Samantha Power (Credit: The Associated Press)

” Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of State for records of communications about requests by former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to “unmask” the identities of U.S. citizens whose names appear in intelligence reports concerning Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-01729)). Unmasking refers generally to the practice of political appointees obtaining the identities of American citizens referenced in intelligence surveillance of foreign nationals.

The suit was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to a May 29, 2019, FOIA request.

(…) The FOIA request and this subsequent lawsuit were filed after a similar 2018 Judicial Watch lawsuit filed in 2018 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 18-0300)), which derived from an October 31, 2017 FOIA request, was closed on March 3, 2019, when the court upheld the Department of State’s response that it need not disclose whether or not responsive records existed for national security reasons. This new Judicial Watch lawsuit argues the State Department’s earlier Glomar response (that it could neither confirm nor deny whether records existed) was no longer sustainable:

On May 13, 2020, the Director of National Intelligence released a newly declassified memorandum and an accompanying list identifying officials who submitted requests to the National Security Agency (“NSA”) to “unmask” the identity of former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn in NSA foreign intelligence reports. The list demonstrates that, between November 30, 2016 and January 11, 2017, Ambassador Power submitted seven requests to “unmask” Flynn’s identity in such NSA foreign intelligence reports and that all seven requests were approved.

“The entire world now knows the Obama administration went on an unprecedented fishing expedition which involved unmasking General Flynn but almost certainly others tied to the Trump campaign, including the President and his family,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “For almost three years, the State Department has been stonewalling our request for information for this basic Obamagate information. We hope the court tears down this stonewall around the worst corruption scandal in American history.”  (Read more: Judicial Watch, 7/02/2020)  (Archives)

Rose McGowan is calling for Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton to be arrested next for their alleged ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein following the arrest of his alleged sex abuse accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The actress’s tweet was accompanied by a photo of Harvey Weinstein, Epstein and Maxwell standing side-by-side with red x’s over their faces.

(…) Following Maxwell’s arrest, Audrey Strauss, acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said she “would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us.”

The painting of Bill Clinton on display inside Jeffrey Epstein’s New York home. (Credit: public domain)

(Read more: Fox News, 7/04/2020)  (Archive)

“The Justice Department announced that it has unearthed further information related to the FBI’s investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, including more notes taken by fired special agent Peter Strzok.

Michael Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney in the nation’s capital, said Tuesday that the documents handed over to Flynn’s defense team included handwritten notes from Strzok taken at a meeting on Jan. 25, 2017; notes from former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar at the same meeting; an internal DOJ document dated Jan. 30, 2017; and handwritten notes from then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente which were dated March 30, 2017. The notes remain sealed by the court.

(…) An email from March 2017 by Gauhar and notes taken by her in May 2017 are mentioned a number of times in special counsel Robert Mueller’s lengthy 2019 report. Mueller found that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion,” but he “did not establish” any criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia. (Washington Examiner, 7/07/2020)  (Archive)

The High Court of England and Wales (Credit: public domain)

“A British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia.

Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998.

Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.”

The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI.

“That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled.

“The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added.” (Read more: JusttheNews, 7/08/2020)  (Archive)   Aven v Orbis.Judgment Summary.pdf

(…) Buried in Justice Mark Warby’s ruling were several new pieces of evidence that answer long-lingering questions about just what the FBI knew, and when it knew it.

For instance, Congressional Republicans have long questioned when exactly the FBI knew that Steele’s dossier was a product ordered up for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. After all, the bureau never revealed the connection to the FISA court despite its central relevance to the motives of the dossier.

Justice Mark Warby (Credit: public domain)

Warby’s lengthy ruling unearthed a gem of new evidence to answer the question: Steele kept his own notes of what he told FBI agents the first time he met them on July 5, 2016, in London to discuss his anti-Trump Russia research.

And, Warby revealed, the notes make clear that Steele told his FBI handlers from the get-go that the dossier’s “ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.”

(…) The ruling discloses that officials at the State Department where Hillary Clinton had served as secretary of state were uniquely involved in Steele’s efforts to bring the dossier to attention, including Mrs. Clinton’s former Russia expert Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s successor as secretary of state John Kerry and Joe Biden’s former national security adviser Tony Blinken.

Steele “elaborated, by explaining that his understanding in July 2016 was that the FBI officer he met had cleared his lines with the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland,” the judge disclosed.

And after Trump won the election, the judge added, Steele disclosed he gave copies of his dossier to longtime Clinton friend Strobe Talbot in hopes it would get to the top of the State Department.

Talbott “said that he was due to meet a group of individuals at the State Department, and asked Mr Steele to share a copy of the Dossier with him, with a view to him being able to discuss the national security issues raised with these individuals,” the court revealed.

“Mr Steele agreed. He did so on the understanding that Mr Talbott had been speaking to the US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ms Nuland, who knew of the Dossier and its broad content; and that the individuals whom Mr Talbott was due to meet included the then US Deputy Secretary of State, Tony Blinken,” the court added.

The British evidence continues, noting that Steele openly admitted he was leaking to the news media while working for the FBI.” (Read more: Just the News, 7/10/2020) (Archive)

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

(…) The documents were discovered recently by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who was specially appointed by Attorney General William Barr to review the conduct of the FBI and the DOJ in the Flynn case. They are the latest exculpatory materials — evidence that Flynn could have used to prove his innocence — that were withheld from his defense and only belatedly produced more than two years after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

The sources told Just the News the new documents included extensive notes taken by senior Justice Department official Tashina Gauhar, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, and former DOJ and FBI lawyer Dana Boente between January and March 2017, long before Flynn’s case was referred to Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Flynn reached a deal to plead guilty later that year.

The notes include records of a late January 2017 meeting where Flynn’s case was discussed by numerous senior FBI and DOJ officials. The meeting occurred nearly three weeks after the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn’s contacts with Russia, including ambassador Sergey Kislyak, had already concluded the Trump adviser had not engaged in any wrongdoing and that the five-month-long investigation should be closed down without any further action.

FBI supervisors overruled the agent and kept the case open, pivoting instead to the idea of seeking an interview with Flynn and pursuing a prosecution under the rarely used Logan Act.

According to sources who have seen the notes, Justice officials express

ed skepticism that the Logan Act could be applied to Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition, and were told Flynn appeared to have been forthcoming and did not intend to lie to the FBI. The notes also make clear officials had ruled out Flynn as having acted improperly as an agent of Russia, the sources said.”  (Read more: Just the News, 7/08/2020)  (Archive)

“Earlier today Sidney Powell filed a new supplemental brief (#2) [pdf here] in support of the unopposed motion to dismiss.  The supplement covers the defense position on the newly released information from USAO Jeff Jensen which includes: notes taken by Tash Guahar at a January 25, 2017 briefing; the FBI work product that was an outcome of that briefing; and later notes by acting DAG Dana Boente.

The notes and FBI briefing summary are also on pdf here and embedded below.  It’s a lot of granular information to consider – so it’s worth beginning with the filing by Sidney Powell to see how the evidence released pertains to the current status of the case.

On January 25, 2017, the day after Flynn was interviewed by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka (he’s the redacted name per his status under an ongoing protective order) the DOJ and FBI group assembled to discuss the Flynn interview and what steps they would take to frame Michael Flynn as part of their ongoing resistance operation.

Tashina Guahar from the DOJ-National Security Division was taking the notes.

Notes of then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar, reveal a January 25, 2017, meeting of ten officials including FBI General Counsel James Baker, Bill Priestap, Agent Peter Strzok, and [redacted]; from the National Security Division of DOJ: Mary McCord, George ZT, and STU; from the Office of the Deputy AG: Tash, Scott [Schools], and [redacted].

Additionally, when reviewing the notes and FBI briefing summary it’s worth remembering the release only covers the information pertinent to Michael Flynn; hence the non-Flynn material is redacted (even though some of the non-Flynn material we previously found). [Thanks to Techno Fog for that reminder]

One of the key aspects to the notes taken by Tashina Guahar relates to the group discussion of their own leaking of information to the media, which they worried had now alerted the Trump administration to the nature of their intelligence surveillance.

