News in Flynn Case – Documents Released and Judge Sullivan Has Well Founded Suspicions…


Things are going to get interesting in the Michael Flynn sentencing review; not because of the recently release documents [Here – and Here – and Here] but rather because it appears Judge Sullivan suspects what we’ve previously outlined.

In addition to the documents, Judge Sullivan is asking the DOJ to provide the transcript of the 12/29/16 call between Mike Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak.

Why is this important?  Because it appears Judge Sullivan suspects the transcript of the phone call will match statements from Flynn to the FBI.  Ergo Flynn did not lie to the FBI.

Since reviewing the November 30th, 2017, pleading we’ve been pointing out how the FBI admits to intercepting the Flynn-Kislyak call, but the FBI never put a factual transcript in the court record. Why not?

It’s a long, but necessary, story.

On December 29, 2016, President Obama announced a series of sanctions against Russians who were located in Maryland.  This was Obama’s carefully constructed response to provide additional validity to the Joint Analysis Report.  After fueling the Russia conspiracy for several weeks the Obama administration knew this action would initiate a response from both Russia and the incoming Trump administration.

After the December 29, 2016, sanctions against Russia, the Obama IC were monitoring Kislyak communications and watching for contact with the incoming Trump administration.

Additionally, it is suspected Flynn may have been under a FISA surveillance warrant which seems confirmed by the Weissmann/Mueller report. The FBI intercepted, recorded, and later transcribed the conversation.  [Notice how Judge Sullivan says: “and any other audio recordings”; ie he’s suspecting additional surveillance.]

In the January 2017 background, the media were continuing to follow the lead from the Obama White House, and Intelligence Community (writ large), by fueling a narrative that any contact with Russians was proof of collusion of some sort.   In addition, the communications team of the Obama White House, DOJ, FBI and aggregate IC began pushing a narrative surrounding the obscure Logan Act.

The ridiculous Logan Act angle was promoted by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and targeted to infer that any action taken by the Trump campaign prior to taking office was interference with the political Obama Russia action.  Any contact with Russian government officials would be evidence of collusion. That was the plan.  DOJ Deputy AG Sally Yates was in charge of pushing the Logan Act narrative to the media.

The first two weeks of January 2017 was a merging of two necessary narratives: (1) Russian interference; and (2) the Logan Act. Each deployed against any entity who would counter the Russia narrative story.

The media were running this dual narrative 24/7 against the incoming Trump officials and demanding repeated answers to questions that were framed around this story-line.

On January 3rd, 2017, the new congressional year began.  SSCI Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position within the Gang-of-Eight, and turned over the reigns to Senator Mark Warner.  Warner was now the vice-chair of the SSCI; and a Go8 member.

On January 6th, 2017, the Obama White House published the Intelligence Community Assessment, and declared:

We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.  (pdf link)

It is not coincidental the ICA was “high confidence” by Brennan and Clapper; and less confidence by Mike Rogers (NSA).

With the Flynn Dec. 29, 2016, transcript in hand, the DOJ and FBI began aiding the Logan Act narrative with Obama intelligence officials supporting the Russia Conspiracy claims and decrying anyone who would interfere or counter the official U.S. position.

On January 14th, 2017, the content of the communication between Flynn and Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post by an unknown entity. Likely the leak came from the FBI’s counterintelligence operation; the same unit previously carrying out the 2016 campaign spying operations. [Andrew McCabe is highly suspected]

The FBI CoIntel group (Strzok, McCabe etc.), and the DOJ-NSD group (Yates, McCord etc.) were the largest stakeholders in the execution of the insurance policy phase because they were the epicenter of spygate, fraudulent FISA presentations and the formation of the Steele Dossier.

The media leak of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak was critical because the DOJ/FBI were pushing a political narrative. This was not about legality per se’, this effort was about establishing the framework for a preexisting investigation, based on a false premise, that would protect the DOJ and FBI.  The investigation they needed to continue evolved into the Mueller special counsel.  This was all insurance.

The Flynn-Kislyak leak led to Vice-President Mike Pence being hammered on January 15th, 2017, during a CBS Face the Nation interview about Trump campaign officials in contact with Russians.  Pence was exceptionally unprepared to answer the questions and allowed the media to blend questions about campaign contacts with necessary, and entirely appropriate, transition team contacts.

Sunday January 15th, 2017 – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing.

Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

*NOTE* The incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media.  At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.  VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.

The toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview now became a much bigger issue.

Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised.  Michael Flynn is now contrast against Pence’s false point without clarification.  As National Security Advisor Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.

Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.

During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn.  [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]

How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry, and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th and what actually took place on December 29th, 2016, is why the FBI ended up with the initial conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.

It is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had an issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the text messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

[We’re not sure who “John” is, but we know “Bill” is Bill Priestap, FBI Deputy Director in charge of Counterintelligence. And “Jen” is Jennifer Boone, FBI counterproliferation division]

So it’s the day before they interview Flynn.

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?

The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  In essence they were admitting to monitoring Flynn, that’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap and the difference in public statements by VP Mike Pence.

There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and Flynn likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative: if Flynn is brutally honest, the media now runs with a narrative about Vice-President Pence as a national liar.  

Wednesday January 25th, 2017,  –  The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

Thursday January 26th – (afternoon)  Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

Friday January 27th – (morning)  White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

Friday January 27th – (late afternoonAccording to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

[*If you consider that McGahn was trying to thread the needle between Mike Pence’s poorly worded response to CBS, and Michael Flynn’s FBI questioning that came after Pence’s statement, McGahn would see the no-win situation Flynn was in during that inquisition.]

McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.

This why the issue of how the FBI agents write the 302 summary of the Flynn interview becomes such an important facet.   We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.

Don’t forget, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak to the Washington Post.  A massive leak of highly classified information:

Within the case against Michael Flynn, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack later filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and a delay in the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then another edit on May 31st, 2017.

To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)

What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating was a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview.  Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.

In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. In hindsight it seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.

However, we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

The interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.  The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it (three weeks after the FBI interview).

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the more brutally obvious reasons why authorizing Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein should be regarded as participating in a political framing against the Trump White House.  

The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview was the way the DOJ and FBI could control the interview content; and specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot openly challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.

See what happened?

Does it all make sense now?

Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview. Likely because Flynn didn’t lie; but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose. Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.

See how that went down?

However, after Weissmann and Mueller enter the picture, they need to force Flynn to admit to the construct of the 302 as presented.  For that they need some leverage.

The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017.  The recently released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe.  The first scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.

The second scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017.  The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.  One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

This second scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr.  Additionally this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):

General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey on/around July 31st, 2016.

The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak:

Page #12 October 20th, 2017, Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October 2017 timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon LVan Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and cornering him into a guilty plea

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo #2) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

Forcing a plea for ‘lying to investigators‘ by threatening prosecution for FARA violations was the identical strategy used against both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted.  After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby. 

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening.  A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

Congress v Trump – Have They Destroyed the Constitution?


Originally, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was “We The People.” The structural design was based largely on the writings of Montesque and embodied the separation of powers — Executive (bureaucracy), Congress (the people), and the Judiciary (the arbitrator). Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), at the age of 81, gave his assessment of the direction of the country in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention:

“…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

He understood it would be impossible to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering for he understood the cycles of history. After all, he was friends with Edward Gibbon who wrote the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and reviewed the text before it was published. Franklin believed that the Constitution they had just drafted “with all its faults” was still better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

There is a serious fault in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers neglected to take into account. I believe their judgment was colored by the propaganda which survived from Cicero who painted Julius Caesar as a dictator when in fact it was his own political party, known as the Optimates, who were a conservative political faction in the late Roman Republic.  The Optimates were the corrupt senators who had to flee Rome when Caesar approached because the people cheered Caesar against the corruption of the Senate. Due to the failure to truly uncover other contemporary writers when Gibbon was doing his research, the design of the United States was fatally constructed upon these misconceptions and we are now paying the price for those mistakes.

The Constitution was not supposed to be a self-actuating or a self-correcting document. Unfortunately, allowing it to be amended has destroyed its very intent. Once they installed the income tax on a progressive basis, they conveniently interpreted that you can discriminate against class and occupation but not anything else from religion to race and gender. We have proven that there is no EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and that the observation of Thrasymachus (c 459-400 BC) is the correct one of history — all governments interpret laws only in their own self-interest.

Even with constant attention and devotion of all citizens, our Constitution has utterly failed to protect our liberty and by far it never provides equal justice for all. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response was indeed a reflection of his understanding of the cycle of history. While we pretend to call ourselves a Democracy, we are by no means such an institution. We are exactly what Franklin replied: a REPUBLIC.

