to the Federal Building and the US Attorney’s Office has been cancelled, and I expect he has been or will be escorted from the building without being allowed to take anything with him.  His office will be inventoried, and all personal items will be delivered to him at his residence or other location specified by him.

(…) So the question arises as to whether a person named as US Attorney by the district court under Sec. 546 is subject to removal by the President under Sec. 541?  Apparently former US Attorney Berman thought he was not.  But he thought wrong.

As noted in my earlier article, there is a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion from 1979 on this exact question — involving US Attorneys.  The opinion comes to the conclusion that court-appointed US Attorneys are subject to removal in the same manner as Senate confirmed US Attorneys.

AG Barr’s letter cites to [sic] court decisions since that opinion which come to the same conclusion.  In fact, as AG Barr notes, the fact that such court-appointed US Attorneys are subject to the Presidential removal power is the only basis upon which the appointment power given to the courts in Sec. 546 can even be upheld.  Without the removal power, you would have a “separation of powers” problem with the Judicial Branch making appointments of Executive Branch officials where Congress has given the authority to appoint those officials to the Executive Branch by statute, and where the officials exercise uniquely “executive” authority.” (Read more: Red State, 6/20/2020)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: We have noticed the SDNY has been overseeing the Clinton Foundation, Weiner’s laptop, Epstein and Ukraine, and all of these cases have languished in this office for years.)

Biden arrives for a meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kyiv on Jan. 16, 2017. (Genya Savilov/Agence France Presse/Getty Images)

“There is a new recording of Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Poroshenko. The first recording came out in May and it involved Biden getting Viktor Shokin fired and the second in which Poroshenko asked for help from Biden to keep Alexander Onyshchenko away from the FBI.

Now, here’s a strange coincidence. Both men were later allegedly poisoned. Onyshchenko was arrested in Germany as he was on his way to Washington to testify against Joe Biden. Germany threw him in prison, where he was allegedly poisoned.

You may remember the first audio in which Biden and Poroshenko discussed the firing of Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, Hunter Biden, and money laundering.

Here is a partial transcript:

Poroshenko: (7:10 mark) I have some good news… Yesterday I went and seat with the general prosecutor’s office.

Joe Biden: Yes.

Poroshenko: …. I especially asked him to resign… as his position as a state prosecutor…He promised to give me a statement of his resignation… One hour he gave me a statement of his presentation.

Joe Biden: Great!….

Joe Biden: (10:20 mark) I am prepared to a public signing for a commitment for a billion dollars. Again I am not suggesting you want it or don’t want it. I am suggesting that is what I am prepared to do. Again it won’t be finalized… Let me when you and I finished speaking let me huddle with my team… I agree with you there is a sense of urgency here.

Joe Biden — (14:30 minute mark) Congratulations in getting the new Prosecutor General. I know there’s a lot more to that. I really think that’s good. It is going to be critical that he works to repair the damage of Shokin. I’m a man of my word. Now that the new prosecutor general is in place we’re ready to move forward to signing the one billion dollar loan guarantee. And I don’t know how you want to go about that… I’ll leave it to you to how you want it done and where you want it done.

(Timeline editor’s note: Full video of the press conference sub-titled: “New details in the case of Burisma bribe, as well as new records of conversations testifying to international corruption and the external governance of Ukraine” with English subtitles.)

From CD Media, 6/22/2020  (Archive)

Excerpt from local Ukrainian press…

Alexander Onishchenko (Credit: public domain)

Poroshenko thanked Biden for his help in the fight against Onishchenko.

Ex-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko in December 2016 thanked US Vice President Joe Biden for help from the CIA in the fight against Alexander Onishchenko.

Record of the corresponding conversation at a press conference on June 22 was announced by people’s deputy Andrei Derkach.

So, in December 2016, Poroshenko during a conversation with Biden was very worried about Onishchenko’s communication with the FBI. He told Biden that he would like to know what was at stake. Biden assured that he had already talked with the FBI and that they would not work with Onishchenko.

And in another conversation, Poroshenko already thanks Biden for the help of the CIA in the fight against Alexander Onishchenko.

Onyshchenko was arrested on an Interpol warrant by Ukrainian authorities in late 2019 in Germany as he was traveling to the United States to testify against Biden during the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

Former Prosecutor Shokin was poisoned and was even dead for a few minutes before the doctors were able to revive him.”

