There is a massive amount of breaking news today. The reasoning behind the breaking news releases is that all participants are positioning.

In advance of DOJ and FBI declassification releases to congress, which will outline how the IC went around official channels for their political efforts against Donald Trump, the corrupt internal agents within the U.S. intelligence community are rabidly leaking to the New York Times and Washington Post.  The IC now admit to the use of politically motivated National Security Letters from corrupt foreign officials.  More on that later.

Additionally, President Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani reveals a conversation with the Robert Mueller team where the Special Counsel admit they have no legal jurisdiction to indict a sitting president.  This is not new to those of us who have followed closely, but it will cause massive ‘splodey heads amid the left-wing moonbats who were kept clueless by an entrenched ideological media:

(Via CNN) Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has informed President Donald Trump’s attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President’s lawyer. “All they get to do is write a report,” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller’s team has compiled. A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives.

The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court. (read more)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz has submitted the “Draft Report” of his OIG investigation to the principals involved. The IG investigation encompasses the FBI and DOJ conduct during the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton investigation. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.

The Draft Report review is the last review phase prior to the Final report being released. The Draft Report review allows the principals to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.

Responses from the principals about the facts outlined in the draft report are then reviewed, cleared for addition if appropriate, and included in the Final Report. The Draft Report is the first time the DOJ and FBI Principals (only those officials who remain inside the DOJ and FBI) get to see the underlying documentary evidenced gathered in the 17-month-long investigation.

Wall Street Journal – Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling t he long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks. (more)

♦Expanding on The Process. The Final IG Report is a statement of fact. The Draft Review contains all of the statements of facts and allows investigated parties an opportunity to provide input toward any fact statement within the draft.

Prior to the Draft Review there is a massively exhaustive reference check undertaken by the IG “referencer”.

The referencer could be a person or a group of people depending on the size of the report.

The referencer has the responsibility for going through every statement of fact and providing the citation or footnote for the assertion. The person(s) doing the reference review have the most arduous of tasks.

The referencer checks every sentence, every assertion, and ensures only provable facts with citations are part of the report. Every assertion of fact must be cited (or footnoted) to include the investigative material that proves the fact.

Remember, the final IG report is an assembled outline of facts. The final IG report will not include opinion, motive, or intent from the report author. All outlined opinions, motives and intentions within the IG report are those drawn from the statements of the people and groups investigated. All opinions expressed are those of the individuals inside the report.

The person(s) doing the reference checks, go through the report line-by-line and reference the supporting investigative documentation. A massively time consuming part of the report generation.

When the referencing process is completed, the draft report is sent out to the principals for comment on the draft report findings and recommendations. This is where the process is RIGHT NOW. If the principals return comments on the “draft”, their comments must be cleared by the person(s) who are doing the reference check, and may be included in the final draft.

Then the report goes to print.

More Key Points:

♦First, the draft report is reviewed internally. Only the principal officers who are currently inside the investigated agency get to see it. Those officials must sign comprehensive Non Disclosure Agreements, subject to criminal prosecution if they violate the NDA.

Former Officials, or employees who have left the agency: ex. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, James Baker, Jim Rybicki, Michael Kortan and all of the officials who have left the FBI will not get to see the draft report. [Now you know why Lisa Page and James Baker were dispatched last week.]

The same IG rules of Draft Report distribution apply on the Main Justice side of the DOJ and (DOJ-NSD) (DOJ-National Security Division).  Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, David Laufman, etc. do not get to see the report. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein will review the draft report and control who they allow to review.

On the FBI side, Director Christopher Wray will review the draft report along with Asst FBI Director David Bowditch (if approved). Likely FBI Chief Legal Counsel Dana Boente, the former head of the DOJ-NSD, will also review. [*note* now you know why Boente was brought back inside in January ’18] Two more principals who could review would be FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap; and we must remember – FBI Agent Peter Strzok was not kicked out, he also remains inside.

