Former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos appears on Fox with Tucker Carlson to discuss the revelations of the FBI/CIA running spy operations against him during the 2016 election. Papadopoulos says the FBI spy wanted him to slip up and say something; however, he had no information.
The admissions within the New York Times story today -outlining how President Obama’s intelligence apparatus ran simultaneous intelligence operations against the Trump campaign- are starting to merge the FBI and CIA operations. CTH anticipated this.
With new information about the “U.K. operation” using Stefan Halper (CIA asset and FBI informant); and the details of the contacts by U.S. intelligence operative Azra Turk; we can overlay the timeline and see a clear picture.
On August 15th, 2016, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok discussed the “insurance policy“:
Two weeks later, September 2nd, 2016, CIA operative Stefan Halper reaches out to George Papadopoulos and introduces him to CIA/FBI asset Azra Turk.
This alignment between the CIA and FBI is not a surprise to anyone who has followed the story behind the 2015/2016 political surveillance issues. However, there’s a specific connection here many are missing.
Remember, everything AFTER March 9th, 2016, is a cover-story. Everything after March 9th, 2016, are operations from both the CIA and FBI to hide the political surveillance that was going on before March 9th, 2016. The surveillance was happening through exploitation of the NSA database through unauthorized FISA search queries; and involved both the CIA and FBI.
This is the point that has not been emphasized enough. However, FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer outlined the connection, albeit with mandatory redactions. The connective evidence is in a footnote on page #87 of Collyer’s report that few are paying attention to:
Read that carefully and you’ll see an agreement between the CIA and FBI to allow contractors. Note:
“[CIA] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding enter into [in ????])”
CTH believes that redacted date is 2012 as a result of another section of the report and the emphasis that Collyer is placing on the time-frame throughout her full report. Notice also:
“Despite the existence of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers) no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.”
So there was a secret agreement between the CIA and the FBI that was kept hidden from the FISA court until 2016 when Director Mike Rogers exposed and reported it.
The agreement centered around “access to FBI systems“; and, THIS IS IMPORTANT, we know the overarching issue was “deliberate decisionmaking” that led to “contractor access to the NSA database”, and the fact those contractors were searching “U.S. persons”.
Can you see the process now?
Can you see the potentially layered illegality of the process now?
CIA operatives (contractors) were using FBI portal access (per the secret agreement) to exploit the NSA database and extract search results. Remember, the CIA is not supposed to be conducting surveillance, aka “spying”, inside the U.S. on American citizens.
In essence the secret agreement, unknown to the court, was the CIA hiding their extraction of U.S. person information by using FBI database access. [Through the DOJ-NSD (National Security Division)] Now does it make sense why the DOJ would not allow Inspector General oversight?
In 2015 the Office of Inspector General 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 secret MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the CIA and FBI was the reason why the DOJ-NSD could never allow inspector general oversight.
In the Obama-era political surveillance programs the lines between the CIA and FBI were blurred. They were working together through contractors. This is why you are noticing blurred lines between the CIA and FBI in the construct of the cover-up.
This is the parallel tracks we previously described, copied below for reference:
Everything after March 9th, 2016, is a function of two intelligence units, the CIA and FBI, operating together to coverup prior political surveillance and spy operations.
Prior to March 9th, 2016, the surveillance and spy operation was using the NSA database to track and monitor their political opposition. However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. [Full Backstory]
The evidence for this is found in the documents attached to both operations; and bolsters the original statements by Congressman Devin Nunes as highlighted below.
♦The CIA track took place between March and July 2016, and consisted of using foreign intelligence allies in Italy, the U.K and Australia to create a background illusion of Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. This operation was based on earlier -more innocuous- contacts from various countries, weaponized and redeployed in what everyone calls “spygate”. This track successfully culminated in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
♦The FBI track was domestic-centric, albeit sub-contracted to Fusion GPS and later a former British intelligence officer, and took place between April and October 2016; also to create the illusion of Russian involvement. This operation is best known around the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page. The FBI track continued with the Mueller investigation into 2017, 2018 and 2019.
In April of 2018 Devin Nunes noted:
[Transcript] “So it took us a long time to actually get this, what’s called the electronic communication, as we know it now for your viewers, what it is it’s the original intelligence, original reasons that the counterintelligence was started.
