Tag Archives: Governor Devin Nunes
Solomon: Nellie Ohr Has Been Referred to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution….
May 1, 2019
Earlier today John Solomon wrote an article noting how congressional investigators were reviewing Nellie Ohr testimony against last month’s release of FOIA documents. There are significant differences between Mrs. Ohr’s testimony about her communication and contacts with DOJ and FBI officials, and the scale of contact within the FOIA release.
According to an interview with Representative Jim Jordan, Rep Mark Meadows was considering a criminal referral. This evening, John Solomon is following up and affirming Nellie Ohr has now been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution (pdf below).
This doesn’t come as a surprise following the release of transcripts and the ability to contrast testimony from 2018 with recent discoveries and evidence. As a point of fact, Ms. Ohr also lied in her testimony about the timing of her Ham Radio license and use.
Not coincidentally, Fusion-GPS owner Glenn Simpson is also being reviewed for lying to investigators about his contacts and activity in connection to the dossier. Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion-GPS and it would appear Fusion was at the center of the effort to construct evidence to support the 2016 election operation against Donald Trump.
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.
Former CIA Officer Pleads Guilty to Conspiring With Chinese Agents…
May 1, 2019
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.
Then a similar case was discovered. An award winning contributor to Sueddeutsche Zeitung Magazine, Dirk Gieselmann, had invented a main protagonist in a story he wrote. The SZ stated the forgery had taken place, but revealed few details, while suggesting the case was not as severe as that of Relotius.
One way or another, do two known recent cases of fictitious journalism in Germany make the problem systemic?
But what about the infamous fake news? And alternative facts? Those have been around for a while. Is that something totally different from making up plots and characters as in the above mentioned cases?
Even though it was Donald Trump who was credited with creating the fake-news brand, it was largely applied to his own statements, as well as various stories, posts and tweets coming out of Russia, on its behalf, in favour of its perceived friends, and against its perceived enemies.
Yet, has the fake news era really started with Trump and his collusion with Russia, that never actually was? While some call the Trump era “post-truth”, how should we refer to the times when, for example, a Labour prime minister was lying blatantly to justify a war that was to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians? Or what was the director of National Intelligence in the administration of a progressive predecessor of President Trump doing as he denied NSA were spying on Americans? He was lying, as it became obvious from Edward Snowden’s revelations a little later, but it was a lie before the post-truth era kicked off “officially”.
I had to do my fair share of pondering on the fake news issue while dealing with the story of Sergei Magnitsky and William Browder. I started investigating the story well before the Trump era, but the consequences of my findings revealed in a film played out fully in the context of the new ideological war between Russia and the West.
In the course of the preparations for a new film I am to shoot this year, I wrote to Frederik Obermaier, a Munich based journalist known for the investigation of the famous Panama Papers leak. Obermaier won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the Panama Papers, as part of an ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) team. Mr Obermaier was one of the authors of the article “The Cellist and the dead Lawyer” (in the English version: “The Magnitsky Case“) published by Suedeutsche on 27 April 2016.
My new film deals, inter alia, with the ways money is laundered, and I wanted to interview Mr Obermeier, who, along with his ICIJ colleagues, has become an authority on the subject. The article Mr Obermeier co-wrote was of a particular interest to me as it appeared to have traced the money stolen in the fraud associated with the name of Sergei Magnitsky. ICIJ has recently reminded its subscribers of the great investigative article by the German colleagues, published exactly three years ago.
The article seems to have established a connection between the Magnitsky Affair (which my previous film was about) and a friend of Vladimir Putin, Sergei Roldugin. My forthcoming film is in many ways a sequel to the film about the fraud at the centre of the Magnitsky Case.
While studying Frederik Obermaier’s article and its sources I realised that it was full of mistakes. I made a list of the most obvious ones and emailed it to Mr Obermaier on the 23 October 2018. Having not heard back I sent another email on 21 November attaching an updated list of mistakes complete with explanations and links to documents disproving the majority of the claims in the article. The first time round I asked Mr Obermaier for an interview, but then I suggested we discuss the matter off the record. Anyone can make mistakes, but the ability to admit them is as important as the talent for authoring good stories, in my humble opinion. I got no response from Frederik Obermaier whatsoever.
