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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a partial transcript:

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

Joe Biden: Yes.

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

Joe Biden: Great!….

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

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

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

From CD Media, 6/22/2020  (Archive)

Excerpt from local Ukrainian press…

Alexander Onishchenko (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Techno Fog/Twitter

Judge Neomi Rao (Credit: Diego Radzinsch/ALM)

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

Judge Robert Wilkins (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His travel is only one of our inquiries.

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

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

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

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

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

Samantha Power (Credit: The Associated Press)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Mark Warby (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(FBI notes – January 25, 2017 Briefing)

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

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

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

(Op-Ed here)

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

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

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

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

This becomes key.

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

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

The special counsel team was running the DOJ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ OIG FISA Report

Seymour Hersh (Credit: Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

Hersh Transcript, pages 198-199

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

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

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

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

(Conservative Treehouse, 7/15/2020)

Edward Baumgartner (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

Glenn Simpson testimony:

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

From pg. 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note by Strzok: “This is inaccurate …”

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

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

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

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

Crossfire Hurricane Team (Credit: Conservative Treehouse)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per Senator Lindsey Graham:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive this point home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) July 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) July 20, 2020

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

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

Yep. pic.twitter.com/zw0gfSRQKo

— Geoff Smith (@geoffsmithsmind) July 19, 2020

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

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

pic.twitter.com/InU6b7uDNg

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

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

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

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

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 20, 2020

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

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

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

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

— help (@SecurityCounciI) July 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) July 19, 2020

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

David Kramer (Credit: McCain Institute)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pfizer Base Agreement -Page 10 of 55

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

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

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

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

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

DOD-Pfizer Base Agreement.

ATI Logo (Credit: ATI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flynn Opposition to Reheari… by Techno Fog on Scribd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal:

(Link to PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Tashina Gauhar had quite a portfolio:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sergei Millian (Credit: Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google translated:

Igor Danchenko (Credit: public domain)

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect, Igor

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

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

Google translated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect, Igor

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

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

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

Carter Page (Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….No-one noticed:

(Link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Giuffre v. Maxwell)

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

UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley (Credit: JusttheNews)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File

File

File

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

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

Alternate copy:

Epstein Docs/Document Cloud

Amazon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Army’s Fort Leavenworth report:

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

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

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

“When ODNI James Clapper walked into the oval office on January 4, 2017, with “tech cuts” (transcript excerpts) from the Flynn/Kislyak phone call, essentially Clapper infected the White House with a paper record that the Obama administration was aware of the FBI investigating the incoming administration.  Re-creating plausible deniability was the primary motive behind the January 5th meeting and the subsequent Susan Rice memo.

Why is it important to understand the duality of purpose for the appointment of the special counsel run by the figure-head (in name only) of Robert Mueller?

…Because from the outset the seventeen Lawfare lawyers who formed the resistance unit operation took control over the DOJ.

That was a large purpose of their installation. The Mueller resistance unit controlled everything, including every impediment to congress.

Despite the fact they should have been aware of this, many individual Senators and congressional representatives now claim they had no idea of this purpose. Setting aside their willful blindness; all that stuff is in the rear-view and only leads to anger in a debate that needs to look forward; the issue now becomes putting indisputable evidence, an actionable trigger, in front of them and forcing a public confrontation. Action. Nothing else matters; drive action.

At the same time, USAO John Durham [and S.P. XXXXX ] are facing ‘irrefutable’ evidence that holds two purposes: (1) undeniable evidence of a very specific cover-up operation that came, purposefully, from the agenda of the resistance unit to throw a blanket over the most serious abuse of power in modern history; and (2) evidence that ‘we the people’ know.

It might seem odd at first, but the knowledge that we know, and possess the evidence to prove beyond doubt, is an insurance policy in the quest for truth and justice. This includes evidence that cannot be ignored even if they disappear the delivery mechanism. The truth has no agenda, and in this case, the truth is a weapon.” (Conservative Treehouse, 8/03/2020)  (Archive)

“Lots of discussions amid multiple circles about what West Texas USAO John Bash might be looking into.  Is he looking back in time into the FISA(702) abuses that took place during the 2016 primary season?…. That would be in addition to the familiar “unmasking” aspect?…  and, if yes, what would that indicate?

Short answer is: no-one is certain.  AG Barr did mention that Bash is looking backward on the unmasking issues beyond the timeline scope of the 2016 presidential election.  That would indicate surveillance “unmasking” and FISA “minimization” would meld because essentially the terms are synonymous depending on the type of intelligence exploitation.

Prior Obama officials were “unmasking” names associated with FBI investigations simply to dirty them up to give fuel to the fraudulent basis of “Trump-Russia”; that’s the political weaponization of intelligence.  This did happen and Bash is cited with authority to review this carve-out of the ongoing DOJ investigation into DOJ/FBI intelligence manipulation.

However, if Bash is going into the issues of the NSA database being exploited for political opposition research via FISA-702 authorities (the intentional extraction of information with intentional non-minimization) well, that’s a more expansive kettle-of-fish than would seem to be possible to fully outline before the November election.

FISC presiding judges Rosemary Collyer (2016) and James Boasberg (2018) have already outlined the continued use of the NSA database for ‘unauthorized’ purposes. [Use Site Search Tool for details]

Is this something that AG Barr would authorize USAO Bash to pursue?… that’s a big question without an answer.  We would hope yes, but think about the scale of that in totality to the interests of DC writ large… Ergo, I’m not confident.

Unmasking and Non-Minimization are essentially the same issues.  The former has to do with actual FBI and intelligence investigations; the latter has to do with using the NSA database to extract information (mostly unlawful use).  Unfortunately, the general belief is that FISA(702) and NSA metadata collection, which includes the ability to review information on all citizens, are critical to national security.

Even with the findings of former NSA Director Mike Rogers about the systemic abuse he was not supportive of shutting the programs down.  So, with that in mind, would AG Barr want to undermine an operational tool that is vital to the function of national security (as defined by the total apparatus) by having a U.S. attorney expose abuses?  See the issue….

Tangentially related to this NSA database aspect, it seems clear the exploitation is not just about targeting political adversaries.   This is about money and power.  While there is no direct evidence the NSA database was being used to make money, the mere fact that Crowdstrike was a contracting agency with access points to a more financially motivating aspect.

Were these “contractors” extracting corporate, business, and financial secrets to sell and or trade and make money?  Is this the ultimate insider trading scheme in Washington DC?  The answer is actually in the question.  What entity would not eventually use that access for this purpose… it is just too easy to make money.” (Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 8/03/2020)  (Archive)

Senators Grassley and Johnson write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Mark Warner, and Congressman Adam Schiff:

“It is certainly our goal to eradicate foreign influence from our elections. But your use of this issue to knowingly and recklessly promote false narratives for political purposes is completely contrary to that goal.”

Grassley/Johnson Letter, 8/04/2020

The FBI  raids the offices of Optima Management Group at the One Cleveland Center building. (Credit: Cleveland.com)

“The FBI on Tuesday raided the Cleveland offices of a real estate company tied to a Ukrainian oligarch that owns several downtown buildings.

FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson said agents were searching the offices of the Optima Management Group in One Cleveland Center at East 9th Street and St. Clair Avenue. Optima is a conglomerate of companies across the United States that has interests in real estate in Cleveland, including One Cleveland Center, the 55 Public Square building, and the Westin Cleveland Downtown.

(…) Federal authorities in Cleveland have been conducting a wide-ranging probe involving Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky that has been ongoing for quite some time. Kolomoisky is a principal of the Privat Group, a large Ukrainian business company, and principals of the company are also part of Optima.

Optima had a much larger presence in Cleveland about a decade ago when it bought several buildings under the leadership of executive Chaim Schochet. Its presence in Northeast Ohio has dwindled in recent years.

Optima also controlled Warren Steel Holdings, a mill northwest of Youngstown that closed in 2016.

Kolomoisky and a fellow Ukrainian billionaire formed PrivatBank in the early 1990s. It became one of Ukraine’s key financial institutions, according to Forbes. The Ukrainian government nationalized the bank in 2016 after an investigation suggested there was large-scale fraud over a decade-long period, Forbes reported.” (Read more: Cleveland.com, 8/04/2020)  (Archive)

“The United States filed two civil forfeiture complaints today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that commercial real estate in Louisville, Kentucky, and Dallas, Texas, both acquired using funds misappropriated from PrivatBank in Ukraine, are subject to forfeiture based on violations of federal money laundering statutes.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Justin E. Herdman for the Northern District of Ohio, and Special Agent in Charge Eric B. Smith of the FBI’s Cleveland Field Office made the announcement.

The complaints allege that Ihor Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Boholiubov, who owned PrivatBank, one of the largest banks in Ukraine, embezzled and defrauded the bank of billions of dollars.  The two obtained fraudulent loans and lines of credit from approximately 2008 through 2016 when the scheme was uncovered, and the bank was nationalized by the National Bank of Ukraine.  The complaints allege that they laundered a portion of the criminal proceeds using an array of shell companies’ bank accounts, primarily at PrivatBank’s Cyprus branch, before they transferred the funds to the United States.  As alleged in the complaint, the loans were rarely repaid except with more fraudulently obtained loan proceeds.

As alleged in the Complaints, in the United States, associates of Kolomoisky and Bogoliubov, Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber, operating out of offices in Miami, created a web of entities, usually under some variation of the name “Optima,” to further launder the misappropriated funds and invest them.  They purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate and businesses across the country, including the properties subject to forfeiture: the Louisville office tower known as PNC Plaza, and the Dallas office park known as the former CompuCom Headquarters.  The buildings have a combined value of approximately $70 million.

A complaint is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

FBI’s Cleveland Division is investigating the case with support from FBI’s International Corruption Unit, IRS Criminal Investigation, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  International Unit Chief Mary K. Butler, Senior Trial Attorney Michael C. Olmsted, Trial Attorneys Shai D. Bronshtein and Peter Steciuk, and Law Clerk Robert Blaney of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrienne Rosen of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida are prosecuting the cases.  The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs has provided substantial assistance in the investigation.

The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is led by a team of dedicated prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies, and often with U.S. Attorney’s Offices, to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption and, where appropriate, to use those recovered assets to benefit the people harmed by these acts of corruption and abuse of office.  In 2015, the FBI formed International Corruption Squads across the country to address national and international implications of foreign corruption.  Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through the United States should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to kleptocracy@usdoj.gov (link sends e-mail) or https://tips.fbi.gov/. (Department of Justice, 8/06/2020)  (Archive)

Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley (Credit: JusttheNews)

“A powerful Senate committee chairman has subpoenaed FBI Director Chris Wray and a former State Department official in an intensifying investigation into possible U.S. corruption in Russia and Ukraine and declared there is evidence Joe Biden’s family engaged in a “glaring conflict of interest.”

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson announced the actions Monday, strongly accusing Democrats of levying false allegations against him and other GOP investigators to distract from the evidence his committee has gathered about Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.

Johnson noted evidence gathered by his committee showed Joe Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, in April 2014 and within a month the vice president then visited Ukraine and both his son Hunter and the business partner were put on the Burisma board as the firm faced multiple corruption investigations.

“Isn’t it obvious what message Hunter’s position on Burisma’s board sent to Ukrainian officials?” Johnson asked. “The answer: If you want U.S. support, don’t touch Burisma. It also raised a host of questions, including: 1) How could former Vice President Biden look any Ukrainian official (or any other world leader) in the face and demand action to fight corruption? 2) Did this glaring conflict of interest affect the work and efforts of other U.S. officials who worked on anti-corruption measures?”

You can read Johnson’s letter here:

 2020-08-09 RHJ letter re Investigation history purpose goals 1805.pdf

Sources familiar with Johnson’s investigation say the committee has secured testimony from at least one State Department official who worked in Ukraine saying the Bidens’ conduct created the appearance of a conflict of interest and undercut U.S. efforts to fight corruption in Kiev.

Johnson also divulged that late last week he issued a formal subpoena to Wray demanding he immediately surrenders records from the Russia collusion probe that the committee has been seeking for months.

The subpoena gives Wray until 5 p.m. on Aug. 20 to comply and demands all records from the probe known as Crossfire Hurricane, including those provided for a damning report by the Justice Department inspector general.

You can view the subpoena here

 FBI Subpoena 20200806.pdf

(…) Johnson also announced his committee has prepared a subpoena for Jonathan Winer, a former Obama State Department official who had extensive contact with British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, the author of a flawed dossier that helped propel the FBI probe into now disproven Trump-Russia collusion.

“Mr. Winer’s counsel has not responded since Thursday as to whether he would accept service of the subpoena,” Johnson said. “If he does not respond by tomorrow, we will be forced to effect service through the U.S. Marshals. More subpoenas can be expected to be issued in the coming days and weeks.” (Read more: Just the News, 8/09/2020)  (Archive)

“It would be an extreme long-shot if these two documented events were not analogous.

Senator Lindsay Graham asked today (Go Deep), who was the FBI official that delivered a set of false talking points to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) on February 14,2018?

Now we look within the SSCI Russian Active Measures Report… [Page #10, Footnote #25]

(Source Document – Page #10, fn #25)

McCabe may have had someone with him, but records clearly indicate, despite his status of announcing his resignation on January 29, 2018, Andrew McCabe was clearly at the SSCI on February 14, 2018 

UPDATE: TheWarEconomy Confirms (via supplemental)

Andrew McCabe (FBI) and Scott Schools (Main Justice) were at SSCI Feb 14, 2018.

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/09/2020)  (Archive)

“CTH friend, researcher and producer John Spiropoulos helps connect the dots within the operation to cover-up corrupt activity by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Christopher Wray, Dana Boente and the entire special counsel group.

In this video John walks us through the internal evidence showing how the FBI intentionally hid the statements by Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source Igor Danchenko.  The result…. a 34-month cover-up operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released the declassified documents on July 17th. [Thank You John Ratcliffe] The documents relate to how the intelligence apparatus conducted surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016; and ultimately the Trump administration after the inauguration.

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

Per Senator Lindsey Graham:

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

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

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

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

Here’s the FBI Briefing Summary: [Direct pdf Link]

FBI Interview Release – Chr… by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

The inspector general already reviewed this briefing material and explained the content in the IG report on FISA Abuse in December 2019. Here’s the nub of that full review:

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

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

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

Drive this point home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the motive.