Now this is really important to us because the counterintelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens. And we’ve long wanted to know: what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation? So what we’ve found now, after the investigators have reviewed it, is that in fact there was no intelligence.
So we have a traditional partnership with what’s called the Five Eyes Agreement. Five Eyes Agreement involves our friends in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and of course, us. So long time processes and procedures in place where we move intelligence across.
We are not supposed to spy on each others’ citizens. And it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government.
And that’s why we had to see that original communication. So now we’re trying to figure out, as you know, we are investigating the State Department, we think there’s some major irregularities in the State Department, and we’re trying to figure out how this information about Mr. Papadopoulos of all people who was supposedly meeting with some folks in London, how that made it over across into the FBI’s hands.” (video link)
The direct evidence for what Devin Nunes is describing is found in two specific documents. Each of the documents is unique to their track. One track is the CIA the other track is the FBI. The merging point that binds them is the U.S. State Department.
The evidence for the CIA track is found in the Weissmann-Mueller report. More specifically, it is found in the intentional way the report tries to conflate two contact points.
This track is CIA Director John Brennan’s work, with enlisted help from the FBI counterintelligence unit (Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap) as they travel to the U.K.
After western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud (posed as a Russian) plants a story on George Papadopoulos about Russia having “emails of Clinton”, the operation then needs Papadopoulos to share the information. That’s where a joint network comes in. The network is the U.S. embassy in London; the Australian embassy in London; the Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer; and his top aide Erika Thompson.
Notice page #89 of the report; but read carefully and specifically notice the date Weissmann and Mueller use to frame the Russia story extraction from Papadopoulos:
The meeting on May 6th, was NOT a meeting with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer. That meeting did not happen until May 10th. The recent release of documentsfrom Australia confirm this timeline.
The meeting on May 6th was between George Papadopoulos and Downer’s aide, Erika Thompson: …”that the Trump campaign had received information from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”
So, if the U.S. used the information from the May 6, 2016, meeting as conveyed on July 26th, 2016, it was the conversation with Erika Thompson that opened Crossfire Hurricane; not the meeting with Alexander Downer on May 10th. {Go Deep}
This subtle but important distinction in contact and communication reconciles the statement by Devin Nunes; because Thompson is also a reported intelligence operative (spy) and information from her would not be passing through “Five Eyes” official channels. However, for their intents and purposes, the U.S. operation needed to give the appearance of official channels, so the *inference* between the claim and the footnote *implies* Ambassador Downer. But you can see that’s not actually what happened.
This is an example of Weissmann/Mueller disguising the actual origin in their report. They are giving cover to the reality that unofficial intelligence was the actual basis for the originating “EC” or two-page electronic communication from CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey. It was that 2-page EC, likely written by FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, that initiated “Crossfire Hurricane”.
The page in the Weissmann/Mueller report is factually true but the inference is false. It is written in the way they intended, to give a false impression. It is quite subtle and sneaky.
What is outlined on Page #89 is also the CIA track that ran from March to July 31st, 2016.
The operation positioned Joseph Mifsud as a Russian spy; has him plant information on George Papadopoulos; then uses U.S. and AU operatives to withdraw the information; thereby giving the appearance that a Trump campaign official, Papadopoulos, was receiving and passing-on Russian intelligence. This is the CIA justification for creating the EC. This is the CIA cover story.
Now let’s review the evidence of the FBI track and how it also connects to the U.S. State Department. This one is more brutally obvious because the document had to be less ambiguous in construct. This involves the FISA application on U.S. Person Carter Page.
The second page of the FISA application used to gain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. Carter Page identifies where the material came from. Notice the direct attribution is to the State Department; not the DOJ or FBI, and certainly not Christopher Steele.
Applying hindsight to the backstory of the Clinton Campaign hiring Fusion GPS, and Fusion hiring Christopher Steele for the Dossier; and the dossier being passed on to the FBI and DOJ via various channels… Question: why would the DOJ be citing the State Department for their claim?
The answer is simple. Carter Page was a known person to the FBI and DOJ. Carter Page was a subject witness from 2012 to 2016 in the Evgeny Buryakov case [DOJ March 2016]. How could the FBI claim Carter Page was “an agent of a foreign power” to the FISA court in October 2016, when they only finished using him as a cooperating subject witness in May of 2016? [DOJ May 2016]
The short answers are: (1) they couldn’t; (2) they were in a big hurry; there was a sense of urgency; they needed the FISA and Steele Dossier as insurance policy; and (3) it wasn’t safe for the DOJ/FBI to make the ‘foreign agent‘ claim against their own prior witness if things went sideways.