The resistance group’s media leaks, intended to undermine the Trump administration, “changed the dynamic” by informing the White House that FBI agents were intercepting communication from White House officials.

“Media leaks – re intercepts” pertains to the group telling their allied resistance operatives in media about the Flynn calls.  The leak of the Flynn-Kislyak call was one of the more dominating narrative headlines at the time.  Yes, it’s quite a surprising admission to admit their own leaks pushed the “investigation in the open” which “changed the dynamic”.

First here’s the supplemental filing (#2) that outlines the Flynn defense position.

Here’s the attachment with three segments: (1) the Tashina Guahar notes; (2)  The typewritten FBI summary of the meeting; (3) the handwritten notes of Dana Boente.

The release is in that order.  Tash notes, FBI summary work product, then Boente notes.

The FBI summary of the briefing is an interesting, albeit troubling, dive into the mindset of a resistance group determined to make something unlawful out of ordinary contact between the incoming National Security Advisor and foreign officials.

The basic conflict, the fulcrum upon which they ended up deciding to move forward, surrounded the definition of the word “sanctions.”   Flynn never discussed ‘sanctions’, or ongoing punitive policy positions, in his call with Kislyak.  However, he did discuss not escalating tensions by reacting -beyond a reciprocal manner- to the expulsion of Russian officials; that is an entirely distinct difference between the “sanctions” imposed by the Obama administration.

In order to advance their “Flynn lied” narrative; the group merged the expulsion of the Russian officials into the ongoing “sanctions” against Russia.  In essence, they called the expulsions ‘sanctions’, and then set about saying Flynn lied when he said he never discussed those sanctions.   It was a strategic lawfare approach to parse words and meaning in order to advance their legal attack.

Four years of this bullshit over the word “sanctions.”  Think about it.

(FBI notes – January 25, 2017 Briefing)

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/10/2020)  (Archive)

“One of the biggest mistakes many people have made in their evaluation of Rod Rosenstein is separating him from the Special Counsel investigation run by Robert Mueller’s team of resistance lawyers. The reality is Rosenstein was always a willing active participant and co-dependent enabler.  [Thread Here]

Support for this foundational understanding comes forward yesterday as the former Deputy Attorney General showcases his support for an op-ed presumably written by Robert Mueller.

(Op-Ed here)

*Authorship is tenuous at best and more likely written by Weissman or Zelby [sic] (Lawfare) on behalf of Mueller. But for now, focus on Rosenstein.

Notice how Rosenstein positions his current advocacy as part of the Mueller team. This is critical; and unfortunately, everyone keeps missing it. Rosenstein did the same thing in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

When you stand back it becomes clear, Rosenstein viewed his role with the special counsel as participatory. He was Deputy AG not only as DAG, but also there as a functionary – to facilitate the needs of the special counsel investigation.

This outlook, specifically Rosenstein’s internal definition of his role and responsibility, is why the special counsel was able to essentially take over Main Justice during the two year investigation. Rosenstein took NO ACTION that was not approved by his teammates.

This becomes key.

This becomes key because Rosenstein was an enabler for the plots and ploys being executed by Mueller’s assembled team. That’s how the Lawfare resistance group was able to set up shop and essentially run amok.

As Attorney General Jeff Sessions was firewalled; and Rod Rosenstein was a willing co-dependent enabler. The special counsel team was running main justice. Repeat this as many times as needed to absorb.

The special counsel team was running the DOJ.

When congress was getting stonewalled, blocked, and impeded from inquiry it was the special counsel doing the blocking. It was also the special counsel that did every release. Every strategic release!

The resistance team convinced Rosenstein that part of his role to help them was to block any inquiry into material they did not want released. If they defined it as adverse to their interests they controlled it. Rosenstein allowed this. Rosenstein facilitated this approach.

That approach included Rosenstein telling President Trump that he could not declassify any material that touched on anything to do with the Mueller team investigation. [Example Sept. 2018]

By aligning with the team of usurpers, Rosenstein blocked declassification of documents and helped the special counsel control the media narrative. It would be obtuse and intellectually dishonest to think Rosenstein was hoodwinked. He’s not stupid.

Rod Rosenstein knew what was going on behind the Mueller team’s closed doors, even if he was not physically in the room.

Additionally, another critical element to understand; that helps reconcile many challenging issues; was that every release from the DOJ during the Special Counsel tenure was only possible with the special counsel directing and approving the release.  Again, it’s worthy of repeating because this is a cornerstone understanding that is completely misunderstood.  This is another paradigm shift.

Nothing was ever released from the DOJ without a purposeful intent by the special counsel to allow its release. This includes the Lisa Page and Peter Strazok text messages, and the information about Bruce Ohr which was released only a few days after the text messages.

This resistance group control also includes the redactions to all documents. The special counsel controlled all this stuff.  [Listen to AG Jeff Sessions in the video above]

Immediately after Brandon Van Grack pressured Flynn into signing the plea agreement (November 30, 2017), literally the next day, December 1st and 2nd, the Page/Strzok text messages were released. The special counsel was gaming this out. Controlling everything. Rosenstein was the facilitator.

The special counsel did all the redactions; the special counsel removed texts from releases; it was the special counsel who were selectively releasing and selectively hiding information for two years. Rosenstein was the facilitator.

It was the special counsel who decided to release the FISA application under the guise of a FOIA request. Again, a purposeful release. [Go look at it – release date Saturday, July 21, 2018] Everything was being managed from inside the DOJ operation center controlled by special counsel lawyers. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was their shield.

Additionally from the Mueller Op-Ed, notice how the cornerstone of Mueller’s position is that Russia hacked the DNC emails and gave them to Wikileaks. Again, in this article published Saturday -critical of Stone’s commutation- the issue of importance is the Russia-Wikileaks angle.

This Russia hacking narrative had been the fulcrum position of the special counsel all along. That’s why this specific issue must be defended *AT ALL COSTS*, even through today.  Take away the “Russia hacked the DNC emails” narrative and suddenly the entire premise of the special counsel collapses on itself.

THAT is why the day after the special counsel provided the original report to newly confirmed AG Bill Barr, the very next day they grabbed Julian Assange and threw a bag over him.”

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 7/13/2020)  (Archive)

Update (1217ET): According to Politico, Weaver backed out of his contract with the Russian government after it was exposed in May.

In short; he intended to take money from Russia after spending four years disparaging President Trump as a Russian stooge, only to back out of his own deal with a Kremlin-owned entity after he was called out on it.

Weaver had planned to lobby Congress and the Trump administration on “sanctions or other restrictions in the area of atomic (nuclear) energy, trade or cooperation involving in any way the Russian Federation,” according to a disclosure filing reported by Politico.

Weaver, the mastermind behind John McCain’s failed 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, John Kasich’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, and the founder and principal of ‘The Network Companies, LLC’, acknowledged the work in a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing on May 10, 2019.

We should note – well, John Solomon noted on Monday, that Joe Biden’s energy adviser, Amos Hochstein, also advised TENEX. In fact, Hochstein “assisted personally” in “Russia’s attempts to corner the global uranium market.”

So two guys who want to see Biden elected have dealings with the Russian government. This, mind you, after Weaver has spent years spewing unfounded accusations about Trump being a Russian agent, while the other guy helped Russia buy uranium leading up to the infamous Uranium One deal.

So John ‘All roads lead to Putin’ Weaver had a contract with a company founded by… Putin, owned by the government-run by… Putin.

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 7/15/2020)  (Archive)

“Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) revealed on Tuesday that he is attempting to declassify an FBI memo describing an interview with a crucial source for the Steele dossier, whose comments undermined the dossier’s assertions.

The source was dossier author Christopher Steele’s only direct source inside Russia for many of the allegations included in the dossier. The Justice Department Inspector General report released in December 2019 noted that the individual, referred to as the “Primary Sub-Source,” has since disputed various claims in the dossier, including that Trump-campaign officials colluded with Russian operatives during the 2016 election. The Primary Sub-Source made the allegations against the Steele dossier in an interview with the FBI.

“There’s a memo about that interview,” Graham said Tuesday in a podcast with Fox News host Trey Gowdy. “[DOJ Inspector General Michael] Horowitz found it — it was 40 pages. My staff has finally gotten a look at it. It’s classified. I’m going to try to get it unclassified.”