(David J. Harris, 6/22/2020)  (Archive)

“In the latest twist, the Justice Department disclosed to a federal court Tuesday it has located a new page of notes from Peter Strzok, the former lead FBI agent in the Russia collusion investigation, that are exculpatory to former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin (Credit: public domain)

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin informed U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the discovery in a midday court filing, revealing the single page of notes were believed to have been taken by Strzok during the critical juncture of early January 2017 when FBI agents recommended shutting down their investigation of Flynn only to be overruled by FBI superiors.

“This page of notes was taken by former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok. While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5,” Sherwin wrote in the motion. The prosecutor said it was possible more documents may be produced to the court.

The page of notes were not made public with the filing because they are currently subject to a protective order.

A source directly familiar with the discovery of the document told Just the News they include one paragraph of notes believed to be taken around Jan. 4, 2017, the date Strzok relayed a request from FBI leadership to the lead agent in the Flynn case asking him not to shut down the investigation as had been planned. The notes are “highly exculpatory,” the source said, declining to describe them more fully because they are under seal.” (Read more: JustTheNews, 6/23/2020)  (Archive)

@Techno_Fog provides a copy of Sherwin’s letter to Flynn attorney, Sidney Powell:

Techno Fog/Twitter

Judge Neomi Rao (Credit: Diego Radzinsch/ALM)

“In all my years of appellate practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-US Supreme Court appellate opinion that so thoroughly demolishes a dissenting opinion as this one. Judge Rao could not have done better in writing the opinion, and it should be required law school reading.

Judge Robert Wilkins (Credit: public domain)

In addition, Judge Wilkins’ dissenting opinion is so off-the-mark that I believe he has shot himself in the foot for purposes of en banc review–in other words, he has ensured that otherwise-sympathetic judges on the DC Circuit will vote against en banc review.

Judge Rao comes out swinging by holding that its earlier opinion in Fokker “foreclose[s] the district court’s proposed scrutiny of the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.” p. 7.

In relying on Fokker, Judge Rao explicitly rejects Judge Wilkins argument that Fokker’s holding is dicta (that is, non-binding). She holds Fokker “is directly controlling here.” p. 14.

Keep in mind that Fokker was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee. Judge Srinivasan does NOT want Fokker’s legitimacy undermined, no matter his politics.

Judge Wilkins’ dissent implies that Fokker was wrongly decided and that it conflicts with other federal appellate courts. See p. 23 of 28. Judge Srinivasan will NOT be impressed by this argument in deciding whether to grant en banc rehearing. Fokker does not create a split.

Judge Rao goes on to emphasize that while judicial inquiry MAY be justified in some circumstances, Flynn’s situation “is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry is warranted.” p. 6.

Rao notes that Flynn agrees with the Govt.’s dismissal motion, so there’s no risk of his rights being violated. In addition, the Government has stated insufficient evidence exists to convict Flynn. p. 6.

Rao also holds that “a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions.” p. 7.

But by appointing amicus and attempting to hold a hearing on these matters, the district court is inflicting irreparable harm on the Govt. because it is subjecting its prosecutorial decisions to outside inquiry. p. 8

Thus, Judge Rao holds, it is NOT true that the district court has “yet to act” in this matter, contrary to Judge Wilkins’ assertions. p. 16.

“[T]he district court HAS acted here…[by appointing] one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges.” p. 16. This justified mandamus being issued NOW.

Judge Rao also makes short work of Judge Wilkins’ argument that the court may not consider the harm to the Government in deciding whether to grant mandamus bc the Government never filed a petition for mandamus. p. 17.

Judge Rao notes “[o]ur court has squarely rejected this argument,” and follows with a plethora of supporting citations. p. 17.

Judge Rao also notes–contrary to what many legal commentators have misled the public to believe–that it is “black letter law” that the Govt. can seek dismissal even after a guilty plea is made. This does not justify greater scrutiny by the district court. p. 6, footnote 1.

As to Judge Wilkins’ argument that a district court may conduct greater scrutiny where, as here, the Govt. reverses its position in prosecuting a case, Judge Rao points out that “the government NECESSARILY reverses its position whenever it moves to dismiss charges….” p. 13

“Given the absence of any legitimate basis to question the presumption of regularity, there is no justification to appoint a private citizen to oppose the government’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution.” p. 13.