Remember, this is all a coverup. Their efforts are about gaining position and appearances to justify a preceding action. Their efforts are not focused on an actual investigation. So they told the FISC the information came from the State Department and [Redacted]. Whichever source could give them the best legal justification to gain the FISA warrant was the leading point in the thought process.
Despite everything around the Steele Dossier primarily inbound from Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele to the DOJ and FBI, the people creating the FISA illusion needed to use the State Department as a valid reference for fraudulent claims they were making.
From the beginning Fusion-GPS was not hired to research Donald Trump; the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations. The intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion created the dossier for them.
The FBI knew Carter Page. Essentially Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {Go Deep} as their insurance policy.
So there we see two parallel tracks; one from the CIA, and one from the FBI. Both intended to provide a cover story for political surveillance and spy operations that preceded March 9, 2016. The CIA track created ‘crossfire hurricane’. The FBI track created the Steele Dossier. Both had the same purpose.
Both tracks originated from ‘unofficial channels’ and then transferred into official status through the use of two documents. The CIA generated the two-page “EC”; and the FBI generated the FISA application from the Steele Dossier.
Both tracks held the same coverup purpose; both tracks were insurance policies; and both tracks merged for intelligence exploitation after President Trump won the election. After the election the goal was shifted to remove the risk Trump represented.
Once they had the legal justifications for targeting Trump, albeit fraudulently obtained, the effort could move into phase three: by-the-book processes. The FBI track evolved into the Mueller probe; that’s why the Dossier is so important to the validity of the special counsel.
Everything after March 9th, 2016, through today – is covering for everything that happened before March 9th when “contractors” were allowed by the FBI and DOJ to have weaponized access to the NSA database for political surveillance and spy operations.
This two-track process and ultimate merging is what all of the documentary evidence supports. I suspect when the arc of the story concludes, this is where we will be.
The most important sentence in Judge Collyer’s brief:
…”many of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges.”..
This Page #82 sentence specifically highlights that during the 2016 presidential campaign, those who had access to the NSA database were searching the same phone numbers, email addresses, electronic “identifiers”, or people, repeatedly over different dates.
A report in the New York Times, transparently timed and placed by officials within the intelligence apparatus trying to get out ahead of internal investigations, outlines how the FBI sent counterintelligence spies to engage with Trump campaign officials in 2016.
In a stunning admission The New York Times describes how the FBI enlisted a female agent to work the “operation” in the U.K. during August-September 2016 posing as an aide for U.S. intelligence asset/FBI informant Stefan Halper.
Halper was an FBI operative and Cambridge professor who set up meetings with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos. The female agent used a fake name, Azra Turk, and presented herself as an assistant to Stefan Halper; however, she was actually an undercover intelligence operative of the FBI.
NYT […] The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it“Spygate.”
Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper. The move was a sign that the bureau wanted in place a trained investigator for a layer of oversight, as well as someone who could gather information for or serve as a credible witness in any potential prosecution that emerged from the case.
A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment, as did a lawyer for Mr. Halper, Robert D. Luskin. Last year, Bill Priestap, then the bureau’s top counterintelligence agent who was deeply involved in the Russia inquiry, told Congress during a closed-door hearing that there was no F.B.I. conspiracy against Mr. Trump or his campaign.
Obviously the group (CIA, DOJ and FBI) who constructed the political surveillance and spy operations are trying to present their side of the story, prior to investigation by AG Bill Barr and the soon-to-be-released IG report.
The London operation yielded no fruitful information, but F.B.I. officials have called the bureau’s activities in the months before the election both legal and carefully considered under extraordinary circumstances.
They are now under scrutiny as part of an investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general. He could make the results public in May or June, Attorney General William P. Barr has said. Some of the findings are likely to be classified.
It is unclear whether Mr. Horowitz will find fault with the F.B.I.’s decision to have Ms. Turk, whose real name is not publicly known, meet with Mr. Papadopoulos.
