Oh, this is funny.  Fox News host Steve Hilton is well versed in the issues where U.S. government officials sent money to Ukraine and then received personal financial benefit from a return of those funds to their own interests.  A circle of corrupt money.

As Mr. Hilton expands on the issues of corrupt U.S. officials using Ukraine as a piggy-bank for their own affluence, he highlights examples of both Joe Biden and former Secretary of State John Kerry.   Former State Dept. Spokesperson Marie Harf, is shocked, s.h.o.c.k.e.d, at the allegations…. and then, they are all saved by the bull-Shiff bell.  WATCH:

.

Too funny.  Well done Mr. Hilton.

Slightly longer version (video embed in tweet):

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)

Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.

What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public.  This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.

The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence.  Page One:

Flynn’s defense calls out the ridiculous.  The prosecution argues it had no obligation to tell the target about any material favorable to the defense while the prosecution was piling-on pressure to generate a plea agreement.   Then, once the plea was coerced, the prosecution claims they have no obligation to provide Brady material because the target signed a plea.

Flynn’s defense points out the ridiculous nature of the prosecution claiming they don’t possess any FD-302 draft prior to the lengthy back-and-forth, discussion and editorial process within the FBI small group that resulted in the February 15th “official” FD-302 report.

Just because prosecutor Van Grack doesn’t have the original draft in his pocket, “if it did exist”, does not mean the government does not have access to produce the 302 draft everyone knows exists within the FBI’s electronic filing system.

Flynn’s original defense lawyers (firm: Covington, Kelner, Anthony, and Langton Inc.) were the attorneys who advised Flynn on how to complete the FARA paperwork/filing.  When the DOJ threatened to use the FARA filing as evidence against Flynn, and then later against Michael Flynn Jr., in essence the DOJ was accusing Covington of participating in the manufacturing false documentation.

The Covington lawyers held a material interest in the DOJ dropping the FARA aspect to their prosecution; and by extension the Covington lawyers recommending that Flynn accept a plea agreement to remove that legal issue was a profound conflict.

In their surreply the DOJ downplayed this conflict despite the prosecution taking copious and careful notes about it during the time they were using the FARA violation to compel the plea deal.  The defense team does not allow the DOJ to be so obtuse in their sur-surreply.

Every page is filled with articulate facts and sound legal justification that deconstruct the position of an ethically challenged prosecution.  However, this footnote is particularly cogent in outlining the question everyone, including Judge Sullivan, holds in the back of their mind.

The defense team notes the profound conflict of interest that was carried by Mr. Flynn’s original defense team during their interview sessions prior to the plea agreement; and the defense appropriately puts that defense conflict into context amid the pressure simultaneously being applied by the government.

In essence: ‘Nice family you have there Mr. Flynn, it would be a shame if something happened to them; by the way, how’s that new grand-baby getting along?’…

The defense articulates that sometime in the future they will likely file a motion to dismiss this case…. However, in the interim the defense is proceeding on a proper course to determine the scale, scope and backroom shenanigans that took place throughout the FBI and DOJ effort against their client.

The sur-surreply is truly a great read and this motion presents Judge Sullivan with information that not only supports the original Motion to Compel, but also provides important context for how this abusive case metastasized within a special counsel who was purposed on a precondition that targeting Michael Flynn was a priority.

For the prosecution in this case, the continuation of the brady process to discover the background information/evidence might just be a worse option than withdrawing the charges.

Please read the full filing:

.

Lt. General Michael Flynn is very well represented.   It will be interesting to see how Judge Emmet Sullivan responds to these latest developments.

According to recent reports U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are 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 comes from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be mounting 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 in to 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:

(Link to pdf)

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 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 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 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?

Adam Schiff had a little Freudian slip on Twitter today as he outlined how his impeachment team views President Trump defending himself against  baseless accusations.  “Efforts to intimidate or threaten witnesses will further build the case for obstruction, itself an impeachable offense.”

No-one is “threatening” or “intimidating” a witness, President Trump is asking questions about the credibility of the no-longer-anonymous whistle-blower.  However, no whistle-blower has the right to be anonymous.  Even the statute that protects whistleblowers only applies to retaliation.  It is ridiculous to think whistleblowers can remain anonymous.

