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

Whoa – the Joseph Mifsud 302 is out.

Mifsud said he had no advance knowledge Russia had DNC emails and did not make any offer to Papadopoulos

And there is a post-interview email from Mifsud to FBI yet to be released 🤔

A very short interview for a purported “Russian agent.”

Mueller’s Report played-up Mifsud’s “connections to Russia.”

At the interview, the FBI didn’t bother to ask many questions about those “connections.”

No follow-up questions about emails.

Now we can see why there were zero references to the Mifsud 302 in Mueller’s Report.

Mueller allegation:

@GeorgePapa19 “lies” about if he was w/ Trump campaign during Mifsud meeting impeded their ability to question Mifsud.

The problem: Mifsud himself told the FBI that George was w/ Trump campaign when they met.

One last thing – the Special Counsel’s dishonesty to the court.

Representation: @GeorgePapa19 prevented FBI from getting to the bottom of the Mifsud story.

Reality: the FBI asked few questions of Mifsud, was getting emails from Mifsud, and chose to not follow-up with Mifsud.

Per @FOOL_NELSON

H/t @walkafyre

here is the Mifsud email to the FBI.

(Solomon release in 2019)

(Techno Fog@Techno_Fog, 9/01/2020)  (Archive)

Also from FOOL NELSON @FOOL_NELSON
Jim Jordan going through Mifsud’s three “lies to the FBI”.

Mueller report, page 193

Carter Page, petroleum industry consultant and former foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential election campaign, in Washington on May 28, 2019. (Credit: Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

“The original Woods file on former campaign advisor Carter Page went missing more than two years ago, and according to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com, those documents had to be recreated by the FBI and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2018 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application used by the bureau to obtain the warrant on Page. That FISA was used in part to investigate President Donald Trump’s campaign and the now-debunked theory that it colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, according to several sources, with knowledge, who spoke to this reporter.

The Woods file procedure, which was overseen by FBI Supervisory Special Agent Joe Pientka, and ultimately former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, was used to verify the contents in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application that was used to obtain a warrant to spy on Page.

Moreover, during Pientka’s numerous interviews with investigators from the DOJ’s Inspector General’s office, who likely have worked for both Michael Horowitz and Connecticut prosecutor John Durham – the fact that it was a recreated Wood’s file was never disclosed.

In fact, it had been missing for an unknown period of time, possibly up to two years and officials did not become aware it had disappeared until last week during a closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Pientka attended the closed-door hearing, along with other FBI officials, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.

“The real story here is how does the FBI, Special Counsel’s Office and Inspector General figure out if the Wood’s file went missing through malice or through incompetence,” said a source with knowledge if the circumstances.

Pientka has so far been cleared by the Justice Department and not charged with any wrongdoing. According to sources, he has been speaking and cooperating with Justice Department officials and members of Congress. He still maintains active employment with the FBI, unlike Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Director Bill Priestap, among others.” (Read more: Sara A. Carter, 9/01/2020)  (Archive)

The public mocks “Nancy Antoinette” Pelosi’s quarantine stash of expensive ice cream in a very expensive freezer. (Credit: YouTube)

“The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike rose to global prominence in mid-June 2016 when it publicly accused Russia of hacking the Democratic National Committee and stealing its data. The previously unknown company’s explosive allegation set off a seismic chain of events that engulfs U.S. national politics to this day. The Hillary Clinton campaign seized on CrowdStrike’s claim by accusing Russia of meddling in the election to help Donald Trump. U.S. intelligence officials would soon also endorse CrowdStrike’s allegation and pursue what amounted to a multi-year, all-consuming investigation of Russian interference and Trump’s potential complicity.

With the next presidential election now in its final weeks, the Democrats’ national leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her husband, Paul Pelosi, are endorsing the publicly traded firm in a different way. Recent financial disclosure filings show the couple has invested up to $1 million in CrowdStrike Holdings. The Pelosis purchased the stock at a share price of $129.25 on Sept. 3. At the time of this article’s publication, the price has risen to $142.97.

Drew Hammill, spokesman for Pelosi, said: “Speaker Pelosi is not involved in her husband’s investments and was not aware of the investment until the required filing was made.  Mr. Pelosi is a private investor and has investments in a number of publicly traded companies.  The Speaker fully complies with House Rules and the relevant statutory requirements.”

The Pelosis’ sizeable investment in CrowdStrike in the $500,000-to-$1-million range could revive scrutiny of the company’s involvement in the Trump-Russia saga since the Democrats’ 2016 election loss.” (Read more: Real Clear Investigations 10/09/2020)  (Archive)

(Credit: Alexander Hunter/Washington Times)

“On September 1, 2020, journalist Sarah Carter broke a story based on confidential sources that in a briefing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI and Department of Justice informed the committee that the “Woods File” for the Carter Page FISA application had been somehow “lost” at some unknown point in time.  She reported that the Committee was told that the contents of the file had been “recreated” by the Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel office by “reverse engineering” — my words — through examining the application and determining what factual allegations would have required supporting documentation normally contained in a “Woods File”.

(…) Where to begin?

How about with the “disappearance” of an electronic file in a system where nothing disappears.  The Woods File is a subfile in the investigation’s case file.  It is created by the Case Agent by scanning in the documentary sources used as the basis to make a factual allegation in the affidavit.

The purpose of having the file is so that when third parties — supervisors, subsequent case agents, other agencies — who review the affidavit and have questions about a particular allegation, they can go to the Woods File and find the specific documents from which the allegation was sourced.  The file is not intended to “prove” the allegation true — only that the allegation has a source, and what that source is.

A question that has never received enough scrutiny is the role of the Special Counsel’s office in seeking the third extension of the Page FISA warrant.  That extension was requested on June 29, 2017.  That is six weeks after Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, and responsibility for Crossfire Hurricane was transferred to the Special Counsel’s Office.

(…) How does the Woods File — stored electronically in the FBI’s Sentinel database — get “lost”?  And at what point in time did the SCO decide it was necessary to “reconstruct” a replacement Woods File by reverse engineering it through analyzing the applications to determine the specific factual allegations needed source documentation — other than the Steele Memos — in order to justify their inclusion in the third application to extend.

Was the ACTUAL Woods File so lacking — or so dependent on the allegations of the Steele Memos — that someone in the SCO realized it was a “ticking time bomb” waiting to be uncovered once an authorized investigator was given the responsibility to sort things out?

We learn on page 220 of the IG Report that when time arrived for the third application, there were already concerns among the FBI personnel involved that the FISA warrant was “going dark” — it was yielding little of value in May and June 2017.  In addition, Carter Page had been interviewed multiple times at that point, telling Agents who did the interview that he suspected he was under surveillance.  Yet “Case Agent 6” and “Supervisory Special Agent 5” decided to proceed with the third extension according to the IG Report at page. 220.” (Read more: RedState, 9/04/2020)  (Archive) 

From the Atlantic:

Peter Strzok (Credit: Saul Loeb/Agence France Presse/Getty Images

Applebaum: Tell me what you think of the recent efforts to vindicate General Flynn. Do those have merit?

Strzok: No. What the Department of Justice is doing now, walking back his guilty plea, is an egregious miscarriage of justice.

Look, I don’t know what is in General Flynn’s head. What I do know is that when we interviewed him—and this is described in the book—just outside the Oval Office, he repeatedly told us things that were not the truth. We were asking him about phone calls he had had with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, calls where he had discussed the Russian response to the sanctions that the U.S. had just applied. We had listened to the calls; he knew we had listened to them. We tried to trigger his memory, multiple times, by using phrases he’d used in those conversations. And yet he kept denying that he had ever discussed them. He then didn’t tell the truth to two judges, and to the vice president.