But Judge Rao saves her most stinging and brutal takedown of Judge Wilkins’ dissent for the end
Judge Rao writes that “the dissent swings for the fences–and misses–by analogizing a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss with a selective prosecution claim.” p. 17.

While it is true that the Executive cannot selectively prosecute certain individuals “based on impermissible considerations,” p. 18, “the equal protection remedy is to dismiss the prosecution, NOT to compel the Executive to bring another prosecution.” p. 18

And Judge Rao is just getting warmed up here…She then notes that “unwarranted judicial scrutiny of a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss puts the court in an entirely different position [than selective prosecution caselaw assigns the court].” p. 18

“Rather than allow the Executive Branch to dismiss a problematic prosecution, the court [as Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan would have it] assumes the role of inquisitor, prolonging a prosecution deemed illegitimate by the Executive.” p. 18

And now for Judge Rao’s KO to Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan: “Judges assume that role in some countries, but Article III gives no prosecutorial or inquisitional power to federal judges.” p. 18.

In other words, Judge Rao is likening Judge Wilkins’ arguments, and Judge Sullivan’s actions, to what is done in non-democratic, third world countries. p. 18. Outstanding opinion. No mercy. (Appeals Court opinion re Mandamus, 6/25/2020)  (John M. Reeves@reeveslawstl/Twitter)

John Elias testifies to the House Judiciary Committee on June 24, 2020. (Credit: CSpan clipping)

“A Justice Department official turned whistleblower appeared caught off-guard Wednesday when Republican Rep. Doug Collins pressed him in a House Judiciary Committee hearing about his efforts in 2019 to work for House Democrats during the Trump impeachment saga.

John Elias, chief of staff to the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general in the antitrust division, reluctantly conceded at the hearing that he sought a position on the Democratic side of the House Judiciary Committee.

Elias was one of three witnesses who accused Attorney General William Barr of abuse of his authority at the Judiciary hearing.

Elias alleged that Barr improperly ordered investigations into mergers of 10 small cannabis companies. He testified that he submitted a complaint to the Justice Department’s inspector general.

(…) “Did you ever attempt to get detailed to this committee’s majority staff?” Collins asked.

Elias appeared unprepared for the question, replying after a brief pause: “I, like people, over time have explored various career options.

He then told Collins that he had a “very preliminary conversation” with Democrats about a job on the Judiciary panel.

Elias initially told Collins that he wanted to work on antitrust policy. But after a follow-up question, he said that he might have also asked to work on oversight matters during the impeachment probe.

“Did you not ask to be detailed to the committee’s work on oversight during impeachment, is that not correct? Refresh your memory,” Collins said.

“I may have also asked for oversight at one point,” Elias answered.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 6/24/2020)  (Archive)

“Former Vice President Joe Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during an early January 2017 Oval Office discussion about the investigation into retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, newly released notes suggest.

It’s not fully clear what Biden said about the 1799 law, but Flynn’s legal team said “it appears” he “personally raised the idea” during a meeting between former President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, national security adviser Susan Rice, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration. Biden is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and leading in national polling.

New insight into the conversation is given by chicken-scratch notes taken by former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who later oversaw the bureau’s interviews with Flynn, then Trump’s incoming national security adviser, as part of the counterintelligence investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The notes were disclosed in a court filing Wednesday to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia around the same time a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the judge presiding over the case against Flynn grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen of Missouri, who was picked by Attorney General William Barr to review the government’s case against Flynn, “obtained and analyzed” the document. Biden’s comment about the Logan Act are the only words that appear in quote marks.

The officials were discussing phone calls Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about a United Nations resolution on Israel and sanctions during the presidential transition period. At one point, Strzok wrote that Comey said the calls “appear legit.” Obama emphasized that “the right people” should look into Flynn.” (Washington Examiner, 6/24/2020)  (Archive)

Devin Nunes appears for a short interview with Martha MacCallum to discuss the latest information in/around the background investigation of the Michael Flynn case. (Conservative Treehouse, 6/25/2020)

Left: Dr. Chi Ping Patrick Ho, former Hong Kong home secretary. Ho was arrested in 2017 on charges he paid bribes on behalf of a Chinese energy conglomerate. Center-right: In Beijing On December 4, 2013, Vice President Joe Biden on Air Force Two with his granddaughter and his son, Hunter. (Credit: Politico Illustration/AP/ Getty Images)

“New Secret Service records show Hunter Biden’s significant overseas travels during the first part of the Obama-Biden administration.