Mr. Horowitz has focused among other things on the activities of Mr. Halper, who accompanied Ms. Turk in one of her meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos and also met with him and other campaign aides separately. The bureau might also have seen Ms. Turk’s role as essential for protecting Mr. Halper’s identity as an informant if prosecutors ever needed court testimony about their activities.
Notice how the leaker of this information to the New York Times appears to have direct knowledge of exactly what IG Horowitz has investigated. This leaked story is coming from within the still employed corrupt elements of the FBI.
[…] This account was described in interviews with people familiar with the F.B.I. activities of Mr. Halper, Ms. Turk and the inspector general’s investigation. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the subjects of a continuing inquiry.
As part of Mr. Horowitz’s investigation, his office has examined Mr. Halper’s past work as an F.B.I. informant and asked witnesses about whether agents had adequate control of Mr. Halper’s activities, people familiar with the inquiry have said.
While in London in 2016, Ms. Turk exchanged emails with Mr. Papadopoulos, saying meeting him had been the “highlight of my trip,” according to messages provided by Mr. Papadopoulos. “I am excited about what the future holds for us :),” she wrote.
Notice how The New York Times is intentionally conflating the timing and sequencing of events in this article.
[…] One of the agents involved in the Russia inquiry, a seasoned counterintelligence investigator out of New York, turned to Mr. Halper, whom he viewed as a reliable and trusted informant. They had a longstanding relationship; the agent had even spoken at an intelligence seminar that Mr. Halper taught at the University of Cambridge, discussing his work investigating a Russian espionage ring known as the illegals.
[That section tells the possibilities of who the FBI agent might be. [TWE] George J. Ennis, Jr. (ASAC NY Counterintelligence), Alan E. Kohler Jr. (SSA, NY Counterintelligence) and Stephen M. Somma (SA, NY Counterintelligence) attended the intelligence seminar by Stefan Halper in 2011 (LINK). Alan Kohler, FBI representative at the United States Embassy in London, returned to the seminar in May 2014 (LINK) George Ennis was named the Special Agent In Charge of the Administrative Division at the New York Field Office on April 1, 2015, having had a background in counterterrorism and counterintelligence. (LINK)]
Mr. Halper had the right résumé for the task. He was a foreign policy expert who had worked for the Pentagon. He had been gathering information for the F.B.I. for about two decades and had good contacts in Chinese and Russian government circles that he could use to arrange meetings with high-ranking officials, according to a person briefed on Mr. Halper’s relationship with the F.B.I.
The F.B.I. instructed Mr. Halper to set up a meeting in London with Mr. Papadopoulos but gave him few details about the broader investigation, a person familiar with the episode said.
His job was to figure out the extent of any contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russia. Mr. Halper used his position as a respected academic to introduce himself to both Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Page, whom he also met with several times. He arranged a meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in London to discuss a Mediterranean natural gas project, offering $3,000 for his time and a policy paper.
[…] The F.B.I. also decided to send Ms. Turk to take part in the operation, people familiar with it said, and to pose as Mr. Halper’s assistant. For the F.B.I., placing such a sensitive undertaking in the hands of a trusted government investigator was essential.
British intelligence officials were also notified about the operation, the people familiar with the operation said, but it was unclear whether they provided assistance. A spokeswoman for the British government declined to comment.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that British intelligence spied on his campaign, an accusation the British government has vigorously denied. Last month, the president quoted on Twitter an accusation that the British had spied on his campaign and added: “WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!”
When Mr. Papadopoulos arrived in London on Sept. 15, he received a text message from Ms. Turk. She invited him for drinks.
In his book, “Deep State Target,” Mr. Papadopoulos described her as attractive and said she almost immediately began questioning him about whether the Trump campaign was working with Russia, he wrote.
Mr. Papadopoulos was baffled. “There is no way this is a Cambridge professor’s research assistant,” he recalled thinking, according to his book.
The day after meeting Ms. Turk, Mr. Papadopoulos met briefly with Mr. Halper at a private London club, and Ms. Turk joined them. The two men agreed to meet again, arranging a drink at the Sofitel hotel in London’s posh West End.
Notice how Ms. Turk is the primary focus of the interaction.
Turk emailed Papadopoulos; Turk text’d Papadopoulos; Turk met him for drinks etc. However, Halper only “met briefly” with Papadopoulos with Turk present. FBI agent Turk is the working operative here, agent Halper is simply the inconsequential cover.