Why? I don’t know. I will note that the Mueller investigation asked Trump, in written questions, whether he had discussed those conversations with Flynn. And he just didn’t answer.

We also uncovered deeply concerning work Flynn had done for the government of Turkey, and of course, [Barack] Obama made a point of warning Trump that his superiors had found some of his behavior troubling. But the fundamental question lurking beneath all that is: Did Flynn lie to us in order to cover up for Trump, perhaps for instructions Trump gave him to speak to Kislyak?”  (The Atlantic, 9/04/2020)  (Archive)  (h/t @HansMahncke)

Sean Davis explains how General Flynn never discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak but instead discussed the expulsion of several Russian diplomats:

(…) “Highly sought-after summaries and transcripts of intercepted phone calls between former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak contradict key claims made by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his criminal case against Flynn. The transcripts were provided to Congress on Friday and obtained by The Federalist. You can read the full documents here and here.

(…) Mueller’s operation also conflated discussions of financial sanctions levied against Russian entities and individuals via executive order on December 28, 2016 with the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which were two separate and distinct issues. In fact, the specific executive order cited by Mueller in his charging documents against Flynn pertained only to Treasury-enforced financial sanctions against nine Russian intelligence individuals and institutions, not to the separate expulsions of Russian diplomats, which were enforced by the U.S. State Department. In his remarks announcing the various maneuvers by his administration against Russia, President Obama even noted that sanctions and expulsions were entirely separate issues handled by different agencies and requiring different legal authorities.

(…) The executive order signed by Obama and referenced by Mueller had nothing to do with expulsions of Russian diplomats, which was the topic of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak.

The transcripts show that while Kislyak obliquely raised the issue of financial sanctions against certain Russian intelligence officials, Flynn himself never discussed the financial sanctions against Russian individuals and entities levied by the Obama administration. Instead, Flynn focused on preventing U.S. “tit-for-tat” escalation following the Obama administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats. Although Obama officials claimed via leaks to the press that Flynn, a decorated combat veteran and retired three-star Army general, was illegally operating as a secret Russian agent, the transcripts show that Flynn’s primary focus throughout his conversations with Kislyak was ensuring that Russia and the U.S. could work together to defeat Islamist terrorist and the growing influence of ISIS throughout the Middle East. Obama officials never explained how working with international partners to defeat ISIS constituted a federal crime.” (Read more: The Federalist, 5/29/2020)  (Archive)

“During an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Watters’ World,” Breitbart News senior contributor and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer, discussed his forthcoming documentary, “Riding the Dragon: Uncovering the Bidens’ Chinese Secrets.”

Schweizer laid out Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s ties to Communist China, which he warned could have national security implications for the United States.

Transcript as follows:

WATTERS: One of the biggest bombshells involves one of Hunter’s partners trying to steal US secrets, and Hunter himself bypassing laws that benefited the Chinese military.

Joining me now with an inside look at “Riding the Dragon: Uncovering the Biden’s Chinese Secrets,” Peter Schweizer.

All right, Peter, this is based on corporate records, financial documents, legal briefings, and court papers. This is not conjecture. This is what you found, and you can substantiate.

What are the main headlines from your research that you can see in this documentary?

SCHWEIZER: Well, the main headlines, Jesse are these: that the Bidens made a lot of money, courtesy of the Chinese government. We’re not talking about Chinese businesses — the Chinese government. This happened while Joe Biden was the point person on Obama administration policy towards China.

But this is not just rank and file corruption that we’ve gotten used to. This is not the Chinese takeout version of typical corruption because, in addition to the Biden’s making money, Jesse, what happened is, Hunter Biden entered into a business partnership.

He was on the Board of Directors of a Chinese investment firm called BHR that was funded by the Chinese government, and what did they do? They started acquiring companies that were beneficial to the Chinese military.

They were an anchor investor in something called China General Nuclear, which ended up being charged by our FBI for stealing nuclear secrets in the United States. They ended up buying part of an American dual-use technology company, meaning it produces technology that has civilian and military application. They ended up buying that for the benefit of the Chinese military.

So this is not a corruption case of let’s say victimless crime where it’s just some politician’s kid getting rich. This has very real national security implications, and the Bidens were prepared and willing to make money, even if it damaged our military posture vis-a-vis the Chinese who are our chief rivals on the global stage.

WATTERS: That sounds worse than Ukraine because Ukraine —

SCHWEIZER: Yes, it is much worse than Ukraine.

WATTERS: Military secrets being transferred and stolen. All right, Peter Schweizer, you can watch “Riding the Dragon: Uncovering the Biden’s Chinese Secrets” on Blaze TV. Thanks for coming on.

SCHWEIZER: Thank you.

(Breitbart, 9/06/2020)

Riding the Dragon is also available on YouTube. Here is the entire documentary.

Peter Strzok (l) and Alexander Downer (Credit: public domain)

(…) Strzok’s September 6, 2020, interview with CBS (and related brief comments in Compromised) gave the very first information on the critical Downer interview, including the very first official explanation of why Downer decided to report the Papadopoulos conversation to the U.S. embassy when he did—in Strzok’s words, what “triggered him.”

Exact words are important, so here are Strzok’s exact words in the CBS interview (transcription and emphasis mine):

Narrator: Papadopoulos was in London having drinks with an Australian diplomat. 

Strzok: Papadopoulos told them that somebody on the Trump campaign had received an offer that said the Russians have material that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton and to Obama and they offered to coordinate the release of that information in a way that would help the Trump campaign.

Narrator: The Australians didn’t make much of it until Trump made this appeal about Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” Those Australian diplomats heard that and contacted the FBI.

Strzok: When they saw that speech by Trump, that triggered their memory of the conversation they had with Papadopoulos.

The CBS interviewer observed the implication that Trump had been hoisted on his own petard, as it was his own inflammatory statements that had originated the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation, not malicious or mistaken conduct by others after all. Strzok agreed:

Interviewer: So, Donald Trump with his own words brought this investigation down on himself. 

Strzok: According to what the foreign government told us, yes.

In Compromised, Strzok similarly stated that Downer delivered his original information to the U.S. embassy “shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference”:

When we received the report about Papadopoulos’s revelations to the Friendly Foreign Government’s personnel—intelligence that they sent from their embassy to ours shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference…

In Downer’s recounting, Trump’s words jarred his memory of a series of conversations months earlier…

A vivid narrative from one of the most important figures in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

The Contradiction

Here’s the problem.

Trump’s “Russia, are you listening” quip was made at a July 27, 2016, press conference, while Downer’s tip was given to the U.S. embassy on July 26, one day earlier. (The July 26 date is provided in both the Mueller Report, published in April 2019, and the Horowitz Report, published in December 2019.) 

It was chronologically impossible for Trump’s quip to have actually triggered Downer’s tip.  

Worse, this implies that Strzok’s story about Downer telling him that he had been triggered by Trump’s speech was also untrue—either a false memory or fabrication—each as insalubrious as the other. 

Nobody in U.S. major media or its “fact checkers” noticed Strzok’s false information.

It was, however, quickly noticed by Hans Mahncke, a knowledgeable Twitter commentator on Russiagate, who issued the following challenge to Strzok on Twitter at 5:58 p.m. on Sept 6, 2020:

.@petestrzok told CBS that the Australians came forward because they were triggered by a Trump speech.

The problem is that the Australians came forward *before* Trump’s speech.

Strzok is lying or the Australians lied. Take your pick.