While it is a theory that democratic republics are founded upon the consent of the people, any review of history reveals that they are founded upon pretenses and have never been able to constrain those in power. Once they get a taste of that power, they abuse it. This is what drives the cycle of history which shows that society is born, matures, corrupts, and collapses by normally suicide taking shape as a revolution.

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution. Wilson was elected twice to the Continental Congress representing Pennsylvania. He had a good legal mind and was a major contributor in drafting the United States Constitution. Because of his brilliant legal mind, he was also appointed as one of the six original justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wilson believed that “the House of Representatives [shall] form the grand inquest of the state. They shall diligently inquire into grievances.” Indeed, the original idea was that Congress was elected by the people and was their representatives in a Republic. The Senate did not stand for election but were appointed to represent the state in which they served. The idea that Congress would be the overseer was essential. They were to have the power to investigate the executive branch. Under the Roman system, there was a Tribune who has the absolute power to investigate and criminally charge anyone in government. That became the watered-down version of the Office of Inspector General, which will investigate but is under the Justice Department in the Executive Branch which has no power to initiate its own actions.

However, the Constitution does not actually authorize such a power. It states:

SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There is actually no provision of the Constitution which expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony. Nevertheless, such a power had been frequently exercised by the British Parliament and by the Assemblies of the American Colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was asserted by the House of Representatives as early as 1792 when it appointed a committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his army by the Indians in the Northwest and empowered it to “call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” (3 Annals Of Congress 490–494 (1792); 3 A. Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives 1725 (1907)).

However, the Supreme Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be “implied” as inherent even though it was never expressly granted.  In 1927, the Supreme Court wrote in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–175 (1927):

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry—with enforcing process—was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.”

Chief Justice Warren, in a 1957 opinion, took a hostile approach to the exercise of the investigatory power by Congress. He wrote:

“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).)

Justice Harlan addressed the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959). See also Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503–07 (1975).)

Congress has overstepped its bounds in using its investigative powers against the opposition party for purely political purposes. Partisanship has now not just influenced how those powers are used, it has become the dominant justification. A Democratic Congress investigated Richard Nixon. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led House issued more than 1,000 subpoenas and held hearings on the Clintons. Now the Congress has gone completely far beyond its powers historically demanding Trump’s tax returns. This has nothing to do with his current administration nor does it have any relevance to legislation. Donald Trump has rightfully declared, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and will sue to block them and instruct officials to ignore them. In this regard, the powers of Congress have been seriously abused over the decades. Partisanship renders oversight illegitimate. To ignore the partisanship is very dangerous because it is taking government in the direction of dysfunction.

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. In Kilbourn vThompson103 U.S. 168 (1880), the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether or not the House of Representatives could compel testimony. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.”Clearly, the Kilbourn decision would mean that the investigation launched against Trump has exceeded the outermost boundaries of the power of Congress. Those powers are confined by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”

In practice, much of the litigated dispute has been about the reach of the power to inquire into the activities of private citizens; an inquiry into the administration of laws and departmental corruption, while of substantial political consequence, has given rise to fewer judicial precedents. It would seem that the only way to eliminate this type of partisanship investigations would be to empower the Office of Inspector General to act independently of the Justice Department and that its powers should be that of the Roman Tribune. That means it should have the power to also investigate those in Congress.

Under the administration of Andrew Jackson, this power to investigate was coming into focus. During the controversy over the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, John Quincy Adams contended that an unlimited inquiry into the operations of the bank would be beyond the power of the House (8 Cong. Deb. 2160 (1832)). Then in 1836, the legislative power of investigation was challenged by the Jackson. A committee appointed by the House of Representatives “with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, . . .” (13 Cong. Deb. 1057–1067 (1836)) called upon the President and the heads of departments for lists of persons appointed without the consent of the Senate and the amounts paid to them. Jackson refused this attempt “to invade the just rights of the Executive Departments,” and the majority of the committee acquiesced in 1837 (H. R. Rep. No. 194, 24th Congress, 2d sess., 1, 12, 31 (1837)).

Then leading into the Civil War, Congress unleashed investigations and brought contempt proceedings against a witness who refused to testify in an investigation of John Brown’s raid upon the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. There was a debate in the Senate of the basis of this power which was protracted and cut sharply across sectional and party lines. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to imprison the contumacious witness (Cong. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess., 1100–1109 (1860)). It was this abuse of power which was then constrained by the Supreme Court in a narrow view of the power in Kilbourn v. Thompson.