During that conversation, Mr. Halper immediately asked about hacked emails and whether Russia was helping the campaign, according to Mr. Papadopoulos’s book. Angry over the accusatory questions, Mr. Papadopoulos ended the meeting.
The F.B.I. failed to glean any information of value from the encounters, and Ms. Turk returned to the United States.
Mr. Halper continued to work with the F.B.I. and later met with Mr. Page repeatedly in the Washington area. The two had coincidentally run into each other in July as well at Cambridge, according to people familiar with the episode.
At the urging of Mr. Page, he met another campaign aide, Sam Clovis, Mr. Trump’s campaign co-chairman, to discuss foreign policy. (read more)
It’s obvious the people who ran these spy operations into the Trump campaign are nervous now. After years of denying spying; and after weeks of apoplectic pearl-clutching over AG Barr’s use of the word “spy”; the New York Times now outlines spying directly?
Make sure you go back and re-read the House testimony transcript of how Papadopoulos describes this interaction with Turk and Halper (embed below). Start around page 101
George Papadopoulos@GeorgePapa19I agree with everything in this superb article except “Azra Turk” clearly was not FBI. She was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel. She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with
Mark Mazzetti@MarkMazzettiNYTNEW: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share …
George Papadopoulos@GeorgePapa19I think the meeting between the President and the U.K. PM will be even more interesting now. The day there was a CIA op against me in London, Halper/Turk, the #2 at the U.K. ministry of foreign affairs invited me to the offices to continue to spy on me and probe me more.
(Papadopoulos Testimony to House Committee start around page 101)
.
Representative Doug Collins and Asst. Attorney General Stephen Boyd blast Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler for blatant politicization of the House Judiciary Committee.
Nero’s Domus Transitoria (Transit House) has finally opened to visitors after 10 years of renovations. Even I have never visited this place despite all the times I have been to Rome. You must descend underground to view the rooms and gardens of the residence, covered over the centuries by other buildings and debris. This was the first palace of Nero, which was nearly destroyed entirely during the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Of course, the stories of FAKE NEWS in those days portrayed Nero as playing the fiddle while the Rome burned. He built his more famous palace on the ruins of Rome, which is why people created the conspiracy theory that he set Rome on fire deliberately so he could build his grand palace.
The Great Fire of Rome took place during July of 64 AD. The fire ravaged Rome for six days, destroying 70% of the city and leaving half its population homeless. For one thing, the fiddle didn’t exist in ancient Rome since it only made its appearance during the 11th century. There is no such evidence that Nero played any role during the Great Fire. The Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD) wrote that Nero was rumored to have sung about the destruction of Troy while watching the city burn. However, he stated clearly that this was unconfirmed by eyewitness accounts. That was the origin of the saying. When the Great Fire broke out, Nero was at his villa at Antium, some 35 miles from Rome. Nero was not even in Rome during the Great Fire. He was the victim of fake news, and as I have written, he was the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Rome fell into civil war upon his death. We may see Trump become the last real person elected. From here on out, it is going to get nasty in politics.
It is interesting timing that after 10 years the palace is now own. Will Trump be like Nero, not just the victim of fake news, but the last of a dynasty of elected presidents to be followed by civil unrest?
President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump participate in a White House dinner on the eve of the National Day of Prayer.
Earlier today John Solomon wrote an article noting how congressional investigators were reviewing Nellie Ohr testimony against last month’s release of FOIA documents. There are significant differences between Mrs. Ohr’s testimony about her communication and contacts with DOJ and FBI officials, and the scale of contact within the FOIA release.
According to an interview with Representative Jim Jordan, Rep Mark Meadows was considering a criminal referral. This evening, John Solomon is following up and affirming Nellie Ohr has now been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution (pdf below).
This doesn’t come as a surprise following the release of transcripts and the ability to contrast testimony from 2018 with recent discoveries and evidence. As a point of fact, Ms. Ohr also lied in her testimony about the timing of her Ham Radio license and use.
Not coincidentally, Fusion-GPS owner Glenn Simpson is also being reviewed for lying to investigators about his contacts and activity in connection to the dossier. Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion-GPS and it would appear Fusion was at the center of the effort to construct evidence to support the 2016 election operation against Donald Trump.