Either way, this destroys the predicate. pic.twitter.com/MBL2e1NJg1

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 6, 2020

Mahncke’s observation was picked up by Dan Bongino, who two days later (September 8, 2020) colorfully brought it to the attention of his large audience (citing Mahncke). In framing his comment as a choice between Strzok lying or Downer lying, Mahncke was allowing the remote possibility that Australian ambassador Downer had lied to Strzok about what had triggered him. Because Strzok’s interview with Downer took place after Trump’s quip, Downer would have had knowledge of the quip when he met Strzok, even though he didn’t have knowledge of the quip when he provided the tip. So it is not chronologically impossible that Downer lied, only implausible. But it remains a remote possibility that Strzok himself never suggested, and which became moot when Strzok (as discussed below) walked back part of his false story.

Later on September 6 (9:11 p.m.), Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner published a short article (together with accompanying announcement on Twitter) that pointed out the impossibility of Strzok’s chronology:

NEW: Strzok claims Downer was spurred to tell U.S. about Papadopoulos convo (FBI cited to open Trump-Russia inquiry) after Trump said “Russia if you’re listening…” But Mueller/Horowitz say Australia told U.S. on 7/26/16. Trump quip wasn’t til next day…https://t.co/ipjKNbqZTM

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) September 7, 2020

While Dunleavy alertly noticed the chronological issue, unlike Mahncke, he didn’t connect the impossible chronology to Strzok’s false story about what Downer had told him. As discussed in the next section, Strzok capitalized on this oversight to construct a “limited hangout”—to borrow an apt phrase from Nixonian days. (Read more: American Conservative, 3/20/2021) (Archive)

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in any FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons, outside fourth amendment protections.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. However, in the case of the “missing” or “reconstructed” Woods file used to gain a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page, the overwhelming evidence shows there never was one. The Special Counsel manufactured the appearance of one ex post facto in 2018.

Here’s how we can tell:

♦ FIRST – Common Sense: Recent reports of the DOJ, FBI or NSD “losing” the Woods file are abjectly silly on their face. Given the specific importance of this specific case, there’s no reasonable person who would believe such a critical file of underlying evidence would just go missing and have to be recreated by the Weissmann special counsel.

♦ SECOND – Precedent: In the March 30, 2020, memorandum written by the Office of Inspector General after review of 29 DOJ-NSD FISA applications, the IG noted the absence of Woods Files is not an uncommon occurrence. Factually within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA applications. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ THIRD – How Would They Get Away With That?: To answer that question it is important to remember the DOJ-National Security Division, the entity responsible for the legal assembly of FISA applications, did not have any oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The DOJ-NSD could get away with the lack of legal requirements because there was no entity providing oversight to ensure the completeness of the legal requirements they were supposed to follow. Not coincidentally this is the exact division within the DOJ that weaponized FARA investigations as the justification for political surveillance. [That becomes important later when we get to Carter Page specifics]

♦ FOURTH – Trish Anderson Admission: The Deputy General Counsel for the FBI National Security & Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB), Trisha Beth Anderson, admitted during her testimony to congress that she never verified the existence of the Woods File, nor its content. Anderson stated she never even reviewed the FISA application for appropriate assembly because it came to her from an unusual top-down process.

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application. (link)

Why did she do this? Trish Anderson disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to Congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

When Trish Anderson signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew Weissmann, formerly of the DOJ-NSD, was running the special counsel operation.  Meanwhile FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI.

This was the third renewal where Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence to hide that Carter Page was working with, and was a source for, the CIA.

Again, Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson rubber-stamped the application because it came with pre-approval from above.  Anderson never saw, nor questioned, any underlying documentation; or the absence thereof.   The lack of supportive documentation, a Woods File, passed her review because the application had pre-approval by her supervisors.

♦ FIFTH – IG Horowitz Provides Cover for Institutional Issues:  Within his December 2019, IG report on the four FISA applications, Inspector General Horowitz covers for the issue of missing supportive evidence by saying the customary procedure for the Woods File verification is not needed when the evidence involves a confidential human source (CHS):

This description is entirely consistent with the DOJ and FBI using the Chris Steele dossier as a replacement for the Woods File procedures.  Under this sketchy justification, Steele would be an FBI confidential human source (CHS).  Ergo, the dossier served as the underpinning and the only requirement would be for the application to “accurately reflect what [Steele] told the FBI”.   That’s how they pulled this off.

♦ SIXTH –Everyone knew it was BS – AGAIN FARA (Remember, FARA via DOJ-NSD had no oversight) this is part of the corrupt process: Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.

Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can the Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?

Carter Page joined the Trump campaign on March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.

Not only is it incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.

Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.

♦ CONCLUSION: Taking all the above into proper context, when the office of inspector general announced on March 28, 2018, that he was going to review all four of the Carter Page FISA applications; no doubt the office of the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann; who was previously the DOJ-NSD FARA targeting coordinator; moved swiftly to create the appearance of a Woods File where none previously existed. That led to the Woods Procedure justification as stated by the IG.

There never was a Woods File.  The FBI and DOJ relied upon the Chris Steele Dossier as the evidence to support the FISA application.  Chris Steele was identified as a Confidential Human Source, and his dossier was qualified as a replacement for the Woods File.

That’s exactly what happened.  I guarantee it.

(Conservative Treehouse, 9/06/2020)  (Archive)

Peter Strzok and Robert Mueller (Credit: public domain)

“Former FBI official Peter Strzok told Special Counsel Robert Mueller early in the Trump-Russia probe that he doubted the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election, saying that the president’s associates were “a confederacy of dunces who were too dumb to collude” with the Kremlin.

Strzok shared details of his interaction with Mueller in his book, “Compromised” which hits stores on Tuesday.

“Is this a coordinated conspiracy?” Mueller asked Strzok, according to the book, details of which were reported by NBC News.

“I was skeptical that all the different threads amounted to anything more than bumbling incompetence, a confederacy of dunces who were too dumb to collude,” wrote Strzok, who served as deputy chief of FBI counterintelligence during the Trump probe. “In my view, they were most likely a collection of grifters pursuing individual personal interests.”

Strzok’s remarks provide rare insight into what FBI investigators thought about the prospect of Trump-Russia collusion early in the investigation.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 9/07/2020)  (Archive)

Two days later on September 9, 2020:

“Former FBI agent Peter Strzok, a major player in the Russian collusion hoax against President Trump, when recently called out by a Washington Examiner journalist, admitted that his book contains a major falsehood.

Strzok claimed in his book, Compromised, that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer informed the U.S. government about a conversation he had with then-Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos after Papadopoulos allegedly told him in May 2016 that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton and after hearing Trump joke that he hoped Russia would find her lost emails.

He wrote that Downer’s “communication…had been precipitated by a public statement by Donald Trump” and that “Trump’s words jarred his memory of a series of conversations months earlier.”

However, as Washington Examiner‘s Jerry Dunleavy pointed out, Australia had informed the U.S. government of the conversation on July 26, 2016 — one day before Trump had jokingly said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails.”

Strzok was asked about his claim in the book that Downer had informed the U.S. government after he heard Trump’s joke, and Strzok admitted he got that wrong.

“So, I got that wrong. So I was writing my book without the benefit of the notes — the FBI had those — and the IG report had not been issued,” he said.

Strzok claimed that Australians saw a “big dump” of emails through WikiLeaks, which prompted them to recall the conversation and contact the U.S.

Strzok alleged that he got it mixed up because when the FBI counterintelligence division got the information from the Australians, “it was at the same time as Trump was making those comments, which were really concerning.”