In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

♦ The FISA was also released in July 2018 in order to retain the false premise behind it. The copy that was released by the special counsel, through Rod Rosenstein, contained redacted dates because the special counsel needed to hide the fact the FBI (Washington Field Office) had actually used the FISA to catch a leaker of classified intelligence, James Wolfe.

Again, Wolfe’s story is the fulcrum…. tell that story and the House of Cards collapses like the Potemkin village it is. {GO DEEP}

The resistance lawyers in the Mueller team released the same initial FISA application (and first renewal) used to catch Wolfe; they had to release that specific March 17, 2017, copy. However, they had to redact the dates on the document they released because the dates were changed by SSA Brian Dugan to catch Wolfe.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA, an FBI investigative equity, went into Main Justice with the leak trap visible. When the special counsel released the FISA application to Rosenstein for public FOIA fulfillment they had to redact the dates or people would ask questions about why this specific version had different dates than the original.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA application is the only one to date that has been in the public sphere; including reviewed by OIG Michael Horowitz. That’s why when Horowitz originally released his FISA report, the OIG kept the dates redacted and only revealed them after the irrelevance of classification was pointed out.

The March 17th Wolfe copy of the first half of the full FISA application (original and first renewal), is the only copy that has ever been made public. If we were to ever see the modified and unredacted copy the FBI gave to Wolfe, the dates would not match with the actual dates of the application(s). The dates were used as part of the leak trace.

The Mueller team knew the explosive nature of the FBI investigation to catch the SSCI leaker. The Mueller team, with full control over Main Justice, was the group that buried FBI Supervisor Special Agent Brian Dugan’s explosive investigative findings.

Expose the conduct of this group and everything about the insurance policy falls into place:

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/11/2020)  (Archive)

Michael Flynn’s case took center stage again Tuesday, as his attorney Sidney Powell argued to the D.C. Circuit Court that dismissing the case against her client is the judicial and appropriate legal action to take since Justice Department prosecutors had asked for the case to be dismissed.

Stunningly, it appears that there is more evidence that has not been made public in the case of Flynn that led the Department of Justice and Attorney General William Barr to request that the charges be dropped. For Powell and Flynn, the news of new evidence supporting his innocence is significant.

(…) The Justice Department attorney Jeffery Wall, along with Powell argued and answered questions of the panel that was grilling them on all the details of the case. It was during the trial that Wall hinted at the new evidence in support of Flynn.

He told the judges that Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn, was in part, due to information that the DOJ hasn’t yet shared with the public. Wall said, “the Attorney General sees this in the context of nonpublic information from other investigations.”

“It may be possible that the attorney general had before him information that he was not able to share with the court and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch,” he added. “The attorney general made that decision or that judgment on the basis of lots of information. Some of it is public and fleshed out in the motion. Some of it is not.” (Read more: Sara A. Carter, 8/11/2020)  (Archive)

Full hearing:

James Baker (Credit: CNN)

“United States Attorney John Durham has interviewed the former top FBI lawyer during the Russia investigation.

James Baker, who recently was hired by Twitter, met with Durham’s team in recent weeks and was quickly brought back for follow-up questions, a source told CNN.

The report noted that witnesses who have spoken with Durham are unable to figure out who is a major target for prosecution in his criminal inquiry into Russia investigation.

Baker, who became general counsel in 2014 and resigned from the FBI in 2018, defended the Russia investigation and the FBI’s handling of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier. He was involved in the sign-off process of at least the first Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application that targeted former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

(…) Baker resigned in May 2018 and joined Lawfare, a national security blog affiliated with the Brookings Institution whose editor-in-chief is Benjamin Wittes, a friend of Comey. He later joined the R Street Institute and then CNN as a legal analyst, but he no longer works there. (Read more: Washington Examiner, 8/13/2020)  (Archive)

Hillary Clinton

“Four-plus years after the James Comey-led FBI chose not to file charges against Hillary Clinton, despite evidence she transmitted classified information on an insecure email server, a federal appeals court Friday gave the former secretary of state another legal pass in the case.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus requested by Clinton’s lawyers overturning a judge’s order that she submit to a sworn deposition in a Freedom of Information Act case brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

The court ruled that U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth erred in ordering the deposition in the first place.

“Discovery in FOIA cases is not a punishment, and the district court has no basis to order further inquiry into Secretary Clinton’s state of mind,” the appeals court ruled.

Judicial Watch had sought to secure the deposition to explore whether Clinton’s use of the private server to transmit government documents was an effort to evade the legal requirements of the FOIA law.

The group said Friday afternoon it is reviewing whether to appeal.

“We’re disappointed and considering our options,” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton told Just the News. (Read more: Just the News, 8/14/2020)   (Archive)

Judicial Watch Issues Statement on Appeals Court Decision Blocking Hillary Clinton Testimony

Today I made the following statement about the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the request of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s and her former Chief of Staff, Chery Mills to avoid testifying under oath about Clinton’s emails. The court granted Clinton’s request to avoid testimony but denied Mills’.

Today’s extraordinary Appeals Court decision protecting Hillary Clinton from having to obey a court order requiring her to testify about her emails is contrary to longstanding precedent and undermines the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The opinion’s deviation from a long line of earlier mandamus cases creates the appearance of favoritism towards Clinton and undermines the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice. One need only contrast the DC Circuit’s agony over granting General Flynn mandamus relief with the unprecedented mandamus relief so easily given to Clinton.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton hid her government emails, then stole them when she left office. Her lawyers unilaterally determined what would be returned later. The State Department knew this occurred but tried to game a federal trial court into shutting down Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit before Clinton’s scheme became public. In response, the trial court rightly ordered Clinton to testify about the reasons for her actions and their impact on the public’s right to know. That this was too much for the DC Circuit is a miscarriage of justice.

In addition to today’s political decision, the Justice and State Departments’ continuing efforts to avoid getting to the bottom of Clinton’s email misconduct are a scandal. President Trump should hold Secretary Pompeo and Attorney General Barr accountable for their failures of leadership.” (Judicial Watch, 8/14/2020)

Senators Warner and Rubio of the Senate Intelligence Committee, introduced a bill to handle foreign technology threats. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Johnson/Grassley Letter, 8/14/2020:

(Grassley/Johnson, 8/14/2020)

On September 14, 2020, Warner and Rubio reject their request:

“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.

“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.”

(Credit: The Political War Room)

“Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, two sources close to the matter tell Fox News.

Clinesmith was referred for potential prosecution by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation. Specifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Clinesmith is being charged in federal court in Washington and is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement, his attorney Justin Shur told The Associated Press. (Read more: Fox News, 8/14/2020)  (Archive)

United States vs Clinesmith

The following is a transcript of an interview with Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and former CTO of CrowdStrike, that aired Sunday, August 16, 2020, on “Face the Nation.”

MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to turn now to the question of election security, we go to Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder and former chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, a cyber-technology company. Good morning to you, Dmitri. I know you have your own shop now. I want to ask you, since you watch this closely, what is the area of concern for you in election 2020?