John Solomon@jsolomonReportsBreaking: Criminal referral filed against Nellie Ohr concerning congressional testimony after emails surface showing election-year contacts with DOJ https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us#.XMo3POquQ5U.twitter …Nellie Ohr’s ‘Hi Honey’ emails to DOJ about Russia collusion should
Emails that Nellie Ohr sent to DOJ during the 2016 election, their timing and subject matters, have raised questions in Congress.
thehill.com
Prior to March 9th, 2016, the political surveillance and spy operations of the Obama administration were using the FBI and NSA database to track/monitor their opposition. However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. [Full Backstory]
After the NSA alerts, in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal albeit ex post facto justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
Since 2017 CTH research has outlined that Christopher Steele was never the factual source of all the material inside the Clinton financed dossier. Instead all indications of the granular details point toward Christopher Steele as the laundry process; where Nellie Ohr and Glenn Simpson’s collaborative work was formatted into an intelligence product known as the “Steele Dossier”.
Our research of central dossier claims, suppositions, accuracy and inaccuracy, points toward a process where Nellie Ohr provided Chris Steele with her research material and then Chris Steele was tasked with verifying, finding second sourcing, and formatting the final product into a series of intelligence documents that could be passed back to the FBI.
In essence, Nellie has always been the material dossier author.
Fusion-GPS’s Glenn Simpson hired (contracted) Nellie Ohr in December of 2015. It is highly likely this arrangement was due to Nellie’s research access to the FBI/NSA database. Mrs. Ohr was almost certainly doing unauthorized wide-ranging FISA(702) searches using “about queries” (option 17) and “To/From queries” (option 16).
At the conclusion of her effort (providing material she knew the FBI was exploiting for the Trump-Russia ‘spygate’ scheme), the memory stick Nellie provided to Bruce was the totality of all her raw research files. Those files included stuff Chris Steele had already compiled; raw stuff that neither was able to verify (Cohen-Prague); and search results that never made their way into the dossier.
Turning over all of the raw research would allow the FBI to explore and/or re-explore the information to see if they could extract more value. My suspicion is the memory stick from Nellie Ohr to her husband Bruce Ohr provided the unlawfully extracted seed material for what the Mueller investigation ultimately used against Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn. [The Papadopoulos and Page stuff was not as valuable]
With this hand-off, the FBI research and investigative unit assisting Robert Mueller’s 2017 assembled team of prosecutors etc. was essentially the same FBI small group who constructed the 2016 insurance policy.
Nellie’s files gave Team Mueller a head-start. They didn’t need to look for too much evidence as Nellie had already explored and extracted the material they could use. It’s really not a hard pattern of dot connection once you follow the timeline and process.
Saagar Enjeti✔@esaagar
1/ NEW: Nellie Ohr exchanged 339 pages of emails with DOJ ofcls incl Bruce Ohr and met with DOJ prosecutors, including while working at Fusion GPS. This appears to contradict her previous testimony before Congress. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us#.XMoCeaNTrcY.twitter …
Saagar Enjeti✔@esaagar
2/ @Jim_Jordan tells me today that based on this information he believes @MarkMeadows “is working to finalize” a criminal referral of Nellie Ohr. “We’ll see if that happens.” https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us#.XMoCeaNTrcY.twitter … pic.twitter.com/gDKCnh0bkw
This is disturbing: “This is the third case in less than a year in which a former US intelligence officer has pled or been found guilty of conspiring with Chinese intelligence services to pass them national defense information.”
VIA DOJ – A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) case officer pleaded guilty today to conspiring to communicate, deliver and transmit national defense information to the People’s Republic of China. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia, Assistant Director for Counterintelligence John Brown of the FBI and Assistant Director in Charge Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement after Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III accepted the plea.
According to court documents, Jerry Chun Shing Lee, 54, left the CIA in 2007 and began residing in Hong Kong. In April 2010, two Chinese intelligence officers (IOs) approached Lee and offered to pay him for national defense information he had acquired as a CIA case officer. The IOs also told Lee they had prepared for him a gift of $100,000 cash, and they offered to take care of him “for life” in exchange for his cooperation.