Stzrok downplayed the “little error,” and accused people of “scrubbing timelines for little details and scoping headlines around them.” (Read more: Breitbart, 9/09/2020)  (Archive)

(Timeline editor’s note: The “big dump of emails” that Strzok refers to were DNC emails, not Clinton emails, as was originally discussed between Downer and Papadopoulos.)

Alex Vindman (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

“The most interesting thing about Byron York’s exhaustively reported and richly detailed new impeachment book, “Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump,” is that the whistleblower who filed the official complaint that got impeachment rolling isn’t ever identified.

It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Rather than being a witness who independently supported the claims of the whistleblower, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col Alex Vindman was the driving force behind the entire operation, according to the book’s interviews with key figures in the impeachment probe and other evidence. The whistleblower’s information came directly from Vindman, investigators determined.

“Vindman was the person on the call who went to the whistleblower after the call, to give the whistleblower the information he needed to file his complaint,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y.

“For all intents and purposes, Vindman is the whistleblower here, but he was able to get somebody else to do his dirty work for him,” explained one senior congressional aide.

Vindman was the only person at the National Security Council (NSC) listening in on the infamous call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to be concerned by it. Vindman immediately began talking to his identical twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who also worked at the NSC. The twins both complained to NSC Counsel John Eisenberg. Alex Vindman talked about it with his direct supervisor Tim Morrison, who was also on the call. He talked about it with another NSC lawyer, Michael Ellis.

Vindman testified that he talked to only two people outside the NSC. One was George Kent, a State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. He refused to say who the other person was. Both Vindman and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led the impeachment proceedings, strenuously resisted any attempt by investigators to discuss who the other individual was, admitting only that it was a member of the “intelligence community,” the same nebulous descriptor used for the whistleblower.” (Read more: The Federalist, 9/08/2020)  (Archive)

General James Mattis and Dan Coats (Credit: public domain)

“According to a pre-release excerpt from the Washington Post Bob Woodward writes about a discussion between General James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about a plot to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

(…) “Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.” (read more)

What do you call a conversation between the Defense Secretary and the head of the U.S. intelligence apparatus where they are talking about taking “collective action” to remove an elected President?  That’s called sedition…. A seditious conspiracy.

As alarming as that sounds on its face, this actually aligns with our own previous research into key military leadership, the joint chiefs, and their corrupt intent to overthrow the elected government.  Readers will remember when we noted this very issue after Lt. Col  Alexander Vindman compromised his position yet was not removed by his command structure within the Pentagon.

NOVEMBER 2019 – (…) For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.
The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not just lay simply at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary, albeit difficult or perhaps challenging, obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman also resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.  In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances…

The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

Do you see the issue now?

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication/reality.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of, nor deconstruct the agenda toward, the removal of President Trump.

Mr. President, do I have your attention?

(Full Outline)

This photo shows the cover of Andrew Weissmann’s “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation”  that will be published Sept. 29, 2020. (Credit: Random House/The Associated Press)

“Forty-four iPhones used by members of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation contained no records when they were examined by an officer assigned to the team, according to internal documents.

Five more Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) phones contained only one record each, and four others contained fewer than 10 records per device, according to a log kept by a records officer over the course of more than 20 months.

The lack of records on the phones is extraordinary given the immense scope of the probe. It is also suspicious considering that at least 22 phones belonging to members of the Mueller team were wiped, with employees offering questionable explanations for the erasures.

Under U.S. law, government records are defined as “all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a federal agency under federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business  and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States government or because of the informational value of data in them.”

Of the 92 unique iPhones used by the Mueller team, only 12 contained a significant number of records, an Epoch Times review of available records determined.” (Read more: The Epoch Times, 9/20/2020)  (Archive)

Original source that obtained the DOJ records: Judicial Watch

Newly released DOJ records show that multiple top members of Mueller’s investigative team claimed to have “accidentally wiped” at least 15 (!) phones used during the anti-Trump investigation after the DOJ OIG asked for the devices to be handed over.

(Sample of released docs)

Federal records show that Mueller deputy Andrew Weismann claims to have “accidentally” wiped, via wrong passwords at least 2 phones detailing his activity during the anti-Trump probe.

James Quarles’ phone “wiped itself.”

Greg Andre also made the same wrong password claim…

Mueller deputy Kyle Freeny similarly claimed that his phone was accidentally wiped after too many wrong passwords were entered.

Same with Mueller deputy Rush Atkinson.

At least 12 other officials whose names are redacted also claimed to have “accidentally” nuked their phones.

The newly released DOJ records from the OIG investigation of corruption during the Mueller probe shows that a key tactic used by the Mueller team was to put the phones in airplane mode, lock them, and then claim they didn’t have the password.

What are the actual probabilities of more than a dozen top Mueller officials all “accidentally” nuking their phones or accidentally putting them in airplane mode, locking them, and “forgetting” their passwords so the DOJ OIG couldn’t access and examine them? Negative 100,000%?  (Sean Davis@seanmdav/Twitter, 9/10/2020) (Archive)

(Department of Justice/Mueller team records, 9/04/2020)

(Timeline editor’s note: I reformatted the Twitter thread for an easier read. No words were changed.)

Devin Nunes appears on Maria Bartiromo’s show Sunday, September 13, 2020, to discuss the wiped phones:

“The FBI spied on the inner circle of candidate Donald Trump’s campaign staff in 2016 and during the first 8 months of his administration. Even though Carter Page was the named target of the search warrant, 2-hop spying allowed the FBI to spy on all the people he contacted. John Spiropoulos explains how:

The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contained two purposes: (1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama); and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist Clinton).

An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page.

The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep}.  This also explains all of the issues with the FISA application “Woods File” being created ex post facto.

Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.

Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [the core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can the Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?

Carter Page joined the Trump campaign on March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.

Not only is it incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.

Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.

The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing Trump surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.  The Dossier was used to create the FISA application. The Dossier was used as a replacement for a valid Woods File.

Ultimately that’s why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump.

In essence by renewing the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the 2017 FBI was keeping the surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 9/11/2020)  (Archive)

Flynn update- Amicus John Gleeson has filed his Reply Brief.

An unhinged argument: the DOJ dismissal is politically motivated and is a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

This is what Judge Sullivan asked for.

Full doc:

Gleeson by Techno Fog

Gleeson (a Weissmann ally) conspiracy theories:

The “only coherent explanation” for the DOJ dismissal of charges is that the DOJ submitted to pressure from President Trump.

In a way, this isn’t only about Flynn – it’s a broader battle against AG Barr and the DOJ.

Gleeson was assisted in this Brief by David O’Neil (same firm)

O’Neil is the lawyer for Sally Yates.

Yates is a material witness to FBI/DOJ misconduct as to Flynn (and the Carter Page FISAs).

These briefs thus serve the interests of the firm’s client.

Good job Sullivan 🤡

(Sally Yates transcript, 11/03/2017)

(Techno Fog@Techno_Fog/Twitter, 9/11/2020)  (Archive)

“The Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Intelligence Committee rejected a broad request from two Republican Senate leaders seeking access to the panel’s records to assist in their investigation into the Trump-Russia investigators.

Acting Chairman Marco Rubio of Florida and Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia rejected a late August letter from Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who said that they “respect the authority” of the Senate Intelligence Committee to protect its interests, adding that “ultimately, we have the right as United States Senators” to access the records.