♦ Secondly, the IG report does not include criminal referrals. The final IG report is a statement of facts. The IG report only provides the facts to decision-making leadership, who then decide what to do with those facts. However, if the IG discovers evidence of unlawful or illegal activity during the course of his/her investigation, the IG has a legal and ethical responsibility to tell the head of the DOJ immediately.

The IG cannot keep evidence of unlawful conduct hidden until the release of the report.

This is important because Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to join IG Horowitz toward the end of last year (2017).

The federal attorney (Huber)  then constructs a parallel investigation based on the evidence the IG has discovered.

However, as with all criminal investigations, Prosecutor John Huber would then fire-wall the IG from his own expanded criminal investigative inquiry.

It is critical to understand what happens when a U.S. Attorney joins with the OIG. The evidence flow only goes one-way. The IG is not participating in a criminal investigation. The IG is only looking at facts within his investigation and shares any pertinent investigative findings with the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. attorney does not provide the IG with findings from his criminal investigation.

IG Horowitz and U.S Attorney Huber might interview the same subjects. [In rare instances they might even interview the same subject simultaneously] However, Huber would not share his criminal investigative interview content/evidence with Horowitz. Therefore the content of a final IG report may contain outlines/evidence of criminal behavior, but there could be -likely is- much more evidence in addition to the IG report.

How the criminal prosecutions might proceed after the final IG report is released involves prosecutor strategy.

U.S. Attorney John Huber may wish to wait and see how the participants react to the facts outlined in the report; or he may use the IG report to expand his criminal investigation and conduct additional interviews of people who are outside government, and as a consequence outside of the IG investigative reach.

Huber may -likely does- already have this process, and a seated grand jury, well underway.

As a result this additional line of investigation was announced in March:

They should go on a tour together.  Finally someone goes back and connects the dots from the hundreds of illegal FBI FISA-702(16)(17) searches where they were allowing ‘contractors’ to do opposition research in NSA and FBI databases.  Part of the dirtying up of their opposition required the digging of dirt for use therein. Thank You Sidney Powell.

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped.  Quite a good segment.  WATCH:

.

Heads up. Big News Coming Tomorrow!

• Thousands of pages of documents about to be released.
• Nunes/Gowdy meeting with Rosenstein cancelled.

(Graphic and website Link)

Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[…]  A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein.  There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort  undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

Their approach creates the “I don’t know” and “that was not my understanding” defense as deployed heavily by James Comey during his book tour and media interviews.

This approach also creates an unusual set of contradictions.

Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly says the work on the Clinton and Trump investigations was kept inside a very “tight group” of DOJ and FBI people; yet Comey repeatedly claims to have no knowledge of their activity when questioned about specific events.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe keeping Director Comey in the dark on the Huma Abedin laptop issues for four weeks (Sept. 28th through October 26th) is a clear example of Comey’s ‘willful blindness’.

There are also numerous examples in the Page/Strzok text messaging or working around Comey within the FBI small group (Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Michael Kortan), as Andrew McCarthy finally realized when he sat down to read the content last weekend: “I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.”  I digress.

A second interesting aspect revealed in Paul Sperry’s reporting is something we discussed at great length surrounding the President Obama daily briefing material (PDB):

[…] “Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible source,’ which is how they viewed Steele,” said the source familiar with the House investigation. “But they never corroborated his sources.”  (read more)

So with another confirmation that Brennan was putting FBI Counterintelligence Investigation findings into President Obama’s PDB, let’s revisit the statements in April 2017 from President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice.  As relayed in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

The interview goes much further. There was a lot of news in that interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.

Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review.

However, right there Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB).  This was a previous question now answered.

This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.

Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration.  Regarding the Obama PDB:

[…]  But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part.  According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”, and his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes.

Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….

So under Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense, via their connection to their immediate supervisor, had likely daily access to the content within the PDB.  And who was an Obama Deputy Secretary of Defense?