Browder is wanted by Russia for tax evasion. He claims that the Russian criminal charges are politically motivated. Yet, the tax evasion (as well as a number of related crimes) Browder is being accused of happened in 2001, the criminal probe into it starting in 2004. It is well known, and easily evidenced, that Browder was an outspoken supporter of Putin and his government until at least 2005.
Putin understood that the country would never succeed with seven oligarchs at the helm — particularly since their interests were so counter to those of the nation. He has set clear limits to the oligarchs’ power and their meddling in the affairs of state. While there may be some things about Putin that we disagree with, we should give him the benefit of the doubt in this area and fully support him in his task of taking back control of the country from the oligarchs.
To divert attention from the the proven 2001-2004 tax evasion case, as well as the suspicion that he may have been involved in the 230 million dollar tax rebate, Browder invented a figure of the crusading anti-corruption lawyer, whistleblower, Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky existed of course, but he was Browder’s accountant, not a lawyer, and he never blew whistle on anything.
Tragically, Magnitsky died while in pre-trial detention. Browder claims he was beaten to death by eight “riot guards”. Browder presents no evidence for that, apart from selective quotations from Russian documents. Studied in full those documents, as well as an American report commissioned by Browder himself, make no mention of a murder, let alone a murder by beating. The author of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe report on Magnitsky, Andreas Gross told me on camera that Magnitsky had not been murdered but died of the “lack of care”.
The investigative journalists at Sueddeutsche Zeitung claim to have traced money flows from the Magnitsky affair, but appear unwilling to recognise that they had uncritically embraced the affair’s interpretation by someone with a vested interest in it.
It is also highly ironic that the journalists, writing about Browder’s Russian business, chose to ignore that Browder himself used off-shore schemes extensively, with the help of his Russian staff that included Magnitsky. Companies controlled by Browder have also appeared in Panama papers, e.g Berkeley Advisors and Starcliff.
In the spring of 2016 my film was secretly, and possibly illegally, seen by U.S. government officials before its premiere at the European parliament was stopped on the 27th of April, and the ARTE transmission cancelled on the 3rd of May. One of those officials was Robert Otto, a top intelligence officer at the State Department who wrote in one of many e-mails that were later leaked online. “I am beginning to feel we are all just part of the Browder P.R. machine.” – Mr Otto wrote.
I was not contacted by the SZ, either before the cancelled European Parliament screening or thereafter.
On 13 June 2018 Telepolis organised a screening of my film in Munich, with a following discussion. Frederik Obermaier and Tim Neshitov, who had written about the Magntisky case for the SZ were invited. No-one turned up, nor replied to the invitation.
The “money tracing” SZ/Panama Papers used trying to connect the Magnitsky fraud to Sergei Roldugin, was in its main part presented in the U.S. case against Prevezon Holdings Ltd (2013-2017). After almost five years of trying to prove that Prevezon received and laundered money from the Magnitsky fraud, the American government decided to avoid the litigation and to settle the case with no guilt admitted by Prevezon.
Prevezon lawyers questioned Browder as a witness under oath. It was Browder (as he himself admitted) who had personally handed Preet Bharara, then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the version of the Magnitsky story that I disprove in my film. William Felix Browder was the source of the whole sprawling, costly case. And it’s his Magnitsky story that was essentially disproved in a court of law.
Yet the mainstream media, including the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, had no interest in taking another look at their articles which had faithfully re-transmitted Browder’s false story. And a stony, arrogant silence was all I got trying politely and tactfully to point out serious mistakes.
Panama papers became a brand name for the press standing up to corruption and wrongful secrecy of those in the position of power, whether financial or political. It would be paradoxical and particularly regrettable if a journalist, a colleague, would use a power he has acquired through a reputation for openness and association with mainstream German and international investigative networks, to obfuscate legitimate questions and documented objections.
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.
The Magnitsky Act & the Thirst for War
Armstrong Economics Blog/Russia
Re-Posted May 2, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
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.
Larry Elder Talks Mueller Report, Jussie Smollett & Most Credible 2020 Democratic Candidate
Transcript Release of Attorney General William Barr Opening Statement…
May 1, 2019
At 10:00am EDT today U.S. Attorney General William Barr will deliver testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the publication of the special counsel report on the 2016 election. There will be a separate discussion thread at 9:00am EDT which will include multiple options to the view the testimony live.
In the interim, the opening statement from the Attorney General has been released: (link to download statement here – pdf link here and embed below)
Toensing and diGenova Discuss Upcoming AG Bill Barr Testimony…
Democrats and Media Continue Playing Political Games Targeting AG Bill Barr….