That said, within the tweeted messaging from Adam Schiff there is the indicator of exactly what all of this investigative nonsense is designed to create: a case for obstruction.

Just like the false accusations within the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative, the end goal of the Mueller team was actually “obstruction.”  Indeed, after quickly discovering there was nothing to the ‘collusion/conspiracy’, the Weissmann/Mueller team spent the majority of their time and effort trying to construct an obstruction of justice charge.

Now we see the same process developing within Schiff’s phony Ukraine quid-pro-quo investigation.  There’s no validity to the originating premise, so the investigative effort shifts toward building an “obstruction” impeachment charge.

In both examples any action taken by President Trump to defend himself against false charges is re-framed as evidence of obstruction.

This impeachment approach highlights why Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and contracted Lawfare members Barry Berke and Norm Eisen are working diligently through the courts to gain access to the Mueller grand jury testimony.  {Go Deep}

The special counsel grand jury proceedings were 100% about questioning witnesses to frame an obstruction of justice case against President Trump.   Weissmann and Mueller spent most of their time shaping grand jury witnesses toward that objective.

There is ZERO DOUBT Nadler, Berke and Eisen have been fully debriefed by Andrew Weissmann and the special counsel team about what exactly was presented in that grand jury.  The impeachment by obstruction plan is why the HJC is going after the 6e material so hard.

Almost anything an innocent person does to defend themselves against false accusations can be made to look like obstruction.  Especially if the highest executive in the country is the one who stands falsely accused.  This approach has Lawfare written all over it.

Barry Berke (left), Norm Eisen (right), Jerry Nadler (far right, hiding)

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff…. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.

Representative Jim Jordan discusses the current status of the Democrat impeachment plan with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo.  Mr. Jordan breaks down the Democrat resolution that was passed last Thursday and highlights the ridiculous nature of the Dem Scheme.

Rumor in the DC grapevine is that a few weeks ago Tashina Guahar was quietly removed from her position as lawyer for the DOJ National Security Division (in charge of FISA applications).  This removal happened immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft report to Attorney General Bill Barr for classification review.   Ms. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing.

If confirmed, Guahar’s exit in advance of the IG report could indicate helpful participation, or DOJ Main Justice may be providing cover to protect Tash Guahar as they did with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe.  Keep eyes on a swivel, here’s why:

♦ On March 2nd, 2017, Tashina “Tash” Guahar was one of a small group of DOJ officials who participated in a conversation that led to the recusal of Jeff Sessions from anything related to the 2016 election.  This recusal included the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, later picked up (May 17th) by Robert Mueller.

Immediately following this meeting, AG Jeff Sessions announced his recusal.

The attendees for the recusal decision-making meeting (see above schedule) included Sessions’ chief of staff Jody Hunt; Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, Jim Crowell; Acting Deputy AG, ¹Dana Boente; Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division Tash Gauhar (FISA lawyer); and Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.

[Note: Tash Gauhar was lawyer for FBI Clinton case; and Scott Schools was part of draftingClinton exoneration letter.]

This was the Main Justice group who influenced Jeff Sessions to recuse.

Now, fast-forward to May, 2017:

Tuesday May 16th, 2017 –  In Main Justice at 12:30pm Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar are again part of another meeting.   I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo.  Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:

[Sidebar: pay attention to the *current* redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was pre-determined before the Oval Office meeting.]

While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, still May 16th, Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the oval office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence.

After six days of phone calls, emails and in person meetings, this visit to the White House was clearly Rod Rosenstein introducing Robert Mueller to the target of the investigation.  Rosenstein already knew he was going to appoint Mueller; and Mueller, along with the small group in the DOJ and FBI, already knew Mueller was going to be appointed.

Later that night (May 16th), following the Rosenstein-Mueller WH sting operation, there was a debriefing session back at Main Justice.  This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar taking notes.

[Mueller Report]

Considering the 2016 operation against candidate and president-elect Trump, as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division, FISA lawyer Tash Gauhar would have a specific, material and self-interested alignment with the ongoing DOJ/FBI effort to remove President Trump.