“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.  … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

Funny how that happens…

Hindsight is 20/20, but many people were tracking close to the bulls-eye back when this entire sordid affair initially became visible.

CNN political pundit and journalist Chris Cillizza posts a graphic (gif) to his twitter account moments ago attacking President Trump through his remarks during the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service earlier today. 

What makes Cillizza’s tweet particularly disturbing is it depicts President Trump as viewed through a gun sight, and shows the President as an assassination target against the backdrop of being “killed in the line of duty”:

(Link to Tweet)

John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications.   (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier.  The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support.  Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help.  This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin.  Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd.  He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

Several issues make this interesting:

#1.  Was the DOJ/FBI trying to use Deripaska to frame candidate Donald Trump?  Was this part of their 2016 insurance policy?

-or-

Was the FBI (Deputy Director McCabe) looking to duplicate the use of Deripaska for financing a covert FBI operation in 2016, just like Andrew McCabe did in 2009?

#2.  John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked.    Who blocked his testimony?

#3.  In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman.  Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier.  Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska.  However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senator Mark Warner for feedback.

If Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, Mark Warner.   Why?

#4.  Why would Adam Waldman and Oleg Deripaska (personally) be reaching out to John Solomon now to share the story of the FBI conduct in 2016?   Why now?  There were sanctions levied against Derispaska’s business interests by the Trump administration in 2017.  Does his hope to get sanctions removed/lessened lie behind a current motive?

#5.  Attorney and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represented both Oleg Deripaska and Christopher Steele.  This does not seem accidental.  Was Deripaska part of Steele’s network?  Or, more alarmingly, was Christopher Steele working for Oleg Deripaska?

Watch the first minute of this video. February 13th, 2018 Hearing:

.

Another question:  Was Deripaska willing to finance or facilitate the Steele Dossier, or some aspect therein, to the extent that it dirtied-up Paul Manafort – from a distance.  Yet when asked directly to participate he didn’t want personal attachment on dubious endeavors?

#6.  Did Robert Mueller omit any mention of Oleg Deripaska from his 2017 Manafort indictment purposefully?  Is some evidence against Manafort related to a Deripaska vendetta? Or, was Robert Mueller hoping to hide his prior professional work relationship with Deripaska?

#7.   On February 9th, 2018, Senator Chuck Grassley asked Deripaska’s London Lawyer, Paul Hauser, questions about Deripaska and his connections to Christopher Steele:

(Link to Grassley Letters)

Oleg Deripaska’s British lawyer, Paul Hauser, responded with the following letter:

A very lawyer-ish response.  However, based on the 2017 text messages unknown at the time Grassley made the inquiry, it would appear Chairman Grassley asked the wrong lawyer:

Senator Grassley should have asked Adam Waldman who was obviously representing Deripaska’s interests in the U.S.  {text message links}

♦Summary, there’s obviously a great deal that could be learned from testimony of Oleg Deripaska as to the nature of his engagements in/around 2016 and the network of known characters engaged in contact within the U.S. intelligence apparatus, both inside the U.S. and abroad.

The fact that Deripaska is openly willing to engage with journalists on this story and his involvement therein, could open a new line of inquiry about the validity and origination of the Mueller investigation.

Then again, a seemingly incurious media might find their Russian Collusion/Conspiracy narrative was built upon a fraudulent CIA/DOJ/FBI foundation…..

So…

If the usual suspects, New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, avoid the Oleg Deripaska revelations, well, we’ll have our answer.

In a very weird series of events journalist John Solomon published an article in The Hill. Despite the content directly relating to new and stunning revelations about an FBI operation in 2009; the connection to the current Russia investigation by Robert Mueller; and their use of a Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in both investigations; the Hill Editors filed the article under “opinion”.