April 30, 2019
The entire leftist political apparatus is not going to give on their strategy. They have been planning this exploitation since November of 2018. This is what they do; this is all they do.
In a strategic set of rolled-out narratives today democrats, together with their leak sources inside the Mueller/Rosenstein group; and in close coordination with their media allies and Lawfare community; timed a series of events to target AG Bill Barr ahead of his senate testimony tomorrow. The timing of all this stuff is transparent.
It began with a letter from Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), to the inspector general demanding an immediate investigation of AG Barr for not agreeing to the carefully constructed narrative by Weissman, Mueller and Rosenstein. [Details Here] A group of 12 democrats demand the DOJ-OIG start investigating Attorney General Barr.
Hours later, the Washington Post and New York Times, simultaneously release dual timed articles, outlining their reception of a March 27th letter; leaked from inside the Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein operation; showing special counsel group were unhappy with Barr’s four-page summary of the Weissmann/Mueller report because it diluted the intended efforts of Weissmann, Mueller and Rosenstein.
(WaPo) […] “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and made some initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials. (read more)
The coordination between ¹corrupt democrat politicians, ²corrupt DOJ officials, and ³corrupt media entities is both transparent and seamless. AG Bill Barr is set to deliver testimony tomorrow to the Senate. So tonight they launch their proactive narrative assault to set the stage for the context of Barr’s appearance.
If they are so damned concerned about “Mueller’s” investigative intent being diluted, then why don’t they subpoena Robert Mueller?
All of this is following a plan; a predetermined plan; established by a leftist group of fellow travelers; and yes that includes current DOJ and FBI officials like Rod Rosenstein, Chris Wray, David Bowditch and Dana Boente. Check the timing:
Former Obama Advisor Ben Rhodes: We Didn’t Know Anything….
April 29, 2019
Former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, Ben Rhodes, says any investigation of prior administration “will find nothing” that shows former President Obama or White House staff had any “involvement” in the origins of the surveillance of Trump campaign and Russia collusion investigation.
Prior to March 9th, 2016, the Obama-era political surveillance and spy operations consisted of 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] Everything after March 9, 2016, became a cover-story.
Looking at White House engagement in the last half of 2016, The War Economy has done some excellent research on this period to contrast the reference of Ben Rhodes:
[Via TWE] […] On July 31, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ran by Director James Comey, opened an investigation into the Trump campaign titled “Crossfire Hurricane”, named after the Rolling Stones documentary of the same name. It focused on the actions of four members of the Trump campaign:
- Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
- Paul Manafort
- Carter Page
- George Papadopoulos
As such, this was an incredibly important time… for Director John Brennan of the Central Intelligence Agency.
As noted previously, the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation was partially triggered by information received by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counterintelligence Mission Center, which served as a conduit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by using contacts developed by the intelligence agency between Russian individuals and members of the Trump campaign.
The information, more specifically, was received at a time where, coincidentally, Donald Trump secured the Republican Party nomination, which occurred on July 20, 2016, the day before a high-level security meeting between several White House officials.
“The CIA breakthrough came at a stage of the presidential campaign when Trump had secured the GOP nomination but was still regarded as a distance long shot. Clinton held comfortable leads in major polls, and Obama expected that he would be transferring power to someone who had served in his Cabinet.” — The Washington Post
“Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.” — Sara Carter, Circa
In the first week of August — directly after the creation of Crossfire Hurricane — Director Brennan contacted Avril Haines via telephone, as he had received intelligence in relation to President Vladimir Putin.
An envelope which contained “eyes only” instructions was sent by courier from the Central Intelligence Agency to the White House. The contents of the envelope were shown to four people: President Barack Obama, and three of his senior aides, most likely Denis McDonough, Susan Rice and Avril Haines.
Within the envelope was a valuable source that Director Brennan had used to ascertain certain information, a source which he intentionally kept away from the Presidential Daily Brief. This was because, by 2013, the Presidential Daily Brief was being received by over 30 recipients.
“Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.
But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objects — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.” — The Washington Post
As a result of this, Director Brennan created a secret task force at the Central Intelligence Agency’s Headquarters, which was composed of several dozen analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Working Group reported to two different groups.
- President Barack Obama and less than 14 senior United States Government officials.