(…) “I believe that the dossier, which was the key component of getting the warrant against Carter Page, was in fact Russian disinformation,” Graham told Gowdy. “I believe that the FBI was on notice that it was unreliable, continued to use it anyway. I believe that they misled the FISA court.” (Read more: National Review, 7/14/2020)  (Archive)

Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Hannity’s show July 15, 2020 to discuss his attempt to declassify a 40 page memo that explains how the Steele dossier wasn’t reliable. He also mentions Steele’s Russian source was an employee, not a contractor.

Twitter user @15poundstogo notes Steele’s employee and sub-sources are mentioned on page 283 of the DOJ OIG FISA report published December 9, 2019.

DOJ OIG FISA Report

Seymour Hersh (Credit: Wikipedia)

“The National Security Agency is hiding records about murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich, according to one of my sources, who informed me yesterday that the records are classified as a special access program (the highest level of classification) because they include intercepted communications between Mr. Rich and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Meanwhile, I’ve been authorized to release the transcript of a July 15, 2020 deposition of Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersh, wherein Mr. Hersh is forced to admit that he did speak with a senior intelligence official about an FBI report about Mr. Rich and Wikileaks. That contradicts much of what Mr. Hersh has said publicly since early 2017 (more on that below).

As my regular readers know, Mr. Rich was murdered in Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2016, and shortly thereafter Wikileaks published thousands of DNC emails that were very embarrassing to then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. On August 9, 2016, Mr. Assange intimated that the DNC emails were obtained from Mr. Rich, not Russian hackers.

If you doubt my source, recall that three weeks ago — after three years of denials — the FBI was finally forced to admit that it had thousands of records about Mr. Rich, as well as his laptop. Meanwhile, virtually no one in official Washington has lifted a finger to help.”

Hersh Transcript, pages 198-199

(Read more: LawFlog, 12/30/2020)  (Archive)

The resistance effort run from inside Main Justice from May 2017 through April 2019 used the image of Robert Mueller as a Potemkin face. Mueller’s pretense as head of the special counsel was a key component of the strategy.

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes targets the pretense that Mueller represented. This is an effective strategy to get people slowly comfortable with a reality that everything from the DOJ was controlled by the resistance unit for two years.

Every action taken by the special counsel team was done with a strategy to advance the resistance. Everything released was approved by them; everything withheld was purposefully hidden by them. The 17 resistance lawyers were in full control.”

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/15/2020)

Edward Baumgartner (Credit: public domain)

“Edward Baumgartner co-founded UK-based intelligence consultancy Edward Austin. Baumgartner was hired by Fusion GPS to work with Natalia Veselnitskaya on the Prevezon asset forfeiture case and to work with Christopher Steele on the Steele dossier.

(…) According to Steele’s testimony in the UK he “used his old contacts and farmed out other research to native Russian speakers who made phone calls on his behalf“.

Those “old contacts” were subsequently identified as Nellie Ohr and Edward Baumgartner.

(…) Glenn Simpson confirmed in his testimony to congress that Baumgartner’s job for Fusion GPS was the translation of Russian language documents, writing reports, and interviewing assets who speak Russian.

Glenn Simpson testimony:

(Simpson Transcript – pg 33 – August 22, 2017)

From pg. 40

(Roscoe B. Davis @RoscoeBDavis1/Twitter/7/16/2020)  (Simpson Testimony, 8/22/2017)

Peter Strzok testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 12, 2018. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has released two newly-declassified documents related to government surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016.

(…) Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written [2/14/2017] by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence.”

Claim in NYT article: “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J.Trump’s presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”

Note by Strzok: “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)” and “There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign.”

Claim in NYT article: “… one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for several months …”

Note by Strzok: “We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI has obtained banking and travel records …”

Note by Strzok: “We do not yet have detailed banking records.”

Claim in NYT article: “Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians.”

Note by Strzok: “Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials” and “Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls …”

Note by Strzok: “If they did we are not aware of those communications.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump … Carter Page … Roger Stone… and Mr. Flynn.”

Note by Strzok: “We have not investigated Roger Stone.”

Claim by NYT: “Senior FBI officials believe … Christopher Steele … has a credible track record.”

Note by Strzok: “Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network.”

Claim by NYT: “The FBI’s investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016].”

Note by Strzok: “This is inaccurate … our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016.”

Claim by NYT: “The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort’s communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met.”

Note by Strzok: “This is inaccurate …”

There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four “American officials” who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was.” (Read more: Just the News, 7/17/2020)  (Archive)

Headlines and fallout within days of the New York Times article being published. (Credit: The Federalist)

UPDATE:  The New York Times stands by their February 2017 article alleging that  Trump’s campaign was in communication with Russian intelligence officers, even after the release of an internal FBI memo that identified numerous inaccuracies in the story.

“We stand by our reporting,” New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told her own paper for its report on the newly released documents.” (Read more: New York Times, 7/17/2020)  (Archive)

Crossfire Hurricane Team (Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

“Judicial Watch announced today it received 136 pages of emails between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. They include heavily redacted emails showing Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”

On January 19, 2017, the night before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, a series of emails were exchanged between top officials in the FBI’s General Counsel’s office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field Office, and included then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap.

The thread was initiated at 3:29 p.m. on January 19 by an assistant general counsel in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch in an email to Strzok with an almost entirely redacted email in which the person said, “I’ll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too.” Strzok’s reply is redacted, as is the response to Strzok. Strzok then says at 7:04 p.m., “I briefed Bill this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What’s your recommendation?” The Counterintelligence Division official’s reply to Strzok is mostly redacted, except for “Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am missing something.” An unidentified official replies, “[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him.” At 8 p.m., Strzok responds (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division, Washington Field Office and General Counsel’s office), “Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck.” Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, “Bill spoke with Andy. [Redacted.] Here we go again …”

On January 21, 2017, the day after Trump’s inauguration, Strzok forwarded to Lisa Page and a redacted person an email he’d sent that day to Priestap, asking them to “not forward/share.” In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, “I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”

Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message he’d sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone.

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (Credit: public domain)

“A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the White House in 2017, according to a press release from Judicial Watch.

Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that “Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”

Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day after Trump’s inauguration.

“I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted],” wrote Strzok. “I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.” 

In April 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.

The Chairmen revealed the information in a three-page letter. The texts had been already been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.” (Read more: Sara A. Carter, 7/17/2020)  (Archive)  (Judicial Watch documents)

“This release today dovetails nicely into a much bigger story about how the FISA application against Carter Page was weaponized by the leadership group within the DOJ, FBI and ultimately the Mueller probe. The Mueller team of resistance operatives were ultimately the team who took over the task of continuing the weaponization process.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released today two recently declassified documents. (Thank You John Ratcliffe) The documents relate to how the intelligence apparatus conducted surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016; and ultimately the Trump administration after the inauguration.

The first document [Direct pdf here] is the Washington Field Office (WFO) FBI briefing summary of a three day interview with Chris Steele’s primary sub-source. The document is highly redacted, but we already know from the IG release what the total content of the briefing revealed. The first interview was conducted on January 12, 2017, during the transition period between administrations. The classification term “SIA” stands for Source Identifying Attribute.

Per Senator Lindsey Graham:

♦ This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.

♦ The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.

♦ Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.

In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court.  (Senate Link)

Here’s the FBI Briefing Summary:  (Direct pdf Link)

The inspector general already reviewed this briefing material and explained the content in the IG report on FISA Abuse.  Here’s the nub of that full review:

The aspect of the primary sub-source deconstructing and undermining the underlying material within the Steele Dossier is critical because ultimately the dossier underpinned the FISA application.

When you recognize the FISA application itself was based on a fraudulent premise; and you recognize the intentional ignoring of the underlying evidence; then the motive behind the FISA becomes clear.  The FISA against Carter Page was used as a justification for surveillance of Donald Trump that had been ongoing by Obama intelligence officials.

This context becomes stunningly more important when you look at how the FISA was used by the Mueller investigation to continue its weaponization throughout 2017 and even into 2018.  Remember, in July of 2018 long after the source material was debunked, the special counsel office was still telling the FISA court the predication for the FISA application and renewals was valid.