Secondly, after the original article was published, John Solomon gained new information about the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September of 2016; before the election and before the FBI gained a FISA warrant against Carter Page and the Trump Campaign. Instead of a new article, four paragraphs were inserted as an “update” to the original content. Very weird decisions.  – READ ARTICLE HERE –

The discoveries and the story by Solomon carry huge ramifications; yet it appears there is an intentional effort by The Hill to bury the details.  Something very sketchy is afoot.

John Solomon appeared on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show to discuss the story:

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy appears on Shannon Bream’s television show to discuss the ongoing battle between congress and the DOJ over information and evidence surrounding DOJ/FBI corruption in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

It’s a good interview to watch because McCarthy has just read a large portion of the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok for THIS ARTICLE.  As a result of reviewing the content, McCarthy is able to accurately frame his reference points and provides information that is divergent from the MSM preferred narrative. WATCH:

.

Again CTH reminds readers, despite thousands of articles written by MSM, you can count on one hand the number of journalists who have actually read through all 500+ pages (both releases) of text message communication between DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok.  It’s easy to spot who has not read them because the content of their articles is disputed by the underlying facts within Page/Strzok internal messages.

The article by McCarthy referenced in the interview is very good.  SEE IT HERE

As McCarthy points out, it is not likely there was a singular FBI source buried within the Trump campaign.  Instead it’s more likely that particular campaign aides were targeted and dirtied-up by unofficial intelligence operators like Stefan Halper.  Once those aides were given the appearance of being aligned with foreign enterprise, the FBI was then able to conduct surveillance and construct a narrative useful for their ‘insurance policy’.

More on that approach previously outlined HERE.

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing.  There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

There was always something suspicious about Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Diane Feinstein abdicating her Gang-of-Eight position to Senator Mark Warner immediately after the 2016 election.  Feinstein stepped down from her intel committee post and took up a defensive posture as Vice-Chair on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Feinstein is a political animal. She knows the deep state; she knows the deep state secrets; her position gave her operational knowledge; with that knowledge she carried leverage; and the move from Offense (Senate Intel) to Defense (Senate Judicary) just reeked of deep swamp maneuvering.   Obama campaigning last week for her, against the left-wing progressive challenge, transparently looked like a leverage expenditure.

On August 22nd, 2017, Fusion-GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson testified to the Senate Judicary Committee (Grassley Chairman, Feinstein Co-Chair) about his engagements with Christopher Steele and the formation of the Steele Dossier.  The Dossier underpinned the October 21st, 2016, FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used on Carter Page and against the Trump campaign.

Almost five months later, January 9th, 2018, Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript of Glenn Simpson’s testimony without consulting anyone else on the committee.

At the time of the unauthorized transcript release, it looked even more suspicious {see here}.  Professional Deep State operative Feinstein doesn’t make “mistakes”.  There had to be a reason for it.  There had to be a self-interested reason for it {suspected here}.

In the last week the motive has surfaced.  Today, the motive takes on an even larger understanding.

Attention has been paid to Glenn Simpson saying in that August 2017 testimony the FBI had some additional ‘inside’ knowledge in addition to Chris Steele’s information.  Talk of campaign interlopers increased last week after the DOJ/FBI started stonewalling Devin Nunes and accusing him of trying to reveal the identity of a confidential CIA and FBI source for the 2016 origination of the FBI counterintelligence operation against Trump.

People began connecting Glenn Simpson’s prior 2017 testimony about ‘inside sources’ to the 2018 DOJ statements about exposing CIA/FBI ‘sources’. {See Here} Due to defensive leaks from within the corrupt intelligence apparatus the name Stefan Halper was identified.  {See Here} Stefan Halper is a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper connects to the same circle of intelligence operatives Christopher Steele used for his sketchy Dossier construct.

A close circle of politically connected U.S., British, Australian and Russian intelligence insiders begins to back-stop the larger conspiracy.

The information provided by the international crew was apparently shaped and funneled by former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI for domestic political exploitation.

Back to Feinstein.