DMITRI ALPEROVITCH: Well, my biggest concern as a cyber-security expert is, of course, the hackability of our election systems, both from the influence side as well as from the voting perspective. And I can tell you from my experience that voting is the hardest thing to secure when it comes to cybersecurity. It is literally the hardest problem out there. And the only way we know how to do it well and safely is by using paper, whether it be mail-in ballots or whether it be voting in person with a paper record that can be produced by the machine or the paper record of a paper ballot that you can mark up. Those are the safest ways. And the other way, of course, is to drop it off. Something that’s not getting much attention right now with all the focus on mail-in ballots is that all precincts should have drop boxes by the curbside, that people can drive by, walk by and drop off the ballot without using the mail.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It might- it might surprise people that a cybersecurity expert says that that is the best option is to go old school, go paper. But it is that paper route that the president has raised this week saying that it greatly concerns him. He said the biggest risk we have is mail-in ballots, universal- universal mail-in ballots. And he claimed foreign entities could interfere. He rattled off Russia, China, Iran, North Korea with mail-in ballots. What do you make of that statement?

ALPEROVITCH: Well, paper cannot be hacked, however, there is a legitimate concern about logistics. I’m not so much concerned about foreign entities interfering in the paper process, but we do need to make sure that states are prepared to take in the huge number of mail-in ballots that will come in. They’ll be able to do the signature verification that is necessary to make sure that there is no fraud. It can be done. Five states have been doing it for years now, like Oregon, Colorado, and others, but others have not. And we need to make sure they’re ready and they’re preparing now versus the day before the election.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You talk to people in the government now. Why wasn’t there a strategy to do what you just laid out?

ALPEROVITCH: Well, I think we haven’t been preparing for this and a lot of people were assuming that the disease would go away in a few months. Of course, it’s still here and now a lot of people are concerned about voting in person and we need to make sure that they have an opportunity to do so safely.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. But there wasn’t a federal strategy to have the states do what you just said they should have been doing for the past four years.

ALPEROVITCH: Well, this is hard to do because, of course, the federal government is not in charge of elections.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

ALPEROVITCH: The individual states or even municipalities are in charge of them. So it’s really up to the states to do this well. New Jersey just declared that they will go all mail-in voting in November, and that’s a good thing. But other states need to ramp up their capabilities.

MARGARET BRENNAN: When you said that you were concerned about election infrastructure, the U.S. intelligence community has warned that adversaries are try to access- are trying to access candidates’ private communications and election infrastructure at the state and the federal level. The national security adviser to the president was on this program last Sunday and he said Russia and China are doing this, going fishing essentially on websites and the like. He’s been criticized for mixing apples and oranges. I’m wondering what evidence you have seen as to what Russia and China are actually doing?

ALPEROVITCH: Well, MARGARET, this is very important. There are different ways to interfere in our elections and what we have seen in the past is, of course, the Russians in 2016 hacking into campaigns, hacking into political organizations, and then leaking that information to the public through WikiLeaks and other channels. We have not seen that obviously this year. And that’s a good sign but of course, we still have a few months to go. But then there is the influence operations that they’re conducting and a number of countries are doing that now, China, Iran, as well as Russia, and not just around elections, really continuous on social media through official media channels and even government statements. But the third thing that concerns me personally is really attacks on the infrastructure itself, voter databases, vote tallying systems, vote reporting systems. Those are very, very vulnerable to hacking. And we need to be doing more to protect them. I know CISA, the federal Cyber Security Agency, is doing a lot to scan those systems right now, but more needs to be done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Very quickly, is there anything people at home can do to make sure their vote gets counted?

ALPEROVITCH: Absolutely, two things. One, everyone can participate not just as a voter, but also volunteer. Election workers are often volunteers so reach out to county election officials, ask if you can help. They’re going to need a lot of help this year because of the challenging situations we have. But most importantly, be patient. This may be the first modern election we have where we may not know who the president is the night of the election or the day after. It may take days for us to actually count all the votes and understand who has won. So buckle up. It may be a long ride.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. And we are preparing the coffee already here in the news business. Thank you very much, Dmitri, for your perspective. We’ll be right back.

(CBS Face the Nation, 8/16/2020)

“According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion, the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor, Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little-reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid-2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties into the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take a keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and the U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three-year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.

The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/18/2020)  (Archive)

“Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page called the recent indictment of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith the “first step on the road to justice” on Tuesday, four years after the feds began spying on Page in 2016 and his life was “overturned.”

Friday was just a first step on the road to justice because it was the first time that I started to see some semblance of justice from the DOJ and FBI with the fact they were acting in accordance with Crime Victims’ Rights Act, a law that was totally avoided and not respected throughout last four years,” Page told “Mornings with Maria.”

Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, two sources close to the matter tell Fox News.

“The charging document against Mr. Clinesmith, it really is just the tip of the iceberg in so many ways,” Page said.

“It was false conspiracies and made-up lies paid for by Democrats,” he continued. “I actually sent Mr. Clinesmith a letter in April 2017, you know, to your point about media, there were some media leaks and lies and misrepresentations, on the Rachel Maddow Show on ‘MSDNC,’ and sure enough I get more threatening calls from Oklahoma that night.” (Read more: Fox News, 8/18/2020)  (Archive)

Senators Warner and Rubio of the Senate Intelligence Committee discuss a bill to handle foreign technology threats. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a redacted version of the final volume of its report on RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. All five volumes of the report are accessible here.

Volume 5 (pages 941-943) states ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS RISCH, RUBIO, BLUNT, COTTON, CORNYN, AND SASSE. Here is their statement (emphasis in original):

(U) Volume 5 of the report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference is the last body of work relating to the Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This final volume brings an end to more than three years of investigative work. Bipartisan professional staff reviewed more than one million documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses to produce over 1,000 pages of analysis. Volume 5 exhaustively reviews the counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities to the 2016 election, but never explicitly states the critical fact: the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.

(U) The Trump campaign publicly and repeatedly promoted a policy of improving relations with Moscow which, in some ways, was a view not much different than the effort by the Obama administration to “reset” relations between the two countries. Such a policy does not itself constitute collusion or a counterintelligence threat. Volume 5 includes sections that address foreign policy actions taken by the Trump transition team in line with this policy, not because the Committee found any evidence that these foreign policy actions were the result of collaboration with the Russian Government, but to show that after an exhaustive investigation, allegations of cooperation can be put to rest. Decisions taken were the result of a foreign policy viewpoint, not illicit Russian influence. We feel Volume 5 should have explicitly stated this.

(U) More than three and a half years later, the Trump administration’s record on Russia shows a consistent attempt to cooperate with Russia where possible, while responding firmly to Russia’s nefarious activity worldwide. For instance, under the leadership of President Trump, the administration effectuated the largest expulsion of Russian spies in U.S. history after Russian operatives poisoned Sergei Skripal in London, provided Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression, and led the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty-international agreements that the Russians have been violating for years and wish to preserve.

(U) While this Volume did not find evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians, it does detail a stunning accounting of the FBl’s sloppy work and poor judgment. In 2016, the Democratic Party, using a series of arm’s length transactions, hired a foreign citizen to seek out dirt on a political opponent, provided by foreign sources. This Volume confirms that Christopher Steele used information gained from sources in Russia-some with direct ties to the Russian Government. That unverified, uncorroborated, foreign information was then actively circulated with the press to disparage a U.S. political candidate.