Drive this point home.

This is key to understanding the scope of how weaponized the Mueller team was.

In July of 2018 the special counsel resistance group was lying to the FISA court in order to protect the cornerstone document that permitted them to weaponize the intelligence apparatus.

This letter was written July 12, 2018.  It is NOT accidental that only a week later, July 21st, the special counsel released the FISA application under the guise of FOIA fulfillment.

Aside from the date, the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The Mueller team running the DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application. The resistance unit running the DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

On page #8 [Source Document Here] when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the special counsel group notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement 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?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.”

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 7/17/2020)  (Archive)

Democrats hope special counsel Robert Mueller proves the ‘Russiagate’ conspiracy based mainly on the Steele Dossier. (Credit: Kyle Grillot/Reuters)

“In the latest twist in the ‘Russiagate’ saga, internet sleuths say they have figured out the identity of the source Christopher Steele used to embellish and fabricate what would become the notorious Trump-Russia dossier.

The identity of Steele’s “primary sub-source” (PSS) has long been the subject of speculation, as the former British spy had no actual sources in Russia himself. The 59-page transcript of the FBI interview with the PSS, conducted in February 2017 and published on Friday, was heavily redacted. Several sources online now say they figured it out, and point to former Brookings Institution researcher Igor Danchenko as the match.

identification of PSS at https://t.co/TtYTdjBIj9 is about as certain as can be. I’ve crosschecked details and everything matches. Hans, FN, walkafyre have all checked it as well. So take it to the bank.

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) July 19, 2020

An anonymous blog that seems to have been created for the purpose lays out the case for Danchenko, saying his resume posted online “matches every detail in the summary to a degree that it is almost certain that this is the primary sub source.”

In addition to the resume, Danchenko’s name and the name of his hometown, Perm, match the length of the redactions in the document. So does the timing of his trips to Europe and Russia, and the unredacted job title – facilitator – at the Open World program run by the US Library of Congress, whose name was redacted.

A picture that emerges is of a Russian-born Danchenko who was recruited by the US program, and came to the US to get a master’s in Kentucky. He appears to have been introduced to Steele in the mid-aughts, by his professor from Louisville Paul Weber, and paid several hundred dollars for small tasks while he had no income.

11/ later, Steele began grooming Danchenko with a small assignment. For a “few hundred dollars” which Danchenko desperately needed. pic.twitter.com/3Oq9l841bG

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) July 20, 2020

Danchenko then got hired as a researcher at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, where he worked on Russia and the Balkans. He actually made headlines in 2008, when he claimed that plagiarism is rampant in Russian academia and that President Vladimir Putin himself plagiarized his doctorate from an American study.

Danchenko’s name is subsequently listed at events with Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy, Brookings fellows who went on to write ‘Operative in the Kremlin,’ a 2012 anti-Putin book.

Yep. pic.twitter.com/zw0gfSRQKo

— Geoff Smith (@geoffsmithsmind) July 19, 2020

British-born Hill would later join the national security council – after the firing of Russiagate-entrapped General Michael Flynn – and return to Brookings in July 2019. She later testified for the Democrats during the November 2019 impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump.

Danchenko appears to have reacted to the online identification of the PSS by locking down and scrubbing his social media accounts over the weekend. RT has reached out to Danchenko for comment.

pic.twitter.com/InU6b7uDNg

— Ken Caudle I FB MAGA (@ken_caudle) July 20, 2020

Why would any of this matter? Because the Steele Dossier has been the keystone of ‘Russiagate’ – the manufactured scandal accusing Trump of having ties or “colluding” with Russia during the 2016 election – from the very beginning. It was the grounds for the FBI to get a FISA warrant for spying on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page, which began prior to the election and continued for almost a year. It was also funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, using a series of cutouts: the Democratic National Committee, its law firm Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS. Steele was also paid an undisclosed amount by the FBI.

Yet the supposedly former British spy had not traveled to Russia, nor did he have any contacts there, so the crucial question about his dossier depended on how well informed the PSS was – and the FBI interview neatly demolished pretty much all of it, revealing that his “sources” were drinking friends and his intelligence consisted of “warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip,” as Eric Felten of Real Clear Investigations described it.

This operation, secretly bought and paid for by Clinton and DNC, was a **complete fabrication**. A huge intelligence and journalism scandal that it was deployed against Republicans for partisan gain. People involved should be renounced, prosecuted. https://t.co/TvtRARYtMl

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 20, 2020

In one particular instance, the PSS told the FBI that Steele asked him for information about Paul Manafort – Trump’s campaign manager at the time – which he thought was a “strange task” because he was “clueless” about who Manafort was. The story about Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visiting Prague – repeatedly debunked but refusing to die – was apparently a fabrication of a female acquaintance described only as ‘Source 3.’ The claim that Trump had hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed of a Moscow hotel where President Barack Obama had stayed? The PSS said he heard third-hand that the hotel manager didn’t outright deny it.

While experts have described much of the dossier as fabricated, Steele has long hidden behind the PSS that he insisted had an inside line to the Kremlin itself. The FBI interview pretty conclusively debunks that – and so could Danchenko, if he is indeed the PSS and is willing to talk about it on the record.

It looks like Igor either worked for, or did work for, Stratfor. There are quite a few emails between them both on Wikileaks.

🔗https://t.co/TKiXtB0ypf
🔗https://t.co/cpmBoJeufs pic.twitter.com/teTUOpIU9F

— help (@SecurityCounciI) July 19, 2020

Ironically, Danchenko’s Russian birth may feed the conspiracies of Republicans who sought to defend Trump from ‘Russiagate’ by adopting the Democrats’ framing but insisting it was Clinton and the DNC who actually colluded with Moscow. If Danchenko is the PSS, then some of the dossier is indeed “Russian disinformation” in the strictest sense of the term – though not what people tracing it to the Kremlin had in mind.

Yet the FBI interview makes it clear that the PSS fed Steele rumor and innuendo the British spy then used as a “smokescreen” for the claims of collusion, manufactured to please his Democrat employers, argued researcher Hans Mahncke.

And there it is. Proof certain that Igor Danchenko is the Primary Sub-Source.

Initial thoughts: Danchenko appears to be the fall guy. Focus should now move to Steele. Let him explain how some DC think tank kid was supposed to know Putin’s innermost secrets. What a total fraud. https://t.co/ehNFCGRYnx

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) July 19, 2020

The anonymous blogger who first fingered Danchenko agreed, saying he was “set up to be the fall guy” while the real villains of the piece are “people who used his information and pretended it came from legitimate sources” – meaning Steele, the FBI and DOJ who used his dossier, and the Democrats and their operatives who paid for it.  (Russia Today, 7/20/2020)  (Archive)

David Kramer (Credit: McCain Institute)

“A former associate of Sen. John McCain served as a key conduit between journalists and dossier author Christopher Steele in early 2017, going so far as offering to “feed” stories about Trump associates to a Washington Post columnist, according to documents from a British court proceeding.

David Kramer, a former State Department official who worked at the McCain Institute, kept Steele apprised of his contacts in January 2017 with journalists from BuzzFeed News, CNN, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post regarding aspects of the dossier.

Kramer relayed information he learned from reporters at ABC News and the Journal regarding the dossier’s allegation that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague, according to text messages read at a defamation trial against Steele in London last month.

The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained a transcript of the closed-door court proceedings, which were held in London from July 20-24. Steele, a former MI6 officer, is being sued by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian businessman who Steele’s dossier accuses of hacking Democrats’ computer systems in 2016.

Kramer was already known to have met with reporters to discuss the dossier. He has acknowledged providing the dossier to a reporter for BuzzFeed News, which published the salacious document on Jan. 10, 2017. But the Steele messages suggest Kramer played a more proactive role in trying to put negative stories in the media about Trump associates.

Kramer’s most eye-catching references are to David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who writes about national security issues.

“The Flynn calls story is picking up legs,” Kramer wrote to Steele, seemingly referring to a Jan. 12, 2017, column by Ignatius that revealed that Flynn spoke by phone weeks earlier with Sergey Kislyak.