Therefore, my legal opinion is that Congress is abusing its power and I agree with the Kilbourn decision that they are not free to investigate members of the opposing party for political gains. Empower the Office of Inspector General to do all investigations – PERIOD!!!!!!

Congress v Trump – Have They Destroyed the Constitution?


Originally, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was “We The People.” The structural design was based largely on the writings of Montesque and embodied the separation of powers — Executive (bureaucracy), Congress (the people), and the Judiciary (the arbitrator). Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), at the age of 81, gave his assessment of the direction of the country in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention:

“…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

He understood it would be impossible to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering for he understood the cycles of history. After all, he was friends with Edward Gibbon who wrote the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and reviewed the text before it was published. Franklin believed that the Constitution they had just drafted “with all its faults” was still better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

There is a serious fault in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers neglected to take into account. I believe their judgment was colored by the propaganda which survived from Cicero who painted Julius Caesar as a dictator when in fact it was his own political party, known as the Optimates, who were a conservative political faction in the late Roman Republic.  The Optimates were the corrupt senators who had to flee Rome when Caesar approached because the people cheered Caesar against the corruption of the Senate. Due to the failure to truly uncover other contemporary writers when Gibbon was doing his research, the design of the United States was fatally constructed upon these misconceptions and we are now paying the price for those mistakes.

The Constitution was not supposed to be a self-actuating or a self-correcting document. Unfortunately, allowing it to be amended has destroyed its very intent. Once they installed the income tax on a progressive basis, they conveniently interpreted that you can discriminate against class and occupation but not anything else from religion to race and gender. We have proven that there is no EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and that the observation of Thrasymachus (c 459-400 BC) is the correct one of history — all governments interpret laws only in their own self-interest.

Even with constant attention and devotion of all citizens, our Constitution has utterly failed to protect our liberty and by far it never provides equal justice for all. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response was indeed a reflection of his understanding of the cycle of history. While we pretend to call ourselves a Democracy, we are by no means such an institution. We are exactly what Franklin replied: a REPUBLIC.

While it is a theory that democratic republics are founded upon the consent of the people, any review of history reveals that they are founded upon pretenses and have never been able to constrain those in power. Once they get a taste of that power, they abuse it. This is what drives the cycle of history which shows that society is born, matures, corrupts, and collapses by normally suicide taking shape as a revolution.

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution. Wilson was elected twice to the Continental Congress representing Pennsylvania. He had a good legal mind and was a major contributor in drafting the United States Constitution. Because of his brilliant legal mind, he was also appointed as one of the six original justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wilson believed that “the House of Representatives [shall] form the grand inquest of the state. They shall diligently inquire into grievances.” Indeed, the original idea was that Congress was elected by the people and was their representatives in a Republic. The Senate did not stand for election but were appointed to represent the state in which they served. The idea that Congress would be the overseer was essential. They were to have the power to investigate the executive branch. Under the Roman system, there was a Tribune who has the absolute power to investigate and criminally charge anyone in government. That became the watered-down version of the Office of Inspector General, which will investigate but is under the Justice Department in the Executive Branch which has no power to initiate its own actions.

However, the Constitution does not actually authorize such a power. It states:

SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There is actually no provision of the Constitution which expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony. Nevertheless, such a power had been frequently exercised by the British Parliament and by the Assemblies of the American Colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was asserted by the House of Representatives as early as 1792 when it appointed a committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his army by the Indians in the Northwest and empowered it to “call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” (3 Annals Of Congress 490–494 (1792); 3 A. Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives 1725 (1907)).

However, the Supreme Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be “implied” as inherent even though it was never expressly granted.  In 1927, the Supreme Court wrote in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–175 (1927):

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry—with enforcing process—was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.”

Chief Justice Warren, in a 1957 opinion, took a hostile approach to the exercise of the investigatory power by Congress. He wrote:

“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).)

Justice Harlan addressed the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959). See also Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503–07 (1975).)