(U) Meanwhile, the FBI should have followed the advice of other intelligence agencies to view Steele’s reports skeptically, and the Bureau should have verified the methodology and the information before using it. Instead, the Bureau used the material in FISA applications and insisted on its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Other IC agencies wanted to exclude the Dossier from the ICA because they had not verified its sources or its data. All Americans should be deeply troubled that the FBI was willing to accept and use Steele’s information without verifying its sourcing or methodology.

(U) Volume 5 is an important contribution to the historical record from which historians will someday draw. As is evident to those who read all five volumes of the Committee’s report, the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.

(PowerlineBlog, 8/18/2020)  (Archive)

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

(…) The FBI maintains that the years-long Trump-Russia probe was triggered by a single barroom conservation [sic]. Over drinks in London in May 2016, a low-level Trump campaign adviser named George Papadopoulos reportedly told an Australian diplomat that he had been tipped off that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos later told the FBI that the information came from a Maltese academic named Joseph Mifsud.

The Senate report, however, casts doubt on this origin story, only going so far as to say Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016 from Joseph Mifsud.” (emphasis added.) Nearly 500 pages later, contradicting itself, the report drops the qualifier: “The Committee found Mifsud was aware of an aspect of Russia’s active measures campaign in the 2016 election and that Mifsud told Papadopoulos what he knew.”

The Senate report contradicts the above passage by dropping the qualifier “likely” hundreds of pages later, below.

The report spends dozens of pages on Mifsud, yet adds no new information to support the suspicion that he had advance knowledge of a Russian interference plot. Instead, the report falls back on vague, equivocal language and insinuation. It describes Papadopoulos’ interactions with Mifsud as “highly suspicious,” and claims that Mifsud “exhibited behavior consistent with intelligence tradecraft” while maintaining “significant ties to the Russian government and business circles.” As with its handling of Konstantin Kilimnik, another supposedly Russian agent, the report ignores Mifsud’s far more extensive public contacts with Western diplomats, including the FBI, CIA, and State Department.

Julian Assange (l) and Kurt Waldman (Credit: public domain)

(…) The Senate report reveals a similar lack of investigative zeal regarding the other key episode that launched Russiagate: WikiLeaks‘ release of stolen Democratic Party emails.

According to the FBI, Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat whom Papadopoulos supposedly spoke to in London, thought nothing of the conversation until weeks later in July 2016, when Julian Assange and WikiLeaks published the first tranche of stolen emails. Downer suspected that Russia was using the website to publish the dirt Papadopoulos had mentioned.

The Senate committee states in its report simply that it “requested but did not obtain an interview with Julian Assange,” the WikiLeaks founder now fighting extradition from Britain to the U.S. A source close to WikiLeaks told RealClearInvestigations that Assange’s U.S. legal team agreed to an interview but that the Senate committee never followed-up on his response. Attorney Adam Waldman, who had served as an intermediary between Assange and the U.S. government, has claimed that the committee’s ranking Democrat, Warner, told him to cut off talks with Assange in April 2017. According to Waldman, Warner was acting at the behest of then-FBI Director James Comey, who reportedly told the Virginia senator to “stand down.” Comey has never commented on the incident.

The Senate report once again relies on speculative language, contending that WikiLeaks “likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort” when it obtained and released Democratic Party emails during the 2016 campaign. It is unclear how the committee arrived at this conclusion. What is clear is that, just like the Mueller team before it, the committee passed up an opportunity to seek answers from the WikiLeaks publisher himself.  (Read more: RealClearInvestigations, 9/21/2020)  (Archive)

“A fantastic catch by Twitter user @15poundstogo highlights a key phrase within the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) Russia Report Volume-5, showing how the SSCI allowed those who created the Trump-Russia narrative to avoid questioning:

(SSCI Volume-5 Link, Page 23)

This is a very important detail to underpin the report we shared yesterday about former Dianne Feinstein top staffer Dan Jones attempting to avoid a subpoena from U.S. Attorney John Durham.  [SEE BACKGROUND HERE]  This key highlight from the SSCI is evidence of how the attempted coup against President Trump was coordinated by people outside government and inside government.

Dan Jones left the SSCI prior to the 2016 election and went to work pushing the Trump-Russia narrative through his media contacts.  Jones took over funding Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele in 2017 at the same time Senator Mark Warner took over as SSCI vice-chairman. Dan Jones and Mark Warner coordinated the efforts outside and inside government on the same objective.  The Senate Intel Committee was part of the effort.

As a result of their alignment and common purpose the SSCI didn’t investigate the origin of the Trump-Russia narrative; and instead positioned themselves as a shield to block any investigative inquiry into what took place.  THIS IS A BIG DEAL!

The attempt to remove President Trump from office encompassed all three branches of the U.S. government.

• Executive Branch – FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Dept., and Special Counsel Office.
• Legislative Branch –  SSCI in 2017 and 2018 with an assist from House Intelligence Committee and House Judiciary in 2019 and 2020.
• Judicial Branch – FISA Court 2015, 2016, 2017; Federal Judges (Sullivan, Walton, Howell, Berman-Jackson) in alignment with DC intents in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

How does the office of the United States president; and more importantly a constitutional republic itself; survive a coordinated coup effort that involves all three branches of government; while simultaneously those in charge of exposing the corruption fear the scale of the effort is too damaging for the U.S. government to reveal?

One of the key needs of the corrupt intelligence apparatus was to find a way to stop the incoming administration from exposing their effort; that’s where the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) comes in.

Senator Dianne Feinstein was vice-chair of the SSCI in 2016.  Feinstein’s former chief of staff was Dan Jones.

The post-election plan to protect the intel community would involve using the SSCI institution to cover for prior Obama-era operations. Senator Feinstein was not a good fit for that role, so Feinstein abdicated her position in advance of the next congress in 2017.

In January 2017 Senator Mark Warner took over as SSCI vice-chair after Dan Jones left the SSCI to continue efforts as a freelance operative.   Warner was put into place to carry out the strategic objectives needed to protect the DOJ, NSD, CIA, FBI and ODNI operations against Donald Trump who was now the incoming president-elect.

Keep in mind with control of the SSCI the group inside the legislative branch could control who ran what intelligence agency because they held the power of confirmation; and they could control who would rise to be inspector general within the intelligence community, a position needed if a whistle-blower was to surface.  The SSCI would only allow Michael Atkinson to act as ICIG – That’s because Atkinson was part of the 2015/2016 crew.

Additionally, the SSCI would control intelligence information and assist the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel after the appointment.   The SSCI could work as a sword and a shield as needed.  Which is exactly what happened.

That background, the motive of the SSCI, explains every point of conflict and corruption we have seen from the SSCI toward the White House in the past four years.

Meanwhile Dan Jones went freelance and in 2017 was given $50 million to fund an investigative outfit called the “Penn Quarter Group” and create a new organization called the Democracy Integrity Project.

“Jones told federal investigators that he had raised $50 million from “7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California.” (link)

Jones used both groups to continue selling and pushing the Trump-Russia narrative. Also it was important for those at risk to find an alternate route to keep financing their defense without using Clinton’s legal team within Perkins Coie.