According to text messages read at the trial, Kramer suggested to Steele that he would provide dirt on Trump associates to Ignatius.

“I think it’s time to get that other [Manafort] story out there,” Kramer wrote in a message to Steele, referring to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

“And Ignatius is the one I’ll feed it to,” he also wrote. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 8/28/2020)  (Archive)

Pfizer Base Agreement -Page 10 of 55

An attorney once told me “you cannot contract for a crime”. I think this is very true, and I think ultimately the truth will prevail. In the meantime, let’s talk about the art of writing contracts for giving future crimes appearance of lawful acts. Here is a lesson brought to you by your government-military-industrial complex.

This post is Part 1 of the series that will cover publicly available Pfizer-ATI-MCDC-DOD-FDA-HHS contracts that have been disclosed to the public through Jackson v. Ventavia, Pfizer and ICON.

• 2020.07.20 DOD-ATI-MCDC-FDA-Pfizer Base Agreement
• 2020.07.21 DOD-ATI-MCDC-FDA-Pfizer Technical Direction Letter.
• 2020.12.22 DOD-Pfizer Purchasing Contract Order

These agreements refer to a third, still undisclosed contract, called the “Project Agreement.”

Here is the overall structure of how I think these documents fit together. This is a long-term contracting framework where first an “umbrella” agreement is established and then specific projects are separately negotiated and signed-off.

DOD-Pfizer Base Agreement.

ATI Logo (Credit: ATI)

This agreement was signed on July 20, 2020 between Advanced Technology International (ATI), located in Summerville, SC and Pfizer, Inc., New York (NY). ATI is the Consortium Management Firm (CMF) managing several industry consortia for the Department of Defense purchasing various things that they need. An eye-watering amount of money flows through this company, which is a specialist in “Other Transaction Authority” contracts – i.e. a way of contracting favored by the DOD because accountability and regulatory compliance can be avoided, and lots of secrecy can be maintained. ATI manages consortia that primarily make weapons and things related to defense. There are two consortia that have “biopharma” and health related companies in it, working on so-called dual-use (civilian and military) technologies. The consortium that is responsible for making “covid countermeasures” managed by ATI is called MEDICAL CBRN [Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear] DEFENSE CONSORTIUM (MCDC).

Authority cited in the contract: MCDC Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) No. W15QKN-16-9-1002 and 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, Section 815 of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Public Law (P.L.) 114-92.

I will review some key sections of this contract – the ones I find particularly relevant to how we ended up with “legal” (on paper) mass genocide of Americans and global population through a pretend “vaccination campaign” and under largely faked “public health emergency”.

First the general comment. It is a convenient, knee-jerk reaction to blame “bad Big Pharma who captured the Government” and try to bring the pharma to court. Sometimes you can even succeed in taking big pharma to court! Even Pfizer – several times in the past! This typically happens when the government needs to utilize corporate vassals as a crumple zone and “prosecute their crimes” to satisfy the thirst of masses for punishing the evil corporate baddies. After that the government obtains even more power and even more regulatory authority and even bigger budget to protect us from future corporate malfeasance, of course. Win-win. The corporate baddies continue as if nothing happened but nobody seems to notice. This may even happen with covid crimes, and maybe even soon, I am not at all discounting this possibility. Notice that Woody Harrelson was allowed to talk about bad pharma that bought off the government on SNL already! Your masters have thought of everything and are preparing the escape ramps.

I agree that pharmas are very bad, corrupt, and are in the criminal cartel that’s committing worldwide murder. The head of the cartel is not the pharma, however, and I believe that a proper investigation and prosecution strategy must take this view. Note that I also do not think that the US DOD is the ultimate head of the operation – they are the executor, the global military enforcement structure. They are the Chief Operating Officer and the CEO is someplace else. The head of the snake is located somewhere towards the global banking area. My post is about the immediate structure we are dealing with: DOD-FDA-Pharma as evidenced by their own written agreements.

I hope you can see this structure through the review of the the DOD contracts for covid countermeasures (~300+ available today). These contracts are written by the Government, by the Department of Defense and not by private pharmaceutical companies. The discussion below relates to the specifics of what these contracts state. (Read more: SashaLatypova/Substack, 2/27/2023)  (Archive)

COVID-19 countermeasures: Evidence for an intent to harm – FULL
Alexandra Latypova – PANDEMIC STRATEGIES, LESSONS AND CONSEQUENCES

Flynn Opposition to Reheari… by Techno Fog on Scribd

“A defamation trial against Christopher Steele began in London on Monday, with revelations of the ex-spy’s efforts to disseminate his infamous dossier through the late Sen. John McCain and a longtime ally of the Clintons.

(…)In another text, Steele told Sir Andrew Wood, a former British diplomat, that McCain was ‘compromised’ because he was provided a copy of the dossier.

(…) In one message after Donald Trump’s election win in November 2016, Steele asked Strobe Talbott, who then served as president of the prestigious Brookings Institution, how he wanted to handle “the package” — a reference to the dossier.

(…) “Dear Strobe, I know this is not straight forward but we need to discuss the package we delivered to you the other week, and sooner the better. What you thought of it, what you did with it, how we (both) should handle it and the issue it highlights going forward etc.,” Steele wrote on Nov. 12, 2016, according to Caldecott.

John Kerry delivers remarks at the Foreign Affairs Policy Board meeting at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 28. 2016. Also pictured is Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)

It is not clear what Talbott, a longtime friend of the Clintons’, did with the dossier once he obtained it, but Fiona Hill, a former Brookings official who served in the Trump White House, told Congress last year that Talbott provided her a copy of the dossier a day before BuzzFeed published it.

(…) In another message from early 2017, Steele urged David Kramer, an associate of Sen. John McCain’s, not to tell reporters that Steele had been a source for another journalist on a dossier-related story.

And in a message weeks earlier, Steele told Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, that McCain was “compromised” by being given a copy of the dossier.” (Read much more: The Daily Caller, 7/21/2020)  (Archive)

“The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said he’s interested in the role that the Brookings Institution, a top foreign policy think tank, played in the handling and disseminating the infamous Steele dossier.

“I think this would be a major part of this story if indeed one of the major think tanks in this country, in this city, was involved in the dossier,” Rep. Devin Nunes said in an interview Tuesday on Fox News.

A defamation case in London against Christopher Steele has revealed that the former British spy provided a copy of the dossier to Strobe Talbott, who served as president of the Brookings Institution through 2017.

The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s information to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.

Page said he is disappointed in the role that Talbott played in spreading Steele’s information.

“Strobe Talbott is someone who I had long known and respected,” Page told the DCNF.

“The new evidence revealing that he and his colleagues from the Brookings Institution got involved in this severe election interference campaign with the DNC-funded Dodgy Dossier truly shocks the conscience.”

Nunes said in his Fox News interview that he is trying to find answers to what he called “The Three ‘Ds’”: the development, dissemination and defense of the dossier.

“We now know that the head of the Brookings Institute [sic] was involved in this dossier,” he said.

“What’s of interest is the Brookings Institute…they were involved for sure in the dissemination and for sure in the defense of the dossier. We just don’t know yet were they also involved in the development.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/22/2020)  (Archive)

“Is there actually a way to know, and to then prove, that the “Russiagate” story of the 2016 elections—a story which resulted in massive federal prosecutions, escalating international tensions, national paralysis, and a presidential impeachment trial—was completely false?

William Binney, a thirty-year veteran of the National Security Agency and its former technical director, will expose the continuing suppression by British intelligence agencies and their American counterparts of his evidence disproving the entire “Russiagate” story. “We can prove, that all the data that Wikileaks published from the DNC, that was downloaded on the 23rd and 25th of May, and also the 26th of August of 2016; all of that carried the signatures of being downloaded to a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, and physically transported,” Binney says. “So, we can prove that in a court of law. In fact, I put that in sworn affidavits that I submitted in the Roger Stone case and also in the General Flynn case. And the judges would not let my testimony in. I’ve been hard-pressed to find anything (Russia) did in the 2016 election, let alone anything they’re trying to do in the 2020 election,” Binney said.