Congress has overstepped its bounds in using its investigative powers against the opposition party for purely political purposes. Partisanship has now not just influenced how those powers are used, it has become the dominant justification. A Democratic Congress investigated Richard Nixon. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led House issued more than 1,000 subpoenas and held hearings on the Clintons. Now the Congress has gone completely far beyond its powers historically demanding Trump’s tax returns. This has nothing to do with his current administration nor does it have any relevance to legislation. Donald Trump has rightfully declared, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and will sue to block them and instruct officials to ignore them. In this regard, the powers of Congress have been seriously abused over the decades. Partisanship renders oversight illegitimate. To ignore the partisanship is very dangerous because it is taking government in the direction of dysfunction.

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. In Kilbourn vThompson103 U.S. 168 (1880), the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether or not the House of Representatives could compel testimony. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.”Clearly, the Kilbourn decision would mean that the investigation launched against Trump has exceeded the outermost boundaries of the power of Congress. Those powers are confined by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”

In practice, much of the litigated dispute has been about the reach of the power to inquire into the activities of private citizens; an inquiry into the administration of laws and departmental corruption, while of substantial political consequence, has given rise to fewer judicial precedents. It would seem that the only way to eliminate this type of partisanship investigations would be to empower the Office of Inspector General to act independently of the Justice Department and that its powers should be that of the Roman Tribune. That means it should have the power to also investigate those in Congress.

Under the administration of Andrew Jackson, this power to investigate was coming into focus. During the controversy over the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, John Quincy Adams contended that an unlimited inquiry into the operations of the bank would be beyond the power of the House (8 Cong. Deb. 2160 (1832)). Then in 1836, the legislative power of investigation was challenged by the Jackson. A committee appointed by the House of Representatives “with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, . . .” (13 Cong. Deb. 1057–1067 (1836)) called upon the President and the heads of departments for lists of persons appointed without the consent of the Senate and the amounts paid to them. Jackson refused this attempt “to invade the just rights of the Executive Departments,” and the majority of the committee acquiesced in 1837 (H. R. Rep. No. 194, 24th Congress, 2d sess., 1, 12, 31 (1837)).

Then leading into the Civil War, Congress unleashed investigations and brought contempt proceedings against a witness who refused to testify in an investigation of John Brown’s raid upon the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. There was a debate in the Senate of the basis of this power which was protracted and cut sharply across sectional and party lines. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to imprison the contumacious witness (Cong. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess., 1100–1109 (1860)). It was this abuse of power which was then constrained by the Supreme Court in a narrow view of the power in Kilbourn v. Thompson.

Therefore, my legal opinion is that Congress is abusing its power and I agree with the Kilbourn decision that they are not free to investigate members of the opposing party for political gains. Empower the Office of Inspector General to do all investigations – PERIOD!!!!!!

Joe Biden Dismisses China Threat….


Considering how Joe Biden exploited China for personal financial gain, this position by a democrat presidential candidate is likely not going to age well.

I’ve met virtually every major world leader in my role as Vice President, as Foreign Relations Chairman over the last 30 years. That’s not hyperbole. Virtually every one. I don’t know a single solitary one who would not change places with the problems the President of the United States has versus the problems they have. China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.

They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean in the west. They can’t figure out how they are going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they’re not competition for us.”

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs.
It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors.
When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our trade policies.

1,359 people are talking about this

President Trump and First Lady Melania Host Dinner for National Day of Prayer…


President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump participate in a White House dinner on the eve of the National Day of Prayer.

Solomon: Nellie Ohr Has Been Referred to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution….


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).

(link)

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@jsolomonReports

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

Our research indicates a strong likelihood Fusion-GPS was contracted by the Obama intelligence apparatus through the Clinton Campaign, DNC and Perkins Coie specifically to help fabricate evidence that could be used to cover-up prior surveillance operations.

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 

View image on 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

Embedded video

481 people are talking about this

Former CIA Officer Pleads Guilty to Conspiring With Chinese Agents…


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

 

All fakers are equal, but some are more equal than others. 


by Andrei Nekrasov / April 27, 2019
The case of Claas Relotius, an award winning Spiegel writer, who was caught writing fiction and selling it as true stories, seemed to be a game changer in the world of journalism. Yet it soon became just yesterday’s news. And, as Thomas Beschorner of the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, wrote, it was surprising in the first place that people found the lying in the media so surprising. “Scientists manipulate results of research, managers lie. We know all that happens. Everywhere, but not in journalism?”
Somewhat paradoxically, given his suggestion that lying was routine and common, the same Prof. Beschorner continued: “Whether this is an isolated case, or the problem is systemic and therefore widespread, we don’t know yet.”