Essentially, in 2017 Dan Jones, through his Penn Quarter Group, took over funding for Fusion-GPS and Glenn Simpson and kept paying Christopher Steele.  The payments to these entities and Steele always looked more like a pay-off to keep their mouths shut. Jones was essentially the bag-man for continued Trump-Russia operations outside government.  Jones’s second job was to keep pushing the Trump-Russia narrative in the media (read more).

What follows hereafter is additional evidence of the SSCI role in the overthrow of a duly elected President Donald J Trump.

MOST OF THE CITATIONS:

The sequence is critical:

1.  Adam Waldman text messages. (release date Feb 9, 2018)

2. Justice Dept. Letter to journalist Ali Watkins (release date Feb 13, 2018)

3.  James Wolfe indictment (release date June 8, 2018)

4.  FISC / Senate Judiciary Letter (public release April 2020 – event date July 12, 2018) The letter from DOJ-NSD (Mueller Special Prosecutors) to the FISC is important.

5.  Carter Page FISA application (release date July 21, 2018)  Only need the first application section. 83 pages of original application.

6.  Government Sentencing Wolfe Case memo and recommendation for upward departure and/or variance. Filed December 11, 2018

7.  Govt. Reply to Defendant (Wolfe) sentencing memo (date Dec 14, 2018)  Govt. Exhibit #13 (two-page attestation is critical).

Misc:

July 27, 2018,  – Wall Street Journal  – Wolfe lawyers threaten SSCI subpoenas.

Dec 11, 2018 – Politico – Senators seek Leniency –

(Read more: Conservative Treehouse, 10/09/2020)  (Archive)

CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge tweets this exchange that occurred between Kevin Clinesmith and Judge Boasberg during the plea hearing on August 19, 2020.

(Reformatted for an easier read.)

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty 1 count false statements, but key exchange goes to intent.

Judge Boasberg: Did you read plus understand this document before you signed it?

Clinesmith: I did your honor.

Judge Boasberg: This document actually sets forth the fact that the government contends occurred here. The act that you actually committed that you agree that what the government sets forth here is in fact true.

Clinemsith: Yes, your honor.

Judge Boasberg: And most specifically that on (garbled-date??) that you intentionally altered an email to add the language plus “not a source” in regard to individual one (Carter Page) plus you knew that (garbled) statement was not in fact true.

(20-second pause)

Judge Boasberg: I’m not sure whether you are conferring with your client, I didn’t hear a response to that question.

Lawyer: I apologize…on mute…give me a second…

Clinesmith: Sir, I, Sir at the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate. but I, (stumbles) am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there. That I inserted that information.

Judge Boasberg: In other words, you agree that you intentionally altered the email to include information that was not originally in the email.

Clinesmith: Yes your honor.

Joseph Mifsud was working with Nawaf Obaid. Obaid worked for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. He also got Mifsud the job working with CNN’s Freedom Project at Link Campus.

If the Senate Intelligence Committee was using open sources why did they leave those facts out?

ChrisBlackburn/Twitter

Nawaf didn’t need to be in the Mueller Report or the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report. But they felt compelled to leave him in. Why?

Because WE know Mifsud’s full profile.
They also drag Gianni Pittella into the frame…why? They can’t exactly leave him out too.

If they add Obaid and Pittella into the report why didn’t they investigate it?

So, they know there is an accurate profile of Mifsud in play. But they don’t want to contradict the USIC.

The Senate Intelligence Report claims Joseph Mifsud and Olga Polonskaya were using intelligence tradecraft.

Mifsud and Putin’s niece both worked at “Hogwart’s for Spies” in Rome. They both worked for LCILP too.

Significance? LCILP directors also teach intelligence.

(Chris Blackburn@CJBdingo25, 8/23/2020)

“Carter Page appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss a book he is publishing about the DOJ and FBI targeting him for surveillance and identifying him as “an agent of a foreign government” in 2016 and 2017.

Interestingly, Page notes [@02:56] he had five interviews with the FBI in March of 2017, and he connects those interviews to the possibility of leaks to the Washington Post.  However, it would be interesting to find out the exact dates of those interviews because the FISA application identifying him, leaked by James Wolfe, was delivered to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, as a “read and return” document.  It was after March 17th when the Washington Post wrote the article mentioned by Carter Page.

There is strong circumstantial evidence when the FISA application was delivered to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, that only James Wolfe and SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner reviewed it.  First, it was “read and return”, back to the equity provider, FBI SSA Brian Dugan.  Second, if any other member of the SSCI had reviewed the application it’s doubtful they would have been requesting to review it in December ’17 and early ’18.  Common sense would indicate only Warner and Wolfe saw the application, and Warner never informed the committee of his review; hence their later requests.

Additionally, another unusual aspect to the FISA application delivery surrounds the 2018 letters written by Chairman Nunes (HPSCI) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (House Judiciary) to presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer, where both chairmen were being blocked by the special counsel from obtaining the FISA application and both were seeking to gain it from the FISA Court.

Collyer informed Goodlatte and Nunes that their request of January 16, 2018, was putting the judicial branch in a precarious position between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Judge Collyer informed the committee chairman they needed to exhaust all other possible remedies for production prior to requesting intervention by the judicial branch.

However, notably in her return correspondence to the legislative bodies, FISC Judge Collyer never informed Nunes and Goodlatte about the FISA application having previously been provided to the legislative branch in March 2017.

She never mentioned it….. Why not?

One possibility for not informing the legislative branch is that Judge Collyer knew FBI Agent Brian Dugan was using the FISA application as part of his leak investigation, and the need to retain investigative value kept her from revealing the March 2017 delivery.

The original request from Nunes and Goodlatte was January 16, 2018.  The response from Collyer was February 15, 2018, which is really interesting.

On February 9th, the text messages between Senator Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman were released.  On February 13th, the DOJ informed Ali Watkins about the court order granting FBI Agent Brian Dugan the authority to capture and review her text messages, phone and email communications.  All of these events are connected.

FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer responded to the January request from the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. (full pdf’s below – #1 and #2)

There was an underlying issue not being discussed within the communication – yet visible in the corner amid their engagement. That issue was the possibility SSA Brian Dugan may have modified the FISA documents as part of his leak investigation.

When the Dugan investigative file was then reviewed by the special counsel (due to their primary investigative authority) the Mueller team needed to cover the modification; hence their release of that specific document on July 21, 2018, came with redactions of all dates.

The special counsel would have received this investigative file from Dugan in the middle to end of January 2018.  Around the same time Nunes and Goodlatte were writing letters to Judge Collyer.

This mid to late January time-frame appears to be when Dugan’s file was scrubbed of the direct evidence tying Warner/Wolfe to the leak.  It appears the special counsel then gave Warner a ‘head’s-up’ about the captured text messages that were part of Dugan’s investigation.  Vice-Chairman Mark Warner then coordinated a plausible justification for his communication with Waldman; and in short order, February 9, 2018, those texts were released to diffuse the controversy.

In essence, the FISA documents held by the court *may not be* identical to the FISA documents released by the Department of Justice. With good reason to suspect something was afoot, yet Dugan’s background work was unknown to Goodlatte at the time, Goodlatte was seeking to compare the DOJ copy (taken from Dugan, but he did not know that) with a clean FISC copy.  In hindsight, Goodlatte was on the right trail.