Roger Stone, speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox TV July 13 in the aftermath of the commutation of his jail sentence by President Donald Trump, stated: “I could have proved at trial, using forensic evidence and expert testimony from fellows like Bill Binney, former NSA counterintelligence expert…that no one hacked the DNC, that there was no online hack of the DNC… But I wasn’t allowed to present that defense, because Judge Jackson would not allow it.”

Binney, whose work has been featured in documentaries such as PBS Frontline’s “United States of Secrets” and the movie “A Good American,” was the designer of the “ThinThread” security system, which could well have prevented the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center from occurring, had he and his associates not been deliberately prevented from deploying it. “But the problem also was that it was a system that would’ve uncovered all of the criminal activity of our government employees and our secret intelligence agencies, and also others in the world, too,” Binney said. Instead, “universal surveillance” capabilities that he personally designed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks were deployed after 9/11 to illegally monitor virtually every citizen of the United States in possession of any electronic device.”

FBI HQ (l) and Main Justice buildings (r) (Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

“When you are this close to the institutions, conversations come much easier.   According to those with direct knowledge, when Jeff Sessions recused (fire-walled) from anything to do with the special counsel in ’17, ’18, ’19, Rod Rosenstein “should have” held oversight.  However, in his Senate Judiciary testimony of June 3, 2020, Rosenstein admitted that he conducted no oversight over the Mueller probe.

Rosenstein’s justification was he did not feel it was his position to question their “investigative processes“, later saying “everything was an investigative process“, ergo anything the special counsel was doing was considered valid; nothing was questioned, and Rosenstein felt it was his position to “facilitate” the Mueller team.

This is a key point:  The special counsel took over Main Justice.

Which begs the question….. If Rosenstein was providing everything; who was managing the daily events inside Main Justice while the SC events were ongoing?  Who was the internal coordinator for the legal and investigative crew?  Who was the bridge?  Answer:

Tashina “Tash” Gauhar, literally from the school and law firm of former Obama “wingman” Attorney General Eric Holder.

2009- Tashina Gauhar is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Intelligence. Ms. Gauhar has extensive experience working with the U.S. Intelligence Community and has held a variety of national security positions within the Department since 2001, including serving as an Assistant Counsel in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review and later as the Deputy Chief of Operations in the Office of Intelligence, and recently the Chief of Operations. Prior to joining the Justice Department, Ms. Gauhar was an associate at the law firm of DLA Piper (then Piper Marbury Rudnick and Wolfe, LLP).  (link)

Tashina Gauhar was the Mid-Year-Exam (MYE) team member who was on a September 29, 2016, conference call with the FBI New York field office about the Weiner/Abedin laptop.  Tash Gauhar was directly at the center, no, the epicenter, of the most controversial time frame for the Mid-Year-Event team.

Tashina was one of only three MYE people who actually had the responsibility to review the Clinton emails from the Weiner/Abedin laptop. (The other two were Peter Strzok and the unknown “lead analyst”)

Tashina is probably only eclipsed by Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in the level of influence within the entire Mid-Year-Team apparatus.  “Tash”, as she was known to the team, is a hub amid a very tight circle.  Tashina Gauhar held a great deal of influence.  Suffice to say, the spawn of Eric Holder is a big deal in the story.

Do you know what other decision Tashina Gauhar was influential in?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal:

(Link to PDF)

Note this meeting was on March 2nd, 2017.  Which prompted this announcement:

WASHINGTON POST, March 2 2017 – Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that he will recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which would include any Russian interference in the electoral process.

Speaking at a hastily called news conference at the Justice Department, Sessions said he was following the recommendation of department ethics officials after an evaluation of the rules and cases in which he might have a conflict.

“They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation,” Sessions said. He added that he concurred with their assessment and would thus recuse himself from any existing or future investigation involving President Trump’s 2016 campaign. (link)

Yes, the DOJ lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ lawyer hired by Eric Holder at his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe;  the DOJ lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to New York; the DOJ lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice;…. just happens to be the same DOJ lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse himself.

Once Jeff Sessions recused, then what responsibilities did Tashina cover?

Tashina Gauhar was also the internal coordinator inside Main Justice who was the link between the special counsel and the resources of the entire department.  Essentially, Rod Rosenstein’s willful blindness put Tashina in a position of power.  This is how the special counsel group was able to take over Main Justice and coordinate their efforts.  Everything flowed through Tash while she protected the Weissmann, Zelby, Van Grack, et al team as they went about targeting the Trump administration. These were the usurpers embedded inside Main Justice while carrying out the “insurance policy” mission.

Ms. Tashina Gauhar had quite a portfolio:

Tashina Gauhar left the DOJ in Nov 2019.  She went to work for Boeing.

Tashina Gauhar was the Deputy Attorney General’s national security adviser and deputy assistant attorney general for intelligence since 2009. Tash was at the DOJ since 2001, and she formerly served as assistant counsel and chief of operations in what was then called the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.  She worked for DAG Rosenstein as she did for DAG Sally Yates.  Tash Gauhar was the DAG’s executor and enforcer for national security.

Tashina required all of the AG packages for foreign policy appointments to go through her.

As the DOJ point on national security, only Gauhar received an email notification about NSC meetings.  During her tenure, she did not always pass those notifications along, so the AG (Sessions) both missed NSC meetings and went unprepared when she let the notifications wait until the last minute.

She was very close to the Counter Intelligence division and came to David Laufman’s defense.  (David Laufman was a DOJ-NSD lawyer who later became the attorney for Monica McLean, the FBI public information officer who wrote the complaint letter against Justice Kavanaugh with Christine Blasey-Ford.)

Tashina is reported to have attempted to get access to highly compartmentalized NSA information and lied about being an appropriately cleared recipient.

In 2014 Attorney General Eric Holder changed the entire DOJ organizational chart making the Deputy AG the DOJ’s main point contact for the entire national security process.

Tashina Gauhar was also the person who retrieved the transcripts (tech cuts) of Gen. Flynn’s conversations with Sergey Kislyak, and she was assisting Mary McCord and Sally Yates at the meeting with White House Counsel Don McGahn.

Tashina Gauhar was frequently seen at public social gatherings with Mueller investigators.

Tashina Gauhar was deeply involved in the Iran JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) deal and the side agreements within the Iran deal.

Tashina Gauhar was one of a select few people to convince the AG that he should recuse himself.

Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page.

Tashina Gauhar told the FBI to stop enforcing and prosecuting export control and sanctions laws to protect the Iran deal.

Gauhar told the FBI not to have any public information campaign targeting private companies and educating them about dual-use technologies.

Tashina Gauhar told the DEA to stop drug investigations re: Hezbollah related to Operation Casandra.

Tashina Gauhar attended NSC meetings during the Obama Administration representing DOJ.  Tashina also knows all about the Uranium One deal.

Tashina Gauhar blocked the AG’s office from getting Senior Executive Service (SES) people. The AG had three SES people and the DAG had nine.

Tashina Gauhar was put in charge of reviewing the classified material President Trump ordered be passed to Congress, and she was the liaison between the Deputy AG (Rosenstein) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for national security.” (Conservative Treehouse, 7/25/2020)  (Archive)

Sergei Millian (Credit: Twitter)

Sergei Millian reveals on Twitter, two emails he received from Igor Danchenko in July and August 2016. In the July email, Danchenko questions Millian about what business projects Trump was considering in Russia,  and the second August email was a clumsy attempt to lure Millian into profitable business schemes in Russia. Both emails were ignored.

“PSS emails release THREAD: —— My name is Sergei Millian. As a member of GOP & active supporter of Mr. Trump I got viciously targeted by the anti-Trump elements, foreign & domestic.

In 2016, my personal ambition as a proud American citizen was to interview for a leading expert on Russia position with the new Administration.

I have been advocating for the friendly relations between USA and Russia(in line with Mr. Trump’s public statements during 2016 Presidential election campaign).

After I gave a few public interviews in USA and Russia explaining why I supported Mr. Trump, the dark forces in London dispatched a chronic drunkard to spy on me, an American citizen in New York City.