Either Tashing Guahar has cooperated with the Horowitz, Durham and Barr probes and left the DOJ prior to the IG report on FISA abuse (and her role therein) being made public, as part of an internal dynamic; -OR- the IG discoveries about direct and affiliated activity that surrounded Ms. Gauhar led to her pre-report exit as a Main Justice coverup.

Hope for the former; but keep an eye open for the latter.

With hindsight it is now clear the various players inside Main Justice and the FBI had a vested interest in maintaining the assault against Trump. In late 2019 everyone can see the bigger goal was against the office of POTUS. [“obstruction” etc.] All of the personnel moves should be reviewed with hindsight of the larger anti-Trump objective in mind.

Important Point – Against the known fraud that was the Trump-Russia Collusion-Conspiracy narrative, there are no visible 2016 and 2017 top-level DOJ/FBI people who didn’t participate in one form or another.

¹When Jeff Sessions became AG, Dana Boente became Acting Deputy AG, a role he would retain until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed on April 25th, 2017. [Mary McCord remained head of the DOJ-National Security Division] In 2019 Dana Boente is currently FBI chief legal counsel.

Tashina Guahar, Jim Crowell and Dana Boente all advised Jeff Sessions to recuse himself.

With AG Jeff Sessions recused on March 2, 2017, FBI Director James Comey reported to Acting Deputy AG Dana Boente.  [Technically, Boente was still EDVA U.S. Attorney and was only ‘acting’ as Deputy AG]  Additionally, on March 31st, 2017, President Trump signs executive order 13787 making the U.S. EDVA Attorney the 3rd in line for DOJ succession.

In the period between March 2nd and April 25th – With AG Sessions recused, and without a Deputy AG confirmed, Dana Boente is simultaneously:

• U.S. Attorney for EDVA
• Acting Deputy AG.
• Acting AG for all issues related to Sessions recusal.

James Comey & Dana Boente sign the April 2017 FISA renewal against Carter Page.

(Page #271 – Carter Page FISA Application)

This dynamic would later become important as notes Boente took from conversations with James Comey became evidence for Mueller’s expanded obstruction investigation.  [3/2/17 Mary McCord is still head of DOJ-NSD]

Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire.  However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when he actually left the DOJ-NSD or the EDVA role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Boente has shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker).  This decision is made while Weissmann and Mueller are using 19 lawyers, and 40 FBI investigators to continue their investigation of President Trump.

As FBI legal counsel Dana Boente now becomes a legal adviser to Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe is ongoing.  From the Mueller Report:

As we discovered earlier this year, Mueller’s lead FBI agent for the corrupt Russia collusion-conspiracy investigation, was David W. Archey.  Archey was selected by Robert Mueller when FBI Agent Peter Strzok was removed.  The Mueller probe took over the counterintelligence investigation May 17, 2017, a few months later Special Agent Peter Strzok was removed (July) and David W. Archey was brought in:

As David Archey arrives in August 2017, Mueller is getting the new scope memo from Rod Rosenstein.  The August scope memo authorizes the Mueller team to investigate the Steele Dossier.  There’s little doubt the entire FBI group would have known the Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative was false.  So David Archey status as lead agent has to be considered *corrupt/sketchy*; FBI activity was likely focused on the obstruction angle.

Interestingly at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation Archey was promoted by Christopher Wray to head of the Richmond, Virginia FBI field office on March 4, 2019.  This FBI field office overlaps with another FBI/DOJ filing from the EDVA.

A little more than a month after Archey takes over the Virginia FBI field office, 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:

(Link to pdf)

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 EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney.  The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?  Here’s where it gets interesting….

This 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)

It would appear the FBI took keen interest after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017.  Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama in December ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that entire narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

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.

There is the corrupt DOJ/FBI motive to shut Assange down.

There are no “good guys” in this. There are no “white hats” here. Certainly not Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch, Boente or Tashina Guahar. Instead, this is a matrix of broad interests positioned only to benefit and sustain the status quo of the administrative state; and protect the larger DC community from the Trump disruption.