Beginning sometime in May 2010 and continuing into at least 2011, Lee received requests for information, or taskings, from the Chinese IOs. The majority of the taskings asked Lee to reveal sensitive information about the CIA, including national defense information. On May 14, 2010, Lee made or caused to be made a cash deposit of $138,000 HKD (approximately $17,468 in USD) into his personal bank account in Hong Kong. This would be the first of hundreds of thousands of dollars (USD equivalent) in cash deposits Lee made or caused to be made into his personal HSBC account from May 2010 through December 2013. (read more)
Unrelated. I’m wondering if “Assistant Director for Counterintelligence John Brownof the FBI” is the “John” in this text exchange:
“Andy” is Andrew McCabe (Former FBI Deputy Director)
“Bill” is Bill Priestap (Former FBI Director of Counterintelligence)
“Jen” is Jennifer Boone (FBI Counterproliferation unit)
“John” might very well be John Brown. Asst. Director for Counterintelligence
Then a similar case was discovered. An award winning contributor to Sueddeutsche Zeitung Magazine, Dirk Gieselmann, had invented a main protagonist in a story he wrote. The SZ stated the forgery had taken place, but revealed few details, while suggesting the case was not as severe as that of Relotius.
One way or another, do two known recent cases of fictitious journalism in Germany make the problem systemic?
But what about the infamous fake news? And alternative facts? Those have been around for a while. Is that something totally different from making up plots and characters as in the above mentioned cases?
Even though it was Donald Trump who was credited with creating the fake-news brand, it was largely applied to his own statements, as well as various stories, posts and tweets coming out of Russia, on its behalf, in favour of its perceived friends, and against its perceived enemies.
Yet, has the fake news era really started with Trump and his collusion with Russia, that never actually was? While some call the Trump era “post-truth”, how should we refer to the times when, for example, a Labour prime minister was lying blatantly to justify a war that was to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians? Or what was the director of National Intelligence in the administration of a progressive predecessor of President Trump doing as he denied NSA were spying on Americans? He was lying, as it became obvious from Edward Snowden’s revelations a little later, but it was a lie before the post-truth era kicked off “officially”.
I had to do my fair share of pondering on the fake news issue while dealing with the story of Sergei Magnitsky and William Browder. I started investigating the story well before the Trump era, but the consequences of my findings revealed in a film played out fully in the context of the new ideological war between Russia and the West.
In the course of the preparations for a new film I am to shoot this year, I wrote to Frederik Obermaier, a Munich based journalist known for the investigation of the famous Panama Papers leak. Obermaier won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the Panama Papers, as part of an ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) team. Mr Obermaier was one of the authors of the article “The Cellist and the dead Lawyer” (in the English version: “The Magnitsky Case“) published by Suedeutsche on 27 April 2016.
My new film deals, inter alia, with the ways money is laundered, and I wanted to interview Mr Obermeier, who, along with his ICIJ colleagues, has become an authority on the subject. The article Mr Obermeier co-wrote was of a particular interest to me as it appeared to have traced the money stolen in the fraud associated with the name of Sergei Magnitsky. ICIJ has recently reminded its subscribers of the great investigative article by the German colleagues, published exactly three years ago.
The article seems to have established a connection between the Magnitsky Affair (which my previous film was about) and a friend of Vladimir Putin, Sergei Roldugin. My forthcoming film is in many ways a sequel to the film about the fraud at the centre of the Magnitsky Case.
While studying Frederik Obermaier’s article and its sources I realised that it was full of mistakes. I made a list of the most obvious ones and emailed it to Mr Obermaier on the 23 October 2018. Having not heard back I sent another email on 21 November attaching an updated list of mistakes complete with explanations and links to documents disproving the majority of the claims in the article. The first time round I asked Mr Obermaier for an interview, but then I suggested we discuss the matter off the record. Anyone can make mistakes, but the ability to admit them is as important as the talent for authoring good stories, in my humble opinion. I got no response from Frederik Obermaier whatsoever.
Browder is wanted by Russia for tax evasion. He claims that the Russian criminal charges are politically motivated. Yet, the tax evasion (as well as a number of related crimes) Browder is being accused of happened in 2001, the criminal probe into it starting in 2004. It is well known, and easily evidenced, that Browder was an outspoken supporter of Putin and his government until at least 2005.