Judicial Watch investigators uncovered records from the U.S. Secret Service showing that, for the first five and a half years of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden traveled extensively with a Secret Service protective detail. During the time period of the records, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden took 411 separate domestic and international flights, including to 29 different foreign countries. He visited China five times.

Our February 7, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sought:

Records reflecting the dates and locations of travel, international and domestic, for Hunter Biden while he received a U.S. Secret Service protective detail; please note whether his travel was on Air Force One or Two, or other government aircraft, as applicable and whether additional family members were present for each trip; time frame is 2001 to present.

The Secret Service did not indicate, as was requested, whether Biden’s travel was on Air Force One, Air Force Two or other government aircraft, or whether additional family members were present.

The records show that countries and territories visited by Hunter Biden, between June 2009 and May 2014, included:

• Ethiopia and India on June 14-22, 2009
• Argentina on September 14-17, 2009
• France and Spain on November 9-13, 2009
• Canada on February 12-15, 2010
• Dominican Republic on February 18-22, 2010
• Puerto Rico on March 20-27, 2010
• China on April 6-9, 2010
• Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom on May 5-8, 2010
• UK, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Ascension Island, U.S. Virgin Islands on June 6-13, 2010
• Denmark and South Africa on August 9-24, 2010
• Hong Kong, Taiwan and China on April 16-22, 2011
• Mexico on May 15-17, 2011
• Colombia, France, United Arab Emirates and France again on November 1-11, 2011
• UK and Russia on February 15-18, 2012
• Germany, France and UK on February 1-5, 2013
• UK and Ireland on March 20-22, 2013
• China on June 13-15, 2013
• Switzerland and Italy on July 26-August 7, 2013
• Japan, China, South Korea and the Philippines on December 2-9, 2013
• China and Qatar on May 7-14, 2014

The records were also provided but were not made public, to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson in a response to a request the senators sent to Secret Service Director James Murray on February 2020.

In its cover letter to Grassley and Johnson, which was included in the records we received, the Secret Service said that the senators’ request was time and labor-intensive, and they could only provide a limited amount of information by the senators’ imposed turnaround time of February 19.

Given the Burisma-Ukraine-China influence-peddling scandals, Hunter Biden’s extensive international travel during the Obama-Biden presidency, including at least 5 trips to China, will certainly raise additional questions.

According to reports, Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden flew on Air Force Two for the official trip to Beijing in December 2013. The records we obtained show Hunter Biden arrived in Tokyo on December 2, 2013, and departed for Beijing two days later. While it is typical for the families of the president and vice president to travel with them, questions have been raised about whether Hunter Biden used the government trip to further his business interests.

NBC reporter Josh Lederman, who was one of four reporters on the December 2013 trip, noted in an October 2, 2019, report that, “What wasn’t known then was that as he accompanied his father to China, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund that associates said at the time was planning to raise big money, including from China.”

His travel is only one of our inquiries.

During the last year and a half of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings while his father was heading up Ukraine policy. We are seeking records through six lawsuits and dozens of FOIA requests related to Hunter Biden’s dealings with the Ukrainian Burisma Holdings and the Chinese BHR Partners.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 6/26/2020)  (Archive)

“Justice Department official Bruce Ohr is on Capitol Hill Tuesday, answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, Fox News has learned.

The former associate deputy attorney general is one of dozens of individuals the committee subpoenaed earlier this month as part of their investigation of the Russia probe and the FBI’s abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in obtaining a warrant to conduct surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Ohr, who did not answer questions about his meeting while he was on his way to the committee, was a key contact inside the Justice Department for ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who authored an anti-Trump dossier for research firm Fusion GPS as opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS at the time.

That dossier, which remains unverified, was instrumental in obtaining the FISA warrant for Page, according to a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. (Read more: Fox News, 6/30/2020)  (Archive)