Marco Rubio and Mark Warner speak to the press on July 16, 2018 (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“We note that your request of the Committee is made pursuant to Senate Rule 26, but fails to account for the unique authorities and obligations invested in this Committee through Senate Resolution 400 and respected over decades of Senate and Committee practice,” Rubio and Warner responded. “Accordingly, we must reject the absolutist interpretation of Rule 26 that you propose. If this Committee elects to share materials that it has collected and generated in the course of its investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, it will do so pursuant to these long-standing Committee rules, and specifically, the joint agreement of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.”

Rubio and Warner added: “Independent of whether that agreement is forthcoming, our position on this matter obviously does not preclude you from pursuing your own investigation, using your own authorities, as you see fit, within the confines of your committees’ jurisdictions.”

Rubio, Warner, Johnson, and Grassley did not provide the Washington Examiner with comment.

“As part of our investigation into the presidential transition in 2016 and early 2017, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee authorized the issuance of subpoenas, if necessary, to several individuals regarding the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the ‘unmasking’ of U.S. persons or entities during the transition period. While seeking the voluntary cooperation of several prospective witnesses, several have requested — and provided permission for — us to review transcripts of their testimony before your committee because of the overlapping subject matter,” Johnson and Grassley wrote in August. “The review of these discrete number of transcripts would assist in our investigation by narrowing the areas to be addressed with each witness.” (Read more: The Washington Examiner, 9/14/2020)  (Archive)

“Thanks to Judge Emmet Sullivan refusing the DOJ’s request to drop the Michael Flynn case, a cache of explosive documents has now been released to the public revealing that at least one FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team thought the case was a politically motivated “dead end,” and others bought professional liability insurance as their bosses were continuing the investigation based on “conspiracy theories.”

Judge Sullivan and the DC Court of Appeals are turning out to be the unintentional heroes of the Flynn saga. In their unseemly quest to destroy Flynn, they refused to let DOJ drop case, and now we’re getting some of the most explosive documents about Special Counsel probe yet.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 25, 2020

In one case, FBI agent William J. Barnett said during a Sept. 17 interview that he believed Mueller’s prosecution of Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he didn’t want to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation because it was “not there” and a “dead end,” according to Fox News.

Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the bureau’s original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name “Crossfire Razor,” which was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the bureau’s code name for the original Trump-Russia probe.

Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe was “opaque” and “with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events.”

“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”

After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.” –Fox News

When Barnett approached agents about what they thought the ‘end game’ was with Flynn – suggesting they interview the former National Security Adviser “and the case be closed unless derogatory information was obtained,” he was cautioned not to conduct an interview, as it may tip Flynn off that he was under investigation.

“Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” the 302 states. “Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law.”

(Read more: Zero Hedge, 9/25/2020)  (Archive)

Conservative Treehouse also weighs in:

“U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeff Jensen, has been conducting an ongoing review of the FBI investigation that led to charges in the case against Michael Flynn. As part of that review an interview was recently conducted (September 17, 2020) with the former Flynn supervisory case agent, William Barnett – who also was assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.

What Special Agent Barnett says under oath about the DOJ and FBI investigations is devastating to the institutions.”

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell appears with Liz MacDonald to discuss the ongoing corrupt evidence surfacing against a variety of DOJ and FBI officials to include the special counsel effort to scrub their phone records.

Within the interview Ms. Powell highlights the arc of the investigative effort from the origin of ‘Spygate’ through the term of the special counsel led by Andrew Weissmann, and into the Senate effort to cloud and conceal their own participation. (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 9/17/2020)

Adam Schiff (l) and Jerrold Nadler, (Credit: Tom Williams/Getty Images)

“The Democratic chairs of four House committees asked the Justice Department’s internal watchdog on Friday to open an “emergency investigation” into U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe of the Obama administration’s Trump-related intelligence activities.

“We write to ask that you open an emergency investigation into whether U.S. Attorney General William Barr, U.S. Attorney John Durham, and other Department of Justice political appointees are following DOJ’s longstanding policy to avoid taking official actions or other steps that could improperly influence the upcoming presidential election,” the Democrats wrote to Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general.

The letter was signed by Reps. Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Zoe Lofgren, and Carolyn Maloney, who lead the House Judiciary, Intelligence, House Administration and Oversight Committees, respectively.

The House letter is the latest in a Democrat-led effort to call the legitimacy of the Durham investigation into question. On Thursday, the 10 Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Horowitz to open a similar investigation into the legality of the Durham probe. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 9/18/2020)  (Archive)

John Robertson (Credit: USA Network/YouTube)

“An FBI agent who found the messages that led to the Hillary Clinton email investigation being reopened days before the 2016 election said the way the bureau handled the case was ‘not ethically or morally right’.

John Robertson feared he would be made a ‘scapegoat’ when he found the new emails less than two months before voting day, in the wake of DailyMail.com’s revelation that Anthony Weiner, whose wife Huma Abedin was Clinton’s top aide, was sexting an underage girl.

Robertson watched nervously as the bureau did nothing for a month until he went outside the chain of command and spoke with the US Attorney’s office overseeing the case.

The only advice from his bosses was to erase his office computer, which meant leaving no record of his investigations, a new book says.

As Robertson put it: ‘To this day don’t understand what the hell went wrong’, the Washington Post reported.

The claims add another layer of intrigue to the investigation of Clinton’s emails which has become one of the most divisive episodes of the 2016 election.

They appear in October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election, which will be published on September 22 by PublicAffairs.

(…) October Surprise reveals Robertson’s frustration and anxiety began to fester in September after he found around 600,000 emails from Abedin including many that were to or from Clinton.

They were on Weiner’s laptop, which he examined in his office at the FBI New York office’s C-20 unit, which is tasked with investigating sex crimes against children.

But he couldn’t examine the messages, even to determine how many were Clinton’s, because the subpoena that was used to seize Weiner’s laptop was too narrow and did not allow it.

Late in September Robertson notified his bosses about his discovery, but after that he heard nothing.

He later told internal investigators: ‘The crickets I was hearing was really making me uncomfortable because something was going to come down.

‘Why isn’t anybody here? Like if I’m the supervisor of any (counterintelligence) squad … and I hear about this, I’m getting on with headquarters and saying ”hey some agent working child porn here may have (Hillary Clinton) emails. Get your a** on the phone, call (the case agent) and get a copy of that drive,” because that’s how it should be. (Read more: The Daily Mail, 9/18/2020)  (Archive)

John Robertson (Credit: USA Network/YouTube)

“FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton’s emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to erase his own computer.

(…) His startling claims are made in a book titled, “October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save Itself and Crashed an Election,” an excerpt of which has been published by the Washington Post.

Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton’s emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop.

It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney’s office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action.

“He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago,” the book contends . “Nothing had happened.”

“Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to erase his computer work station.”

This, according to the Post report, was to “ensure there was no classified material on it,” but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.” (Read more: Zero Hedge, 9/22/2020)  (Archive)

Andrew Weissmann (Credit: The New York Times)

(…) Weissmann said that the special counsel was hampered by internal divisions and that Mueller’s integrity allowed Trump to escape accountability.

“There’s no question I was frustrated at the time,” he said in the interview. “There was more that could be done that we didn’t do.”

In his new book on the investigation, Where the Law Ends, he claims that the president’s ability and threats to shut down the special counsel also caused them to pull their punches.

For example, he said the special counsel shied away from subpoenaing Don Trump Jr. to testify about his notorious June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, or subpoenaing Ivanka Trump.

“Had we given it our all — had we used all available tools to uncover the truth, undeterred by the onslaught of the president’s unique powers to undermine our efforts?” he wrote. “I know the hard answer to that simple question: We could have done more.”