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.

Illustration: Sueddeutsche Zeitung
His Sueddeutsche Zeitung article seems to have essentially re-transmitted the false story of Sergei Magntisky, told by Bill Browder, a hedge fund manager, for whom Magnitsky worked as an accountant.

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.

But investor William F. Browder sees it differently. Never mind the arguments about a creeping coup by Putin’s KGB colleagues, the war in Chechnya, the state takeover of television or even the jailing of Russia’s richest man. To Browder, Putin is a true reformer, “the one ally” of Western capitalists who have come to Russia to create a new market economy but have found themselves adrift “in a sea of corrupt bullies.”
 Susan B. Glasser, in:”Investors Rally Around Putin, Discounting Alarm of Critics“, The Washington Post, February 26, 2004
Instead of pushing the country back, Putin has implemented a reform program that is far more liberal than anything that could have been cooked up at the most radical think tank in Washington. (…)

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.

 William Browder, in: “Making the Case for Putin“, The Moscow Times, January 21, 2004
In 2007, as a result of an elaborate tax rebate scam 230 million dollars were paid into the accounts of three Browder’s companies in Russia. No one (neither Browder nor the Russian authorities) deny the tax rebate fraud took place, except that Browder claims he had lost control of his companies before the money was paid out. I investigated Browder’s claims, and found that they were false.

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.

Another of those emails concerned Sueddeutsche Zeitung, my film and myself:
I recently managed to find out who the recipient of the email about me and my film was: Hubert Wetzel. The email was received at the time of the publication of the “The Cellist and the dead Lawyer“. Mr Wetzel had clearly passed the information to Browder’s acolyte Elena Servettaz, or to another “colleague from Suddeutsche Zeitung” (sic), who then swiftly passed it to Elena Servettaz.

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.

Q.: What steps did you take in finding Mr. Browder to be credible?
A.: Well, we reviewed his documentation, we reviewed some of his statements and verified some of his statements via the internet.
Q.: What did he tell you?
A.: Well, he told us the story of Sergei Magnitsky.
Q.: What public source documents did he refer you to?
A.: He referred me on his website, he referred me to a Russian language newspaper.
Q.: What else?
A.: And the documents that he provided.
Q.: What documents did he provide?
A.: Copies of the bank records, copies of wire transactions
Q.: Did you get in touch with the banks to see if they were accurate?
A.: No, I did not.
Q.: And you obtained flow charts; is that correct?
A.: That’s correct.
Q.: And those were also from Hermitage that you obtained them?
A.: Correct.
Q.: So every transfer here is based on copies that are not authenticated, of records that are incomplete, based on an accounting assumption. Is that right?
A.: That would be correct.
 a scene from the film “The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes”: Deposition of Todd Hymann, a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (United States District Court Southern District of New York)
April 27 / 2019

back to the homepage

The Magnitsky Act & the Thirst for War


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.

Banning Films & Government Corruption


COMMENT:

Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Like many of your readers, I have been unable to watch “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes” for months because of its ban here in the US. Today, I was finally able to watch it at the following link. Not sure how long it will be up but I thought I would share it with your readers –
A very good film, I am glad to finally learn the truth in this matter. It is unbelievable how deep the corruption and cover-up is in the US and Europe. One day soon I hope Bill Browder and his many partners in crime go to jail for a very long time for this.
Kind Regards,
D
REPLY: Both the Magnitsky Act film and my Film were banned in the USA. The reason is clear. Both films touched on the fact that there were at least the Bankers conniving rig the Russian elections. I do not believe that Putin killed Madnitsky, for he would have been a witness against the bankers. Browder runs around calling himself the number one enemy of Putin. Just look at Hermitage Capital on Wikipedia. It states the founders were Edmond Safra and Bill Browder. Edmond NEVER allowed Browder to control anything. Edmond was the mover and shaker. It was Republic National Bank that was soliciting me to bring over $10 billion to invest in Hermitage Capital Management that I rejected.
Safra was killed in Monaco I believe by Putin for interfering in the Russian elections to blackmail President Yeltsin to install his buddy Berezovsky. I knew 
All of this focus of Putin interfering into the US elections and Putin offering Mueller to allow him to interrogate Russians if he could do the same in America was unanimously rejected by the Senate. Why?