Here are the Collyer responses.

To Chairman Nunes (seeking transcript):

FISA Court Presiding Judge … by The Conservative Treehouse

To Chairman Goodlatte (seeking documents):

FISA Court Presiding Judge … by The Conservative Treehouse

Why didn’t Judge Collyer inform the legislative branch of the prior production to the SSCI?

Why didn’t any other senators -including SSCI committee members- know the FISA application had been delivered for review and return on March 17, 2017?

Was Mark Warner the only senator who knew of the FISA production March 17, 2017?

The motive for Warner to request the FISA application in March, and then seek to leak the content, is easily identifiable.  At the time (early 2017) the political resistance was trying to convince the public that Trump-Russia collusion had happened.  This was an effort to undermine the administration and get a special counsel put into place.

Warner leaking the reality of the FISA application’s existence stirred the media into action because now the media could push a narrative that Trump must be colluding with Russia or there would not be a valid FBI investigation of it…. and the FISA court was validating the issue with their own approval of a FISA warrant.

The leak of the FISA application served to prove there was some measurable validity to the fraudulent claim of Trump-Russia collusion… or else, so the narrative was spun, there would not be an FBI investigation into it.  That’s how the resistance drummed up the need for a special counsel to continue the operation against President Donald Trump.

That’s why Senator Mark Warner wanted to leak the FISA application; and it appears he used SSCI Security Direct James Wolfe to pull it off.

(Conservative Treehouse, 8/25/2020)  (Archive)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Chuck Grassley give an opening statement before swearing-in Attorney General William Barr to testify, May 1, 2019. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

“Two sources close to the Senate probe tell CBS News that FBI agent Joe Pientka has been interviewed behind closed doors for “multiple hours” by investigators with Senate Judiciary and Senate Oversight/Government Affairs.

In 2018, then Chairman Chuck Grassley first sought Pientka’s testimony but the request was denied until now.

WHY IT MATTERS: Pientka is at the intersection of key events in the Durham investigation. Along with agent Peter Strzok, Pientka conducted the January 2017 WH interview of General Flynn that led to his dismissal.

More recently, declassified records showed Pientka and others used an August 2016 “defensive-briefing” to warn candidate Trump, Flynn Governor Christie about national security threats to gather information on their line of questioning about Russia for the  FBI probe known as Crossfire Hurricane. These events and decision making fall under Durham.” (Read more: Catherine Herridge/Twitter, 8/27/2020)  (Archive)

John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, has been coordinating with U.S. Attorney John Durham and plans to soon declassify more documents related to the Trump-Russia probe, he said Sunday.

“The question now is, did the FBI have a proper predicate to begin a counterintelligence investigation at all, and that’s the issue that John Durham is looking at, and also the issue that I’m continuing to look at,” Ratcliffe said in an interview on

(…) Ratcliffe said that he is not privy to Durham’s findings, but that he has provided the prosecutor access to intelligence documents needed for the investigation.

“I’m coordinating with him to make sure that he has the intelligence documents that he needs to do his work, and what I don’t want to do is declassify something that might prejudice his work so we’re going to have to coordinate as we go forward,” said Ratcliffe, a former U.S. congressman from Texas.”

Ratcliffe said he has tried to avoid declassifying documents that would “prejudice” Durham’s investigation, though he said he’s “optimistic that I’ll be declassifying additional documents soon.”

(Read more: The Daily Caller, 8/30/2020)  (Archive)

John Ratcliffe also said he has filed multiple “crimes reports” regarding alleged leaks of classified information to the media.

“When I become aware of intelligence community information that is disclosed unlawfully, I do what’s called a crimes report. I’ve done that now on a number of occasions, and so those investigations are moving forward.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 8/30/2020)

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

The Department of Homeland Security, its CISA division under Chris Krebs, then turned around deputized the Atlantic Council – a Burisma lobbyist – to censor the 2020 election.

The Atlantic Council was the anchor hub of the 4-entity censorship consortium, EIP, who DHS tapped: pic.twitter.com/maGFlXperd

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Again, the Atlantic Council had seven CIA directors – seven LIVING former CIA directors – serving on its board of directors, as it was serving as Burisma’s lobbyist and DHS’s 2020 deputized social media censor:https://t.co/G167FnpEOQ

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

The Atlantic Council is the anchor of EIP, part of its “core four.” When EIP published its 292-page report about how they censored tens of millions of conservatives with DHS in the 2020 election, they made their launch event an Atlantic Council event:https://t.co/hHVqsJYIuo

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Chris Krebs, the DHS director at CISA who deputized EIP and Atlantic Council to censor 22 million tweets during the 2020 election cycle, even gave the opening remarks at the Atlantic Council tell-all about how they colluded to silence conservatives: pic.twitter.com/rXPIKLXkOH

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 23, 2022

Morrell was *inches* away from becoming Biden’s CIA chief as a reward. (The Daily Beast, 11/24/2020)

John Brennan (l), James Clapper (c), and Admiral Mike Rogers testify at House hearing on worldwide cyber threats in September 2015. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Former CIA Director John Brennan reveals in a forthcoming book and interview that there was internal division at the spy agency over the level of confidence in an intelligence assessment that Vladimir Putin directed Russia’s election interference in the U.S. specifically to help Donald Trump.

According to The New York Times, Brennan describes in his memoir and in an unaired interview that two senior CIA officials pushed back in early 2017 against analysts’ assessment that they had a high level of confidence about Putin’s motives.

The officials lobbied Brennan for a medium-level confidence rating for the intelligence.

“They came up and talked to me about it and I listened to them because I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what their concerns were,” Brennan told C-SPAN in an interview yet to be aired. “And I encouraged them to talk to the authors of the assessment and determine if the judgment should stay at high confidence or medium confidence.”

(…) Brennan downplayed the internal dispute and also denied altering the CIA’s assessment, as some Republicans and Trump allies have suggested.

“I didn’t change a single analytic judgment in that intelligence community assessment,” he said in the C-SPAN interview, according to the Times. Brennan asserted that the CIA ultimately adopted the analysts’ assessment of Putin’s motives, rather than the opposing view supported by the two CIA officials.

Brennan’s remarks are the first time he’s publicly acknowledged that there was some disagreement within the CIA about the intelligence on Russia’s election interference.”  (Read more: The Daily Caller, 10/03/2020)  (Archive)

“Representative Devin Nunes declared Sunday that US Intelligence agencies should be forced to release so-called ‘smoking gun’ documents that are said to contain details of Russian intelligence referring to an authorization given by Hillary Clinton to link President Trump to efforts by the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election.

In a Fox News interview, Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said“Every Republican senator and member of Congress should be saying… we want every damn bit of evidence that every intelligence agency has or it’s maybe time to shut those agencies down.”

A memo released last week via the Senate Judiciary Committee, penned by the director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe claims that US intelligence made an investigative referral to the FBI regarding the information in September 2016.

In the memo, Ratcliffe notes that the referral mentioned “approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her [Hillary’s] use of a private mail server.”

“There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence to know this Maria, that the Clinton campaign had created all of this because they knew that 33,000 emails were out there somewhere,” Nunes said.