He also argued that the team was hamstrung by Mueller’s decision not to look into Trump’s financial dealings with Russia that “might” have established a source of Russian leverage over Trump, and he argued that Trump’s pardon power kept them from being able to push uncooperative targets.

Weissmann blames one of Mueller’s other top deputies, a lawyer named Aaron Zebley, for the team’s timidity. But he said these were ultimately Mueller’s decisions and faulted Mueller’s aversions to having an explosive confrontation with the White House.” (Read more: Breitbart, 9/21/2020)  (Archive)

“New documents unveiled in an explosive Senate report Wednesday show former Secretary of State John Kerry lied to reporters when asked whether he was aware of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving in a lucrative board position for a Ukrainian energy company.

“I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No,” Kerry said in December last year at the height of President Donald Trump’s impeachment process, which shed light on the Biden family’s conflicts of interest in Ukraine.

In a gaggle with reporters after @JoeBiden‘s town hall in Nashua, NH, I asked @JohnKerry, who was Sec of State at the time, if he knew and was comfortable when Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma:

“I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” pic.twitter.com/j3lazGcbhb

— Amanda Golden (@amandawgolden) December 8, 2019

The new joint report out from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee with the Senate Treasury Committee, however, shows otherwise.

According to congressional investigators, Kerry’s Chief of Staff David Wade briefed Kerry on press inquiries specifically related to Hunter Biden’s arrangement of recently joining the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Records show Hunter Biden raked in upwards of $50,000 a month from serving on the board despite no prior experience in the industry. A Federalist analysis shows Hunter Biden was being compensated far higher than board members on the leadership of larger corporations in the same field.”  (Read more: The Federalist, 9/23/2020)  (Archive)

(…) “In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds,” the report said.

Senate investigators flagged transactions in at least three other foreign countries:

Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.

Elena Baturina (Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News)

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow and Russia’s only female oligarch.

Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Chinese national Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree for the Biden family.

Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen, and other Chinese nationals linked to the communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. “Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow,” the report said.

The report did not expand much on its sensational claim of alleged links to sex trafficking or prostitutes, reserving most of the discussion to two footnotes.

“There is extensive public reporting concerning Hunter Biden’s alleged involvement with prostitution services. Records on file with the Committees do not directly confirm or refute these individual reports,” investigators wrote. “However, they do confirm that Hunter Biden sent thousands of dollars to individuals who have either: 1) been involved in transactions consistent with possible human trafficking; 2) an association with the adult entertainment industry; or 3) potential association with prostitution. Some recipients of those funds are Ukrainian and Russian citizens.

“The records note that it is a documented fact that Hunter Biden has sent funds to nonresident alien women in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine and who have subsequently wired funds they have received from Hunter Biden to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine. The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring,” the footnote added.” (Read more: JusttheNews, 9/23/2020)  (Archive)  (Senate Homeland Security Report, 9/23/3020)

Primary sub-source Igor Danchenko (Credit: public domain)

“The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

The timing matters because the dossier was first used two months earlier, in October 2016, to help secure a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and then used in three subsequent surveillance renewals.

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two-page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

The memo, which is a summary of the FBI counterintelligence investigation continues, “in December 2016, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team identified the Primary Sub-source used by Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation.”

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, who released the FBI records said in a statement, “To me, failure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system.”  (Read more: CBS News, 9/24/2020)  (Archive)

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel responds to Catherine Herridge’s breaking news with this lengthy tweet:

“So Christopher Steele’s main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year-long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a “threat to national security.”

Early in [the] Obama admin, subsource “reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor” to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them “make a little extra money.”

FBI says he had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and Russian intelligence officers. Thanks to @paulsperry_ we know the name of this subsource, and that he, for a period, [was] at Brookings, [a] Democratic think tank.

But here’s the real kicker, per these documents out from @LindseyGrahamSC The FBI KNEW about this prior CI investigation into the source in DECEMBER OF 2016. It KNEW it was relying on information from a suspected Russian spy!

The same FBI said to be concerned about Russian interference in the election, was using information from a suspected Russian spy to probe a presidential campaign. The same FBI claiming Carter Page, a Russian agent, was making that case based on info from a suspected Russian agent.

Most importantly: It never told the FISA court about this CI investigation. It withheld that information and continued re-upping its applications to surveil Page and the campaign. It vouched for information supplied by a suspected Russian agent.

The name of this subsource, and the realization of the FBI’s prior suspicions, should have ended the entire probe. Instead, the FBI doubled down, hid things from the court, kept going. This again raises an urgent need to know who knew what, and when.

And people wonder why #Durham is looking into all this?

Also, extra-credit question: Wasn’t it Mueller’s job to find sources of Russian disinformation? How do you miss the guy potentially feeding it directly to the FBI?

Finally, big credit here to AG Bill Barr and  [Senator] Lindsey Graham for their commitment to truth and transparency. Americans deserve to know what happened before they vote. (Kimberley Strassel/Twitter, 9/24/2020)

SUMMARY

This document is an unclassified summary of classified investigative case file reports pertaining to
the counterintelligence investigation referenced in footnote 334 of the Department of Justice Inspector
General Report, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane
Investigation. The FBI is providing this information to the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to the
DOJ’s request, which the FBI understands is based on DOJ receiving an inquiry from the Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee on September 18, 2020.

Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who
later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source (“the 2009 investigation”). As
explained below, the FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that
the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security. The following describes the investigation
and subsequent knowledge of the investigation by the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

In May 2009, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation predicated on a specific interaction
between three individuals who were then employed by a prominent U.S. think tank. Specifically, the FBI
received reporting indicating a research fellow for an influential foreign policy advisor in the Obama
Administration was at a work-related event in late 2008 with a coworker when they were approached by
another employee of the think tank (“the employee”). The employee reportedly indicated that if the two
individuals at the table “did get a job in the government and had access to classified information” and
wanted “to make a little extra money,” the employee knew some people to whom they could speak.
According to the research fellow, there was no pretext to the conversation; the employee had not been
invited to the table, and the employee began the exchange by asking if the research fellow “would
follow [his/her principal] anywhere.” When later interviewed by the FBI, the research fellow confirmed
the report and stated that while he/she could not be certain, he/she did not believe the employee was
attempting to gain access to the foreign policy advisor through the research fellow’s access. When
interviewed by the FBI, the coworker seated with the research fellow did not recall a specific pitch for
classified information, however, the coworker did express suspicion of the employee and had
questioned the possibility that the employee might actually be a Russian spy. In December 2016, the
FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation identified the employee as Christopher Steele’s Primary Subsource.

CONVERSION TO FULL INVESTIGATION

After initiating the investigation, the FBI converted it from a preliminary to a full investigation
based on the following open source and FBI information:

 The Primary Sub-source was identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence
subjects. The FBI assessed that the Primary Sub-source formed the associations with these
individuals through a university student organization of which he/she was a member. The FBI
identified no additional derogatory information pertaining to these associations.

 A review of FBI databases revealed that the Primary Sub-source had contact in 2006 with
the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.

 In September 2006, the Primary Sub-source was in contact with a known Russian
intelligence officer. During these conversations, the Russian Intelligence Officer invited the
Primary Sub-source to the Russian Embassy to see his office. The Primary Sub-source told the
Russian Intelligence Officer that he/she was interested in entering the Russian diplomatic
service one day. The two discussed a time when the Primary Sub-source was to visit. Four days
later, the Russian Intelligence Officer contacted the Primary Sub-source and informed him/her
they could meet that day to work “on the documents and then think about future plans.” Later
in October 2006, the Primary Sub-source contacted the Russian Intelligence Officer seeking a
reply “so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic mail pouch.”