Nevertheless, Mr. Igor Danchenko is not the key conspirator. He is simply an addict who had been working for Steele to make ends meet. The brains behind the conspiracy used Mr Danchenko for their dirty deeds.

Who is behind the conspiracy? How many high-ranking officials were involved in the coup d’etat of the legitimate US President?

The result of actions of the conspirators: continuous fraud, gross violations of state and federal laws, illegal surveillance, organized persecution and non-stop harassment of innocent Americans by the media.

Publication of the information contained in the TWO EMAILS sent by Mr Danchenko in 2016 is deemed to be in the public interest. BOTH of his emails were ignored. You will be able to see both emails as a screenshot image and the original Russian language email in Twitter format.

FIRST ATTEMPT TO APPROACH MILLIAN occurred on July 21, 2016. “

Google translated:

Igor Danchenko (Credit: public domain)

Hello Sergey! Colleagues from RIA Novosti gave me your contact. You spoke with Dmitry Zlodarev about Donald Trump and his travels to Russia.

I wanted to ask you: what projects did he consider, or were they purely fashion trips to beauty contests? There has been a lot of speculation on this topic for a month. It would be interesting to talk about this topic. Question from a construction company in Switzerland.

I think there is a political component, but it can be leveled. I am also very interested in Russian-Chinese cooperation, including the sanctions aspect. There are projects in Russia that are looking for investors and equipment suppliers.

Like many in Russia, they look back at Asia – China, Hong Kong, but they don’t know how to approach. Confidentially, of course – I have nothing to do with the media, although there are certainly acquaintances there.

Anyway, it would be interesting if possible to speak with you on the phone or meet for coffee / beer in Washington DC or New York, where I will be next week. I myself am in Washington. You can also by email. mail in Russian or in English.

I sent you a request on LinkedIn – my work is clearer there.

With respect, Igor

First email screenshot. Original view and full-text email fitted to an iPhone screen.

SECOND ATTEMPT TO APPROACH MILLIAN occurred on August 18, 2016.

Google translated:

A question about the land in the Kaluga region, a short meeting in NY or DC.

“Hello Sergey. I wrote to you a few weeks ago. We are in touch on LinkedIn.

There is a proposal for a site in the Kaluga region, not far from New Moscow. I am attaching the information in a separate letter. My friends are lawyers. They repeatedly asked me to suggest someone. I thought that you or your contacts might be interested.

The cadastral value is about 300 million rubles, respectively, the market value is slightly higher. When selling, you can immediately take into account the share of the intermediary. Attached are 8 jpegs.

If there is an opportunity and interest, let us meet and talk about this and other projects. Other projects also involve investments in existing sites, but production is there. And in some cases technology is needed, in others – investment.

The stakes in Russia are high – you yourself know, so I would like to consider some simple and profitable schemes. Write, call. Contacts below.

With respect, Igor

The email has 8 attachments. Screenshots of the attachments below👇🏻

Second email screenshot. Original view and full text email fitted to an iPhone screen.

(MILLIAN@SergeiMillian, 7/25/2020/Twitter) (ThreadReader)

Carter Page (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

“Former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is suing Yahoo parent company Oath Inc. over “false and defamatory statements,” claiming the outlet “portrayed him as a traitor to America” who illegally conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

The suit – obtained by Fox News — was filed Monday in Delaware Superior Court and accuses Oath’s Yahoo News and HuffPost of publishing stories about Page “with actual knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of truth or falsity” with a motive of generating clicks online and aligning with the political bias and aims of senior management.

“Page is an innocent individual whose entire way of life was shattered as a direct result of being defamed and falsely branded as a traitor to his country by the Defendant’s media brands,” the lawsuit claims. “He was allegedly secretly plotting with Russian leaders to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election and give ‘aid and comfort’ to Russian President Putin’s efforts to ‘weaken’ America.”

The suit notes that criminal acts of treason against the United States are punishable by the death penalty. Claiming the stories falsely painted Page as a possible traitor, the suit alleges the reports “catastrophically harmed” an innocent person.

“Overnight he was defamed and thrown onto the world stage as a traitor,” the suit said.” (Read more: Fox News, 7/26/2020)  (Archive)

A continuation from Conservative Treehouse – Tashina “Tash” Gauhar – 7/25/2020:

“Now that everyone is familiar with how the Mueller Special Counsel Team took over Main Justice (DOJ and DOJ-NSD) in May 2017, let’s take a look at a critical ten days.

On July 12, 2018, at the apex of the Mueller probe, the DOJ-NSD dispatched a demonstrably manipulative letter to the FISA court informing the FISC that the predicate for the FISA application was still valid.  {Go Deep} Nine days later, July 21, 2018, the special counsel released the Carter Page FISA application to fill FOIA requests.

The background context is important.  House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte was asking Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer for a copy of the FISA application on file in the FISC.  Collyer responded saying both Goodlatte and Nunes (Legislative Branch) needed to exhaust all efforts to retrieve from the DOJ (Executive Branch).  Congress was questioning the details of the FISA.   Unprompted, and needing to keep prop-up the FISA application the special counsel (DOJ-NSD) responded to the FISC saying the predicate was still valid.

Obviously the background of how the FISA application was attained was critical to the special counsel maintaining the validity of their purpose.  Hence, despite 18 months of direct FBI evidence that contradicted the primary underpinning document, the Steele Dossier, the special counsel lied to the FISC saying the originating predicate was valid.

The July 12, 2018 letter only surfaced in April 2020 after the FISC reviewed the December 9, 2019 IG report which completely contradicted the July 12, 2018, claims. The FISC responded to the Bill Barr DOJ in 2020 by demanding the 2018 letter be given to congressional oversight via Senator Lindsey Graham.   The DOJ submitted the 2018 document and Senator Graham released the letter to the public.

Nine days later, July 21st 2018, the special counsel then released the FISA application to the public under the guise of a FOIA fulfillment.  However, what almost everyone missed was that the actual FISA application itself was a very specific version released.

The special counsel released a very specific version of the FISA application.  The first two components of the FISA release were from a copy dated March 17, 2017, that was used in an FBI leak investigation. {Go Deep}  The special counsel used this version and then added the April 2017 and June 2017 renewals to complete the set.

Take a look at the last page of the first FISA application that was released and there is a much bigger story visible.  This page tells us a great deal:

The FISC stamp of 3/17/17 tells us that Robert Mueller’s team released a document that was proprietary to the Washington Field Office FBI, Supervisory Special Agent, Brian Dugan. {Go Deep}   FBI Agent Dugan calls this “an FBI equity” in his December 14, 2018  statement under penalty of perjury.   The special counsel is releasing Dugan’s evidence.

This release tells us that SSA Brian Dugan turned over his investigative file to the special counsel at the conclusion of his leak investigation; likely because the Mueller probe held primary investigative authority over anything related to Trump-Russia, and the FISA application was a central component to the Mueller probe.

Quite simply: if agent Dugan had not turned over his investigative file; and if the special counsel did not take ownership of his investigative file; then the special counsel would not have this specific copy to release.   The DOJ would have, instead, been releasing their own copy of the FISA application from the DOJ-National Security Division.

The simple fact that Mueller released this March 17th stamped version for a FOIA fulfillment meant the special counsel had received Dugan’s investigative file.  Hopefully, everyone can see that.

When the special counsel released the Dugan copy on July 21st, 2018 they redacted the dates.  Despite everyone knowing what the dates were from both Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Chuck Grassley releases, the special counsel redacted the dates.

The special counsel redacted the dates because Brian Dugan had changed them in order to track leaks to the media.  The unredacted Dugan copy would show origination dates in conflict with actual.   The special counsel released the Dugan copy and removed the risk by redacting the dates.

This is one example of how the Special Counsel team controlled, removed, and released information that was damaging to their own corrupt intentions.  There are many more.

The special counsel needed to remove the evidence that SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaked the unredacted FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins on March 17, 2017.

By the time Brian Dugan’s investigative file was scrubbed by the Mueller team, it was returned to USAO Jessie Liu with the evidence of the Wolfe FISA leak removed.

This is why the Wolfe grand jury never heard the evidence of “WHAT” James Wolfe released; and this explains why he was only indicted on lying three times to FBI investigators.