“So what did they do? They created a sick fantasy. This was the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign created this sick fantasy. Then they went out and hired avatars to do it.” Nunes added, referring to the effort to delegitimize Trump’s campaign.

“So they hired a former British spy named [Christopher] Steele who did the ‘Steele Dossier,’” Nunes continued, adding “Then they hired this suspected Russian spy so they could give it a veneer of being a Russian. So imagine that.”

Because the information has remained classified, those who have seen it cannot discuss it. (Read more: Summit News, 10/05/2020)  (Archive)

“President Donald Trump is working to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation while he recovers from coronavirus at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, his chief of staff said Monday.

“This morning we’ve already had a couple of discussions on items that he wants to get done,” Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

“Candidly, he’s already tasked me with getting declassification rolling in a follow up to some of the requests that Devin Nunes and others have made.”

Meadows did not go into detail about the documents he is working to declassify or the timeline on which they will be released. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has called for the declassification of a variety of documents from the FBI and U.S. intelligence community related to the investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia in 2016.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Nunes discussed two sets of documents he wants released to the American public. He called for the release of memos from interviews that the FBI conducted with the primary source for dossier author Christopher Steele in January, February and May 2017.” (Read more: The Daily Caller, 10/05/2020)  (Archive)

(Illustration: Yahoo News/Associated Press/Getty Images)

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified documents revealing that former CIA Director John Brennan had briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia — as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Ratcliffe declassified two items — two pages of Brennan’s handwritten notes — taken after he briefed Obama on intelligence the CIA received; and a CIA memo that showed that the CIA referred the matter to the FBI for potential further investigation.

Most of Brennan’s handwritten notes are redacted. However, the unredacted portions say: “We’re [gaining] additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED].”

“Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton [on 26 July] of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services,” he wrote.

An intelligence official said on background about the revelation:

The American people deserve to see how the Obama-Biden White House and their appointees at DOJ and CIA politicized our work, because many of them are trying to regain power now. We just want to keep the American people safe. It’s what we spend every waking hour focusing on. We don’t want to go back to our important work being abused as a political weapon of the Democrats.

The rest of Brennan’s notes appear to be linked to different Obama administration officials — possibly of what they said or wanted follow-up action on.

Enclosure 2 (Dcia Memo, 09-… by Sara

In the left margin, he wrote “POTUS,” and to the right, he then made three bulleted notes. Two are redacted, but one said: “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia.”

He then wrote “JC” in the left margin — a likely reference to then-FBI Director James Comey, and took four additional bulleted notes on the right, all of which are redacted.

He drew another line, with no additional name, for one bulleted note that is redacted.

Another line was drawn, and below that in the left margin he wrote “Denis” — likely in reference to then-White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and added one redacted note.

He drew another line, and below it in the left margin wrote “Susan” — likely then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice. To the right, he added five bulleted notes, and put an asterisk by one of the notes. All of the notes are redacted.

RealClearInvestigations journalist Paul Sperry tweeted on Monday evening that the Clinton foreign policy adviser who allegedly proposed vilifying Trump is Jake Sullivan, who is now a top Biden campaign aide.

DEVELOPING: The “foreign policy adviser” who allegedly proposed “vilify[ing] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services” was Jake Sullivan, now a top Biden aide. Hillary OK’d his proposal on July 26, 2016–days before FBI opened probe

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) October 6, 2020

(Read more: Breitbart, 10/06/2020)  (Archive)

Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel testify on worldwide threats during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on January 29, 2019.  (Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

(…) Looking back on news reporting concerning Haspel, we turn (with caution) to a Washington Post article from July 2019 by Shane Harris, titled: “The quiet director: How Gina Haspel manages the CIA’s volatile relationship with Trump”. We are supposed to believe that Haspel and her office did not cooperate with the reporter for the article. Harris disclaims Haspel involvement by writing:

“This report is based on interviews with 26 current and former officials who have worked with Haspel in the United States, particularly when she served in senior management roles at headquarters, and in London, where Haspel served two tours as the CIA’s top representative — chief of station — a plum post that is usually the steppingstone to the agency’s highest ranks.”

No Washington Post article in the last decade has contained such a scrupulous sourcing statement. Of course, Haspel had nothing to do with the article. Remember that, won’t you?

Haspel, twice-over Chief of Station in London, had close connections with the British intelligence and security services. Given the nature of the “special relationship” between the two countries, that is hardly surprising. Harris’s interviews of British intelligence officers take things a step further, however:

“… what she lacked in after-hours sociability she made up for with deep professional ties to the upper echelon of the British security establishment. ‘She had access to anyone in our service,’ the former British intelligence official said.”

Harris goes on to explain:

“Haspel has become the CIA’s linchpin to the Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, its most important foreign partner. Her British colleagues say that she knows them so well — warts and all — that they call her the ‘honorary U.K. desk officer.'”

In the next paragraph, Harris notes breathlessly:

“… Trump has accused the United Kingdom of conspiring with American intelligence to spy on his presidential campaign.”

President Trump certainly has made that claim, and one believes for very good reasons that seem to compound weekly. Reasons that make the “intelligence community” and 95% of “official Washington” extremely nervous. It is the sort of statement that presidential aides and counsels look nervous about, wring their hands and respectfully, earnestly plead: “But Mr. President, you just can’t say that sort of thing!” Truth be damned.

Concurrent with the FBI’s anti-Trump foreign counterintelligence operation, launched from the United Kingdom (with Haspel’s affirmative “coordination”), keep in mind that the UK’s version of the National Security Agency — the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) — was engaged in an aggressive Signals Intelligence campaign later codified in UK law as the Investigatory Powers Act (and referred to colloquially as the “Snoopers’ Charter”). Having the British run an aggressive intelligence collection operation against Team Trump targets, bypassing US legal prohibitions, and then laundering the intelligence “take” back to US officials via the UK-US liaison relationship is precisely something an “honorary UK desk officer” might be good and adept at accomplishing. (Read more: The Gatestone Institute, 10/06/2020)  (Archive)

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified documents that revealed former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s purported “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server” ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Fox News has learned.

Ratcliffe declassified Brennan’s handwritten notes – which were taken after he briefed Obama on the intelligence the CIA received – and a CIA memo, which revealed that officials referred the matter to the FBI for potential investigative action.

Enclosure 2 (Dcia Memo, 09-… by Sara

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence transmitted the declassified documents to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Tuesday afternoon.

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton [on July 26] a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” Brennan’s notes read.

“Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia,” the notes read.

The remainder of the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads:  “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.”

The notes don’t spell out the full names but “JC” could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, “Susan” could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and “Denis” could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.

(…)  Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesperson, called the allegations “baseless b———t.”

But Ratcliffe, in a statement released after the information was made public, pushed back on the idea he was advancing “Russian disinformation.”

“To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community,” Ratcliffe said in a statement to Fox News. “I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”

A source familiar with the documents told Fox News on Tuesday that the allegation was “not disinformation.”

“This is not Russian disinformation. Even Brennan knew, or he wouldn’t be briefing the president of the United States on it,” the source said. “There is a high threshold to orally brief the president of the United States and he clearly felt this met that threshold.”

(Read more: Fox News, 10/06/2020)  (Archive)