 FBI information further identified, in 2005, the Primary Sub-source making contact with a
Washington, D.C.–based Russian officer. It was noted that the Russian officer and the Primary
Sub-source seemed very familiar with each other.

INTERVIEWS TO SUPPORT THE INVESTIGATION

As part of its investigation, the FBI conducted interviews with the Primary Sub-source’s
associates. One individual indicated that the Primary Sub-source was not anti-American but wanted to
return to Russia one day. Another described the Primary Sub-source as pro-Russia and indicated that
he/she always interjected Russian opinions during policy discussions. While both stated that they did
not recall the Primary Sub-source asking directly about their access to classified information, one
interviewee did note that the Primary Sub-source persistently asked about the interviewee’s knowledge
of a particular military vessel.

CLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATION

In July 2010, the field office initiated a request for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)–
authorized coverage and the request was routed to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Intelligence
Policy and Review in August 2010. Investigators subsequently learned that the Primary Sub-source
departed the United States in September 2010. Further investigation determined that his/her visa was
not renewed. Because the Primary Sub-source had apparently left the United States, the FBI withdrew
the FISA application request and closed the investigation. The record documenting the closing of the
investigation stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that
the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States.

IDENTIFICATION BY CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM

In December 2016, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team identified the Primary Sub-source used by
Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation. The CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE team interviewed the Primary Sub-source over the course of three sequential days in
January 2017. At that time, the 2009 investigation remained closed. The 2009 investigation remains
closed to this day.

(Federal Bureau of Investigations, 9/24/2020)

New FBI texts show FBI agents in an uproar over improper handling of the Crossfire Hurricane case, according to new federal court filings.

Explosive FBI Texts Show In… by The Federalist

The FBI failed to inform the FISA Court and continued to seek FISA warrants. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released a letter from Attorney General William Barr and a declassified summary from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that indicate Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was a likely Russian agent and had previously been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

In response to Graham’s request for oversight of the reliability of the Steele dossier, the Justice Department recently declassified a key footnote in Inspector General Horowitz’s report. The footnote states Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source “was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.”

“To me, failure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system.”

The FBI summary provided to the committee reveals that the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware of this information in December 2016, yet failed to inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Further, they continued to seek three FISA warrant applications using the Steele dossier as a basis.

Key takeaways from the FBI’s declassified summary:

• The Crossfire Hurricane team knew in December 2016 that Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was an individual who the FBI had indicated in 2009 “could be a threat to national security.”
• In May 2009, Steele’s source reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor connected to President Obama, offering that if the two individuals “‘did get a job in the government and had access to classified information’ and wanted ‘to make a little extra money,’ [Steele’s source] knew some people to whom they could speak.”
• FBI databases revealed Steele’s source “had contact in 2006 with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers, [including contacting a known Russian intelligence officer] ‘so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic pouch.’”
• One individual interviewed by the FBI noted that “the Primary Sub-source persistently asked about the interviewee’s knowledge of a particular military vessel.”
• Significantly, the “record documenting the closing of the investigation [of the Primary Sub-source] stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States.”

“This is the most stunning and damning revelation the committee has uncovered.

“I very much appreciate Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray for providing the Senate Judiciary Committee with essential and relevant documents regarding Crossfire Hurricane.”

There are several takeaways from this latest revelation:

• First, the primary source for the Steele dossier was likely a Russian agent.

• Second, the Primary Sub-source was suspected by the FBI in 2009 of being a Russian agent, and there had been an active counterintelligence investigation of this individual.  That FBI investigation revealed the Primary Sub-source was suspected of providing information to the Russian Embassy and was in contact with known Russian intelligence officers, and made offers to people connected to incoming Obama Administration officials that any classified information they provided could be paid for.  In addition, during this investigation, it was disclosed that the Primary Sub-source persistently asked individuals about a particular military vessel of the United States.

• Third, the information provided shows that in December 2016, the FBI knew of the previous counterintelligence investigation of the Primary Sub-source and the source’s ties to Russian intelligence services.  However, they failed to inform the FISA Court.  In fact, not only did they not inform the FISA Court the Primary Sub-source was likely a Russian agent, they continued to use the Steele dossier to seek warrants against Carter Page.  They told the court the Primary Sub-source was truthful and cooperative.  Specifically, the three FISA applications filed after December 2016 make no mention of the previous counterintelligence investigation against the Primary Sub-source and the last two FISA applications additionally misled the court about the results obtained of the interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January and March of 2017.

Graham on Totality of FBI Crossfire Hurricane Failures:

“In light of this newly declassified information, I will be sending the FISA Court the information provided to inform them how wide and deep the effort to conceal exculpatory information regarding the Carter Page warrant application was in 2016 and 2017.

“A small group of individuals in the Department of Justice and FBI should be held accountable for this fraud against the court.  I do not believe they represent the overwhelming majority of patriotic men and women who work at the Department of Justice and FBI.

“The now famous email Susan Rice sent to herself on Inauguration Day where she states that President Obama said that everything has to be done ‘by the book’ has become highly suspect.  If this investigation is ‘by the book,’ then the book we’re using is the Kremlin playbook.

“It is up to the committee and Congress to reform the system so it never happens again.  It’s stunning to be told that the single individual who provided information to Christopher Steele for the Russian dossier used by the FBI on four occasions to obtain a warrant on Carter Page, an American citizen, was a suspected Russian agent years before the preparation of the dossier.

“The committee will press on and get to the bottom of what happened, and we will try to work together to make sure this never happens again.”

(Senate Judiciary Committee, 9/24/2020)  (Archive)

“Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.

“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

“While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

Agents also said they were worried about how a new attorney general might view the actions taken against Trump during the investigation. Shortly after then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was confirmed to be Trump’s new attorney general, congressional Democrats, media, and Obama holdovers within DOJ immediately moved to force Sessions to recuse himself from overseeing the department’s investigations against Trump.

(…) The FBI agents also discussed how the investigation’s leadership was consumed with conspiracy theories rather than evidence.

(Read more: The Federalist, 9/24/2020)  (Archive) (Motion to Dismiss w/docs, 9/24/2020)

SA William Barnett’s 302 shows how the FBI relied on circular reporting from those like David Ignatius of the WaPo, who floated the Logan Act narrative based on leaks he received, to justify targeting Flynn for a Logan Act violation. All so corrupt. https://t.co/3Lvg3DQabR pic.twitter.com/uMAx09d0Im

— Nick Short 🇺🇸 (@PoliticalShort) September 25, 2020

(William Barnett 302 Report, 9/25/2020)   (Archive)

Twitter sleuth Techno Fog, was kind enough to highlight some of the more important points made in this stunning FBI 302 report recently released to the public and serves as exculpatory evidence in General Flynn’s case.

Report intro

🚨Flynn update – Interview 302 from FBI Agent William Barnett

“BARNETT believed the prosecution of FLYNN by SCO (Team Mueller) was used as a means to ‘get Trump'”

Thread. pic.twitter.com/APbDr7EOxg

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Agent Barnett was assigned to Crossfire Razor (the Flynn counter-intel investigation).

Barnett was later assigned to the Special Counsel team.

Barnett: the predication for the Flynn investigation was “not great” pic.twitter.com/xlzwMzymDd

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Crossfire Hurricane source (likely Halper) accused Flynn of leaving a 2014 event with an undisclosed person.

Perhaps @RealSLokhova

FBI assessed this information to be not accurate pic.twitter.com/vwtxKQMEVo

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

The Flynn (Razor) investigation lingered – leadership didn’t ask Barnett to do much on it.