- A team of operations specialists at the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Also in early August 2016 — presumably the same week — agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, where they questioned her about a letter they had received in early March 2016 from a foreign source, supposedly written by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations regarding the Midyear Exam investigation.
During this meeting, the agents offered to give Attorney General Lynch a “defensive briefing”. Shortly after this, the Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that the Benardo letter was an unreliable document.
President Obama ordered his aides to determine ways to retaliate or deter against the Russian Government through three steps:
- Gain a high-confidence assessment from the United States intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent.
- Check vulnerabilities in state-run election systems.
- Seek bipartisan support from Congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow and urging states to accept federal assistance.
The same week, Rice, Haines and Lisa Monaco convened meetings in the White House Situation Room, which would later be referred to as “Deputies Meetings”. These meetings were initially attended by:
- Director John Brennan, Central Intelligence Agency
- Director James Clapper, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Director James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Attorney General Loretta Lynch, United States Department of Justice
As time passed, another Cabinet member joined the Deputies Meetings: Vice President Joe Biden.
The Deputies Meetings needed to defend against any potential leaks, and therefore followed the same protocols taken during the planning stages of the raid of Osama bin Laden.
At a later time, agendas were directly sent to Cabinet secretaries, including Secretary John Kerry and Secretary Ashton Carter. When an agenda was received, their subordinates were ordered never to open the envelopes. Further to this, some agendas were withheld until the participants had arrived in the Situation Room and sat down.
Ordinarily, a video feed from the White House Situation Room is fed into various National Security Council offices to allow senior aides to view the events with zero sound. However, during the Deputies Meetings, the video feeds were switched off.
One of these Deputies Meetings was hosted by Haines, where the attendees of the meetings argued that any deliberative attempt to strike back against Russia would become a tool of propaganda for President Vladimir Putin, while another was concerned about the potential effect any action may have on Election Day 2016.
Haines would later note she was “very concerned” during this time about the potential of Russians gaining influence within the Trump campaign, although she apparently remained unaware of the existence of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
As an aspect, or an offshoot, of one of these meetings, Susan Rice informed both Michael Daniel and Celeste Wallander (who would later gain access to the Steele memos) to cease their planning of retaliation against Russia for their cyber attacks on companies and political campaigns and to stand down from the efforts.
The retaliation efforts were carried out by the Cyber Response Group, a unit within the National Security Council which featured representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the United States Department of State and the Pentagon.
One of these individuals was Anthony Ferrante, who was in charge of coordinating the United States Government’s response to Russian attempts to meddle in the presidential election as the top cybersecurity official from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the present day, Ferrante is investigating the Steele memos on behalf of BuzzFeed News. Anyway, back to the first week of August 2016…
Director Comey also met with President Obama in the Oval Office for a one-on-one meeting, where Director Comey suggested that he write an opinion piece for The New York Times about the potential for Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. Director Comey planned to avoid mentioning the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in the opinion piece.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “W– we– we know that– there were s– there were strong objections in– by Republicans in the Senate to being public about this. But at one point, you actually volunteered to put it all on paper?”
JAMES COMEY: “Yeah– I think it was in August, I volunteered that– that I would be– I remember saying that I’m a little tired of being the independent voice on things, after the beating I’d taken after the July 5th announcement. But I said in a meeting with the president, ‘I’m willing to be the voice on this and help inoculate the American people. But I also recognize why this is such a hard question, because if you announce that the Russians are trying to mess with our election, do you accomplish their goal for them? Do you undermine confidence in our election by having the president of the United States, or one of his senior people, say this publicly? Will the Russians be happy that you did that?’ And so I– I wrote an op-ed, was going to go in a major newspaper that laid out what was going on. Not the investigation, ’cause that was too sensitive to reveal, but that, ‘The Russians are here and they’re screwing with us. And this is consistent with what they’ve done in the past,’ and they never took me up on it. The Obama administration deliberated until the beginning of October.”
On August 1, 2016, Director Clapper attended the Department of Defense Intelligence Information Systems Worldwide Conference in Atlanta, GA.
On August 4, 2016, Director Brennan contacted Director Alexander Bortnikov of the Federal Security Service (FSB), where he warned Director Bortnikov against future interference in the United States presidential election.