On the last sentences (paragraph four); on the last page; on the last court document that SSA Dugan would write; FBI Agent Brian Dugan swore under penalty of perjury that James Wolfe leaked the FISA application….

….No-one noticed:

(Link)

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/26/2020)  (Archive)

U.S. attorney John Bash (Credit: Jorge Sanhueza Lyon/Kut)

“Attorney General William P. Barr revealed Tuesday that he’s appointed another U.S. attorney to investigate requests by top Obama officials to “unmask” President Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Mr. Barr said he’s asked John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, to look into the unmasking requests. He said that review will be independent of Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia-collusion investigation.

“I’ve asked another U.S. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of the high number of unmaskings and some that do not readily appear in the line of normal business,” Mr. Barr said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.” (Read more: Washington Times, 7/28/2020)  (Archive)

“A former top senior advisor and loyalist to President Barack Obama told Fox News Business host Maria Bartiromo Tuesday that the FBI’s false investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and that it conspired with Russia is old news and “why our focus isn’t what’s happening right now.”

This stunning statement came from Obama’s most loyal advisor Valerie Jarrett, who also stated that the investigators in the Trump Russia investigation behaved appropriately, despite a plethora of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Baritromo asked Jarrett, if former FBI Director James Comey knew that former British spy Christopher Steele’s dossier was garbage but he continued to renew warrants to spy on Carter Page, a member of the 2016 Trump campaign, shouldn’t he be prosecuted.

According to several government officials who spoke to SaraACarter.comm Comey is a central figure being investigated by the Justice Department’s criminal probe being headed by Connecticut prosecutor John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General William Barr.

“Well, Maria look I have highly great confidence that our intelligence community, investigators comported themselves responsibly,” Jarrett said.

This “was nearly four years ago and I don’t understand why our focus isn’t on what’s happening right now.”

(Read more: Sara A. Carter, 7/28/2020)  (Archive)

Jill and Andrew McCabe in their campaign attire on March 7, 2015. (Credit: Sharyl Attkisson)

“Judicial Watch announced today the FBI will finally begin processing Andrew McCabe text message for release after a federal court rejected the FBI’s request to dismiss a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, for emails and text messages of former-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (Jeffrey A. Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01792).  Mr. Danik filed his first request for the records in 2016. 

After years of suggesting that text messages are not subject to FOIA, the FBI told the court in a recent filing that it has located 150 text messages and 5,696 emails but will not have a schedule to release the records until August 28, 2020. 

Judicial Watch filed the suit in 2017 in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28, 2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of interest” regarding his wife’s (Dr. Jill McCabe’s) political campaign and Hillary Clinton. Specifically, the two FOIA requests are for:

Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,” “Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,” “Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,” “Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,” “Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or “New York Times.” 

United States District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case, concluding that DOJ had not provided sufficient evidence to support its attempt to end the lawsuit without providing all emails and text messages responsive to the FOIA requests. 

The FBI has outrageously stonewalled for years the release of these McCabe text messages about Clinton,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “You can be sure the text messages are something the corrupted FBI doesn’t want the American people to see.” (Read more: Judicial Watch, 7/29/2020)  (Archive)

“In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill Clinton on Epstein’s island with “two young girls” from New York.

In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, “Do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein’s specifically telling you that ‘Bill Clinton owes me favors?'”

(Giuffre v. Maxwell)

Epstein had multiple ties to Clinton, and Clinton—along with many other big name celebrities—was a repeated passenger on Epstein’s private Boeing 727 plane which was nicknamed the “Lolita Express” due to the frequent delivery of apparently underage women to the island of Little Saint James, a reference to the 1955 Vladimir Nabokov novel about a 36-year-old literature professor who sexually engages a 12-year-old girl.” (Read more: Newsweek, 7/30/2020)  (Archive)  (Epstein/Maxwell docs – 7/30/2020)  (Archive)

UPDATE:

“In a statement on Friday, Angel Ureña, a spokesperson for Clinton, told Newsweek that the former president has “never been to Little St. James Island.”

“He’d not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade,” he said. “Well before his terrible crimes came to light.”

Ureña referred Newsweek to a statement Clinton released in July 2019, where he issued the same denial. “He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida,” the statement read. (Newsweek, 7/31/2020)

Bill Clinton (Credit Joyce Naltchayan/Agence France Presse/Getty Images)

“Thousands of newly unsealed court documents involving Jeffrey Epstein indicate that the late-sex predator joked, according to the testimony of one of his alleged victims, that former President Bill Clinton owed him “favors.”

(…) “I remember asking Jeffrey what’s Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well he owes me a favor,” Guiffre told the lawyer in 2011.

“He never told me what favors they were,” Guiffre added. “I never knew. I didn’t know if he was serious. It was just a joke… He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They’re all in each other’s pockets.” (Read more: Breitbart, 7/31/2020)  (Archive)

Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley (Credit: JusttheNews)

“Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters this week to the CIA, State Department, Office of Director of National Intelligence and the FBI that signal the scope of their probes has expanded with recent new revelations.

Many of the new requests appear to focus on people who are suspected to have contributed materials to Christopher Steele’s discredited anti-Trump dossier or who trafficked information from the opposition research memo to government officials.

For instance, the chairmen demanded records from Pompeo’s department concerning:

• Clinton acolyte and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who has admitted he received and provided copies of the Steele dossier
• former Clinton associates Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal. Shearer, a relative of Talbott, wrote a dossier similar to Steele’s that was provided to the former MI-6 agent.
• former State officials Victoria Nuland, Jonathan Winer and Kathleen Kavalec, all of whom had contact with Steele as he was developing his dossier.

The senators also made their most sweeping demands for records from CIA, including any information the spy agency provided the FBI concerning the credibility of Steele as a human source. Recently declassified footnotes from Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s report on Russia probe abuses revealed that the CIA had raised red flags about Steele’s reporting, including that he had been targeted with Russian intelligence agency disinformation about Donald Trump while writing the dossier.

(…) One of the most highly anticipated requests in the letters involved DNI John Ratcliffe, who was asked to declassify a lengthy report written by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ staff highlighting major failures in the intelligence community’s assessment about Russia’s intentions in the 2016 election.”

(…) You can read the senators’ letters here:

File

File

File

(Read more: Just the News, 7/30/2020)  (Archive)

(Giuffre v. Maxwell (Jeffrey Epstein) – July 30, 2020)

Alternate copy:

Epstein Docs/Document Cloud

Amazon

The following is an excerpt from the new book “Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.” 

Skolkovo was perhaps the Kremlin’s boldest maneuver yet. Envious of America’s technological success, the Russians sought to re-create the West Coast high-tech industrial hub in the suburbs of Moscow. But unlike the bottom-up innovation that defines Silicon Valley, where computer geniuses like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs pinched their pennies and built the first personal computers in their garages, Skolkovo was a top-down state-run project that sought to replicate decades of trial and error seemingly overnight.

It was also a ploy to steal American intellectual property and transfer technological secrets to the Kremlin.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy described the Skolkovo scam best: “The project was like an espionage operation in broad daylight, openly enhancing Russia’s military and cyber capabilities.”

Indeed, multiple Defense Department (DOD) agencies and the FBI condemned Skolkovo as an espionage front that posed a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.

In 2012, the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth examined the security implications of Skolkovo and concluded that Skolkovo was an apparent “vehicle for worldwide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.

The Kremlin and the Obama State Department praised the civilian endeavors of Skolkovo and its “clusters”—information, energy, biomedical, and even space technology (among other seemingly innocuous initiatives). The promoters of Skolkovo in Moscow and Washington conveniently neglected to mention the military applications.

According to the Army’s Fort Leavenworth report:

The Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011…the [Kremlin’s] operation of Skolkovo and investment positions in companies will likely provide [Russia’s] military awareness of and access to [American] technologies.

The FBI’s Boston field office sent warning letters to American companies involved with Skolkovo alerting them to the possibility that they had fallen prey to a Russian espionage trap. Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro went so far as to publicly announce that Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial applications.”

DOD’s European Command (EUCOM) posted an alert that stated, “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage—with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently.” (Read more: JusttheNews, 7/31/2020)  (Archive)