FBI agent Barnett didn’t see the point of the Flynn investigation.

Another agent thought it was “an exercise in futility” pic.twitter.com/02txZs4Yjf

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

As the Flynn investigation wound down, Agent Barnett suggested interviewing Flynn and closing the case.

The request for the interview was denied.

“there was nothing left to do in the case” pic.twitter.com/EljHFbihfE

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Late December 2016 – Strzok orders the Flynn case closed

1/4/2017 – Strzok tells Barnett to keep the Flynn case open

The Flynn case wasn’t kept open for the broader Russia investigation – it was due to a Logan Act violation that Barnett thought was questionable. pic.twitter.com/4lIsg9sEVV

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Agent Barnett: the Flynn case “was ‘top down,’ meaning direction concerning the investigation was coming from senior officials.

The intensity of the FBI leadership Flynn investigation was spurred by the leak of the Flynn/Kislyak call. pic.twitter.com/YYDhY7hz8n

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

FBI Agent Barnett had been on the Flynn case since the beginning.

He was not notified of the FBI’s 1/24/17 interview of Flynn.

Barnett believes he was “cut out” of the interview. pic.twitter.com/XfPSHNvApr

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

How abusive was the Flynn investigation?

It was so bad that Agent Barnett told his boss he wanted off the cases.

Why?

“Barnett believed the [Flynn] investigation was problematic and could result in an IG investigation” pic.twitter.com/sOpwCBZZ2t

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Wow –

Kevin Clinesmith (charged for falsifying docs) was involved in the Flynn National Security Letters (NSL).

This curious quote:

“Barnett thought at the time the NSLs were legally justified” 🤔 pic.twitter.com/7O7pt1S95a

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

Barnett briefed Special Counsel Rhee on the Flynn case.

He told Rhee there was “no evidence of a crime.”

Barnett believed Rhee “had an agenda” and told her they wouldn’t be working together. pic.twitter.com/3HcQOONVcE

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

A dig at Andrew Weissmann:

Weissmann was convinced there was “proof of collusion, quid pro quo” from a meeting on a yacht near Greece.

Within a day or two the information was not substantiated. pic.twitter.com/u9kxFl6qDu

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 25, 2020

“The hearing today in the courtroom of Judge Emmet Sullivan was an abject showcase in judicial nuttery.  The one good thing to come out of the adversarial arguments was that millions of Americans got to hear first-hand just how broken and corrupt the federal system of the judiciary has become.  The judicial farce was only exceeded by the legal nonsense exhibited by Sullivan’s extra-judicial prosecutor/amicus John Gleeson.

At one point in the proceedings, Sullivan even threatened Flynn’s defense attorney with a referral to the BAR association for her letter of introduction to AG Bill Barr during the transition between defense counsel.  Yes, the judicial activism was that ridiculous.

Yes Alice, unfortunately, the fiasco is scheduled to continue… Sidney Powell discusses the day’s events with Lou Dobbs:”

(Conservative Treehouse, 9/29/2020) 

Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, writes a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, listing the following declassified information:

Director of National Intelligence/John Ratcliffe Letter, 9/29/2020

Rep. Nunes: Top Obama officials knew Hillary Clinton authorized Russia hoax against Trump. Congressman Devin Nunes discusses the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden; the latest disclosure that top Obama officials, including President Obama and FBI Director James Comey, were aware of intelligence indicating that Hillary Clinton authorized a disinformation operation to fraudulently tie Donald Trump to Russia; and more on ‘Mornings with Maria,’ September 30, 2020.

On September 24th Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released a letter from Attorney General William Barr and a declassified summary from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicating Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was a likely Russian agent and had previously been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation.  In advance of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony today, the question is: did Comey, Andrew McCabe or Bill Priestap know?

John Spiropoulos outlines the issue.  WATCH:

Key takeaways from the FBI’s declassified summary:

• The Crossfire Hurricane team knew in December 2016 that Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source was an individual who the FBI had indicated in 2009 “could be a threat to national security.”
• In May 2009, Steele’s source reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor connected to President Obama, offering that if the two individuals “‘did get a job in the government and had access to classified information’ and wanted ‘to make a little extra money,’ [Steele’s source] knew some people to whom they could speak.”
• FBI databases revealed Steele’s source “had contact in 2006 with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers, [including contacting a known Russian intelligence officer] ‘so the documents can be placed in tomorrow’s diplomatic pouch.’”
• One individual interviewed by the FBI noted that “the Primary Sub-source persistently asked about the interviewee’s knowledge of a particular military vessel.”
• Significantly, the “record documenting the closing of the investigation [of the Primary Sub-source] stated that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary Sub-source returned to the United States.”  (source)

(Conservative Treehouse, 9/30/2020)  (Archive)

Some public responses to Comey’s testimony:

+ explain his past dealings with FBI + CIA. WHY IT MATTERS: Page’s support of CIA went a long way to explaining his Russia contacts + FISA Court SHOULD have been told before signing 4 warrants 4 a campaign aide. Knowingly misleading court can be criminal. READ @LindseyGrahamSC pic.twitter.com/4G2LzmLn73

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) October 1, 2020

There are people who were around Comey who know he was briefed. And then directed action. https://t.co/rHctd53p9q

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) October 1, 2020

The full hearing:

PAGE: “Another perfect example, Liz, of how nothing in this whole scam makes sense one bit. The concept that he could not have known anything, particularly when I sent him a letter on September 25, 2016, explaining everything and offering to meet with him or members of the FBI who I had helped for over a decade, and as well as the CIA and other groups. So many open questions, so many things that really made absolutely no sense whatsoever.”

Page letter to Comey, 9/25/2016

Gina Haspel swears in as the first woman to direct the Central Intelligence Agency, on May 21, 2018. (Credit: public domain)

“CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification of documents detailing corruption at the highest levels of the intelligence community during the 2016 election, according to The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis.

While new information about wrongdoing at the FBI has recently been declassified, including recent revelations about Hillary Clinton campaign’s collusion with Russia, Davis reported on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday that Haspel herself is standing in the way of the declassification of other relevant documents.

“I’m told that it is Gina Haspel personally who is blocking continued declassification of these documents that will show the American people the truth of what actually happened,” Davis said.

Notably, Haspel was previously the London CIA station chief under former CIA director John Brennan during the 2016 election. “Recall it was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work,” Davis said, noting Haspel was the “main link” between Washington and London at the time. Haspel was hand-picked by former CIA director John Brennan to run the CIA’s operations in London, where she served as the spy agency’s bureau chief from 2014 through early 2017.” (Read more: The Federalist, 9/30/2020)  (Archive)

Breaking: CIA Director Gina Haspel Is Blocking Declassification Of Remaining Russigate Documents pic.twitter.com/xSNwqPzdTM

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) October 1, 2020

“Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official heavily criticized by President Trump and the department’s Inspector General over his repeated contact with Christopher Steele, the former British spy and author of the controversial Steele dossier, has retired from the agency, the department confirmed Wednesday.

“Bruce Ohr retired from the Department of Justice on September 30, 2020,” said Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec. “As such, he is no longer an employee of the Department. Mr. Ohr retired after his counsel was informed that a final decision on a disciplinary review being conducted by Department senior career officials was imminent.” (Read more: CBS News, 10/14/2020) (Archive)

SCOOP: A person familiar with the matter tells @CBSNews that Bruce Ohr is no longer working at DOJ. He resigned the day before he was going to be terminated by DOJ over his conduct cited in IG Horowitz report. Ohr was faulted for becoming a kind of backchannel linking dossier

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) October 14, 2020