“When Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s internal security service, told me during an early August 2016 phone call that Russia wasn’t interfering in our presidential election, I knew he was lying. Over the previous several years I had grown weary of Mr. Bortnikov’s denials of Russia’s perfidy — about its mistreatment of American diplomats and citizens in Moscow, its repeated failure to adhere to cease-fire agreements in Syria and its paramilitary intervention in eastern Ukraine, to name just a few issues.
When I warned Mr. Bortnikov that Russian interference in our election was intolerable and would roil United States-Russia relations for many years, he denied Russian involvement in any election, in America or elsewhere, with a feigned sincerity that I had heard many times before. President Vladimir Putin of Russia reiterated those denials numerous times over the past two years, often to Donald Trump’s seeming approval.” — John Brennan, The New York Times
The next day, on August 5, 2016, Michael Morell published the article “I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” in The New York Times.
The same day — August 5 — the 55th birthday of President Obama was hosted at the White House. During the party, which was attended by Donna Brazile, she was pulled to the side by both Susan Rice (a member of the Deputies Meetings) and Eric Holder separately, where both of them encouraged Brazile to place Russian hacking at the top of her priority list.
The next day, on August 6, 2016, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Seriously, what is going on with Trump and Russia?” with a 1 minute, 45 second video attached. The same day, President Obama and the First Family left for their vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.
Two days later, on August 8, 2016, Special Agent Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page about a joint intelligence piece for Director Comey to prepare for him to brief Denis McDonough on August 10, 2016.
On August 10, 2016, Shane Harris published the article “Is It Okay for Spies to Elect a President?” in The Daily Beast, while Director Comey briefed McDonough.
In mid-August 2016, Director Brennan shared intelligence with Director Comey, which showed that the Russian Government was actively interfering in the 2016 United States presidential election.
Starting from August 11, 2016, Director Brennan started to personally brief — in consultation with the White House — each member of the “Gang of Eight” about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
JOHN BRENNAN: “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, 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.”
As noted by Director Brennan, the “Gang of Eight” at the time were:
- Senator Richard Burr
- Senator Dianne Feinstein
- Senator Mitch McConnell
- Representative Devin Nunes
- Representative Nancy Pelosi
- Senator Harry Reid
- Speaker Paul Ryan
- Representative Adam Schiff
On the day the briefings started — August 11 — Representative Pelosi declared that the hacking of the Democratic National Committee was a modern version of the Watergate scandal, conducted by the Russians. At the same time, Director Clapper visited Estonia in person.
Director Clapper worked on preparing the classified briefings for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as being the nominees of both the Republican Party and Democratic Party allowed them access to some classified information.
Around this time, counterintelligence specialists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation briefed Donald Trump and his surrogates and leadership, and Hillary Clinton and her surrogates and leadership, about the Russian Government’s interference of the 2016 United States presidential election, and issues surrounding cybersecurity.
On August 15, 2016, Special Agent Strzok texted Page: I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”
Meanwhile, Secretary Jeh Johnson arranged a conference call with dozens of state officials in an attempt to enlist their support in the White House’s election defence campaign, with one of the officials called being Brian Kemp.
Two days later, on August 17, 2016, Trump, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Governor Chris Christie attended their first classified briefing held by intelligence officials — the officials were from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and it was held at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York Field Office.
The next day, on August 18, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Cyber Division issued a warning titled “Targeting Activity Against State Board of Election Systems”, restricted to “NEED TO KNOW recipients”, where they disclosed that they were investigating cyber intrusions into websites hosted in Arizona and Illinois.
On August 19, 2016, Special Agent Strzok texted Page that he was preparing for a meeting with Director Clapper, who then after the meeting contacted Director Comey.
Two days later, on August 21, 2016, President Obama and the First Family left Martha’s Vineyard to return to Washington, DC.
On August 24, 2016, Director Brennan and Director Clapper shared the stage together for a symposium at the Nixon Library, where they discussed the Presidential Daily Brief.
It was the next day, August 25, 2016, that Director Brennan contacted Senator Reid through a secure telephone line as part of his classified “Gang of Eight” briefings. During the conversation, Senator Reid was informed that Russia was attempting to assist Trump with winning the election, and that members of the Trump campaign may be working with Russians to achieve this. Director Brennan also advised Senator Reid that, as the Central Intelligence Agency focused on foreign affairs, he would have to speak with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to discuss further.