In his podcast today Dan Bongino outlines the hindsight appearance of Dianne Feinstein publishing the Glenn Simpson testimony in an effort to: A) remind Simpson what he said; and, B) warn all other operational participants of the potential risk.  {Listen Here}  This is what we suspected back in January when Feinstein initially released the transcript.

Senator Feinstein’s 2016 senior staffer (with Gang-of-Eight security clearance) was Dan Jones.  It was recently revealed that Dan Jones contracted with Christopher Steele to continue work on the Russia Conspiracy angle after the 2016 election, and raised over $50 million toward the ideological goals of removing President Trump. {See Here}

Staffer Dan Jones surfaces in the text messages from Feinstein’s replacement on the Gang-of-Eight, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Mark Warner {See Here}

Senator Warner was texting with Adam Waldman about setting up a meeting with Chris Steele.  Walman is a lobbyist with a $40,000 monthly retainer to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of controversial Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska.

Senator Mark Warner was trying to set up a covert meeting.  In the text messages Adam Waldman is telling Senator Warner that Chris Steele will not meet with him without a written letter (request) from the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Senator Warner didn’t want the Republican members to know about a meeting.  Chris Steele knew this was a partisan political set-up and was refusing to meet unilaterally with Senator Warner.   Lobbyist Adam Waldman was playing the go-between:

That “Dan Jones”, mentioned above, talking with Chris Steele and told to go to see Senator Warner, is the former senate staffer Dan Jones, who was previously attached to Dianne Feinstein.

Simultaneously, while trying to connect Senator Warner to Christopher Steele, text messenger (go-between) Adam Waldman is representing Oleg Deripaska:

(Source Link) 

Oleg Deripaska was a source of intelligence information within the John Brennan intelligence community efforts throughout 2016. This is the same intersection of  characters that circle around Stefan Halper.

….And today, journalist John Solomon just connected Deripaska to Robert Mueller and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. {See Here} You just can’t make this stuff up.

THE HILL – In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.

Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration. (read more)

Oh, and that 2009 FBI operation carried out by Robert Mueller and Andrew McCabe, well, apparently it was unlawful.  But wait, it gets better….

Senator Warner’s 2017 intermediary Adam Waldman, also spoke to John Solomon just yesterday about how the FBI attempted to use Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 to frame the Russian narrative before the FISA Warrant:

John Solomon – […] Deripaska also appears to be one of the first Russians the FBI asked for help when it began investigating the now-infamous Fusion GPS “Steele Dossier.” Waldman, his American lawyer until the sanctions hit, gave me a detailed account, some of which U.S. officials confirmseparately.

Two months before Trump was elected president, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia’s United Nations delegation when three FBI agents awakened him in his home; at least one agent had worked with Deripaska on the aborted effort to rescue Levinson. During an hour-long visit, the agents posited a theory that Trump’s campaign was secretly colluding with Russia to hijack the U.S. election.

“Deripaska laughed but realized, despite the joviality, that they were serious,” the lawyer said. “So he told them in his informed opinion the idea they were proposing was false. ‘You are trying to create something out of nothing,’ he told them.” The agents left though the FBI sought more information in 2017 from the Russian, sources tell me. Waldman declined to say if Deripaska has been in contact with the FBI since Sept, 2016.  (read more)

Oh, and those reports last week about the White House supporting the DOJ in keeping the origination material from Devin Nunes?….. Yeah, well, those IC leaks to the WaPo and New York Times were false too.

Finally, guess who was supposed to be conducting oversight in 2016 when all of these politically motivated intelligence operations were going on?… Yeah, well, that would be the Gang-of-Eight…

…the same congressional oversight group Senator Dianne Feinstein bailed out of…. Go Figure:

Now does this make more sense:

Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan May 23rd, 2017, during his testimony to congress.

Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:

Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”

“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”

“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…

.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/371101285/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-pMEa6x5I0qt6SU7fudq7

.