Putin understood that the country would never succeed with seven oligarchs at the helm — particularly since their interests were so counter to those of the nation. He has set clear limits to the oligarchs’ power and their meddling in the affairs of state. While there may be some things about Putin that we disagree with, we should give him the benefit of the doubt in this area and fully support him in his task of taking back control of the country from the oligarchs.
To divert attention from the the proven 2001-2004 tax evasion case, as well as the suspicion that he may have been involved in the 230 million dollar tax rebate, Browder invented a figure of the crusading anti-corruption lawyer, whistleblower, Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky existed of course, but he was Browder’s accountant, not a lawyer, and he never blew whistle on anything.
Tragically, Magnitsky died while in pre-trial detention. Browder claims he was beaten to death by eight “riot guards”. Browder presents no evidence for that, apart from selective quotations from Russian documents. Studied in full those documents, as well as an American report commissioned by Browder himself, make no mention of a murder, let alone a murder by beating. The author of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe report on Magnitsky, Andreas Gross told me on camera that Magnitsky had not been murdered but died of the “lack of care”.
The investigative journalists at Sueddeutsche Zeitung claim to have traced money flows from the Magnitsky affair, but appear unwilling to recognise that they had uncritically embraced the affair’s interpretation by someone with a vested interest in it.
It is also highly ironic that the journalists, writing about Browder’s Russian business, chose to ignore that Browder himself used off-shore schemes extensively, with the help of his Russian staff that included Magnitsky. Companies controlled by Browder have also appeared in Panama papers, e.g Berkeley Advisors and Starcliff.
In the spring of 2016 my film was secretly, and possibly illegally, seen by U.S. government officials before its premiere at the European parliament was stopped on the 27th of April, and the ARTE transmission cancelled on the 3rd of May. One of those officials was Robert Otto, a top intelligence officer at the State Department who wrote in one of many e-mails that were later leaked online. “I am beginning to feel we are all just part of the Browder P.R. machine.” – Mr Otto wrote.
I was not contacted by the SZ, either before the cancelled European Parliament screening or thereafter.
On 13 June 2018 Telepolis organised a screening of my film in Munich, with a following discussion. Frederik Obermaier and Tim Neshitov, who had written about the Magntisky case for the SZ were invited. No-one turned up, nor replied to the invitation.
The “money tracing” SZ/Panama Papers used trying to connect the Magnitsky fraud to Sergei Roldugin, was in its main part presented in the U.S. case against Prevezon Holdings Ltd (2013-2017). After almost five years of trying to prove that Prevezon received and laundered money from the Magnitsky fraud, the American government decided to avoid the litigation and to settle the case with no guilt admitted by Prevezon.
Prevezon lawyers questioned Browder as a witness under oath. It was Browder (as he himself admitted) who had personally handed Preet Bharara, then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the version of the Magnitsky story that I disprove in my film. William Felix Browder was the source of the whole sprawling, costly case. And it’s his Magnitsky story that was essentially disproved in a court of law.
Yet the mainstream media, including the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, had no interest in taking another look at their articles which had faithfully re-transmitted Browder’s false story. And a stony, arrogant silence was all I got trying politely and tactfully to point out serious mistakes.
Panama papers became a brand name for the press standing up to corruption and wrongful secrecy of those in the position of power, whether financial or political. It would be paradoxical and particularly regrettable if a journalist, a colleague, would use a power he has acquired through a reputation for openness and association with mainstream German and international investigative networks, to obfuscate legitimate questions and documented objections.
Andrei Nekrasov has put out an article on the fake news that was behind the Magnitsky Case. He documents how there was never any evidence behind Bill Browder’s claims. Nevertheless, we are left with a question. Was all of this created fraud by Bill Browder or was there those in power who could care less if the story was true, they have been able to use it to create isolation of Russia and paint Putin as an evil warlord.
Western powers immediate moved nukes into place and pushed up against the borders of Russia. The neocons hate Trump and for whatever reason, they simply want war without purpose other than they seem to want to dominate the world and they accuse others. Every president before Trump strived for world peace. Here they are desperate to tie Trump to Putin to maintain a cold war if not turn it hot.
The Magnitsky Case is a great film. It has been banned and that is why it is the real story. If it was fake, they would let it air. But they are desperate to ban the Magnitsky Case as they were with our movie the Forecaster. There is something sinister behind the curtain and you can bet it is more than the Democrats – it involved the neocons as well.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 