Another two days later, on August 27, 2016, Senator Reid sent a letter to Director Comey, where he expressed concern and questioned the range of Russian interference. Senator Reid also requested for an investigation to be opened, unaware of the existence of Crossfire Hurricane. In the letter, Carter Page was cited. However, Director Comey later informed the Crossfire Hurricane team that he was contacted by Senator Reid prior and was warned that a letter would be sent.

On the same day, Senator McConnell received his own personal briefing from Director Brennan, where he questioned the underpinnings of the intelligence gathered. Senator McConnell agreed during the briefing to sign a letter to state election officials about potential election interference, requesting that altered language be used for it.
Hillary Clinton then received her first classified briefing — alone, for 2 hours — from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at a Federal Bureau of Investigation facility in White Plains, NY.
In late August 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation team learned of the memoswritten by Christopher Steele from Special Agent Michael Gaeta, where they then briefed Director Comey and deputies on their existence.
Around this time, Admiral Rogers pushed for a counter-cyber-strike against Russia for their actions, proposing a number of potential scenarios, although none of them were presented to President Obama.
On August 29, 2016, Michael Isikoff published the article “FBI says foreign hackers penetrated state election systems” in Yahoo! News.
As August 2016 was coming to a close, Director Brennan became more concerned over Russia’s cyber attacks on the United States during the presidential election.
In September 2016, Director Comey again refused to divulge the existence of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The same month, presumably after September 23, 2016, Jonathan Finer briefed Secretary Kerry on the 2-page Steele memo summary, although once they both agreed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had it in hand, they dropped the subject, and Finer placed the summary in a safe.
On September 2, 2016, Special Agent Strzok and Lisa Page prepared a set of talking points for Director Comey, as he was preparing for a meeting with President Obama, who wanted to know everything they were doing. Shortly after this, Strzok and Page then discussed their authorship of the opinion piece — this is most likely the same opinion piece Director Comey discussed with President Obama in August 2016.
In early September 2016, the Obama Administration decided to officially blame Russia for the cyber-attacks on the United States. As such, Secretary Johnson, Director Comey and Monaco travelled to Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs, where they then met with the “Gang of Twelve”, which included Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Adam Schiff.
During this meeting, they tried to arrange a bipartisan letter to be sent to State Governors to defend the election infrastructure. The Republican Party members of the United States Congress disagreed with the plan, as they viewed the request as partisan.
On September 5, 2016, President Obama attended the G20 Summit, where he met directly with President Putin. During this meeting, President Obama warned President Putin to end his interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. The same day, Dana Priest, Ellen Nakashima and Tom Hamburger published the article “U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt November elections” in The Washington Post, which was then discussed by Special Agent Strzok and Lisa Page.
The day after, on September 6, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held a classified briefing with Congressional staff members about Russian hacking and interference in the presidential election, while Director Brennan completed his own personal briefings with the “Gang of Eight”.
Between September 7–8, 2016, the Intelligence and National Security Summit was held, which was attended by Director Clapper, Shawn Henry, Representative Schiff, Deputy Director McCabe, John Carlin, Stuart Evans, Admiral Rogers, William Evanina, Director Comey and Director Brennan.
It may have also attended by Special Agent Strzok.
“And ooh, you’re at ODNI on Wed. LX? Me too!”
“Gotta figure that out tomorrow. Insider threat perhaps. Maybe Electoral shenanigans. I’m between Clapper and Evanina and another person or two.” — Peter Strzok, September 5, 2016
On September 8, 2016, Ken Dilanian, Robert Windrem and William Arkin published the article “What Really Happened at Donald Trump’s Intelligence Briefing” in NBC News.
Three days later, on September 11, 2016, Director Brennan was interviewed on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, where he warned about Russia’s capabilities in the cyber-realm. Director Brennan also noted that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails.
“CIA Director John Brennan warned on Sunday that Russia has ‘exceptionally capable and sophisticated’ computer capabilities and that the U.S. must be on guard.
When asked in a television interview whether Russia is trying to manipulate the American presidential election, Brennan didn’t say. But he noted that the FBI is investigating the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails, and he cited Moscow’s aggressive intelligence collection and its focus on high-tech snooping.
‘I think that we have to be very, very wary of what the Russians might be trying to do in terms of collecting information in a cyber realm, as well as what they might want to do with it,’ he told CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.” — CBS News
The next day, on September 12, 2016, Representative Pelosi, Senator McConnell, Senator Reid and Speaker Ryan met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss Zika funding.
It was during this Oval Office meeting that President Obama requested for the Senators and Representatives to join him in asking the states to work the White House on protecting the election network infrastructure, which included the development of a bipartisan statement. Senator McConnell pushed for the statement to be “watered down” from the original request.
The same day — September 12 — Steve Ricchetti contacted Donna Brazile to arrange a call between herself and Vice President Biden.
On September 14, 2016, Monaco attended a Center For Strategic and International Studies conference, where she warned that there would be retaliation from the United States for the hacking of political organisations. Other attendees at the conference includedJames A. Baker and George Toscas.
“They come as the FBI is probing the extent to which Moscow is carrying out an unprecedented digital campaign to potentially undermine confidence in the political process here.
The nation’s top national security officials warned Wednesdaythat the United States is prepared to respond to whoever is behind the hacks of political organizations such as the Democratic National Committee.
‘Nobody should think that there’s a free pass,’ said Lisa Monaco, President Obama’s adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, when asked at a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference about the hacks linked to Russia.” — The Washington Post
Monaco then spoke at the 10-year anniversary of the United States Department of Justice’s National Security Division, where she said that it would be very difficult for Russia to hack the elections. Meanwhile, Special Agent Strzok was briefed by the National Security Agency.
In mid-September 2016, the Steele memo provided by Special Agent Gaeta reached the Crossfire Hurricane investigation team.
On September 22, 2016, Senator Feinstein and Representative Schiff released a joint statement about Russian interference in the presidential election, where they mentioned the briefings they had received from Director Brennan.
A few days later, on September 27, 2016, Ali Watkins published the article “The White House Asked Congress To Keep Quiet On Russian Hacking” in BuzzFeed News, which directly related to the joint statement.
“But sources tell BuzzFeed News that the White House — which has stayed silent despite mounting pressure to call out its Moscow adversaries — tried to delay the statement’s release. The public accusation was of such concern to the administration that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was personally involved in the negotiations over releasing it, according to a congressional source.
Feinstein and Schiff, both Democrats, agreed to omit part of their original statement for security reasons, according to another congressional source. That request, which stemmed from concerns over classification, came from the CIA, a congressional source added Wednesday.” — Ali Watkins, BuzzFeed News
In late September 2016, Director Comey ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Counterintelligence Division — headed by Bill Priestap — to protect the 2016 United States presidential election from foreign interference.
On September 28, 2016, Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, Speaker Ryan and Representative Pelosi sent a bipartisan joint letter to Todd Valentine to warn him about potential cyber-attacks which may affect the presidential election. On the same day, Director Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he discussed the attempted intrusions into voter database registrations in July, August and beyond.
In October 2016, the Obama Administration officially ruled out moving forward on Director Comey’s plan to write and publish an opinion piece for The New York Times.
JAMES COMEY: “And so I– I wrote an op-ed, was going to go in a major newspaper that laid out what was going on. Not the investigation, ’cause that was too sensitive to reveal, but that, ‘The Russians are here and they’re screwing with us. And this is consistent with what they’ve done in the past,’ and they never took me up on it. The Obama administration deliberated until the beginning of October.”
However, an alternative plan was created in its place by the Obama Administration: in the event Hillary Clinton was defeated on Election Day, then the White House would co-ordinate with Congressional Republicans, former Presidents of the United States, and former Cabinet-level officials — which included both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell — to verify the election, which included confirmation that Russia pushed for Trump to win over Hillary. This plan was discussed with Ben Rhodes.
“In October 2016, senior staff in the Obama White House discussed what they should do if Hillary Clinton won the November election and Donald Trump refused to accept the result as legitimate. They had cause to be worried. At that time, Trump had openly speculated that the election might be ‘rigged.’ During his final debate with Clinton on October 19, he said that his opponent ‘should never have been allowed to run’ and declined to answer the question of whether he would concede. ‘I’ll keep you in suspense,’ the Republican nominee said.”
“The Obama White House plan, according to interviews with Rhodes and Jen Psaki, Obama’s communications director, called for congressional Republicans, former presidents, and former Cabinet-level officials including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to try and forestall a political crisis by validating the election result. In the event that Trump tried to dispute a Clinton victory, they would affirm the result as well as the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence community that Russian interference in the election sought to favor Trump, and not Clinton. Some Republicans were already aware of Russian interference from intelligence briefings given to leaders from both parties during the chaotic months before the election. ‘We wanted to handle the Russia information in a way that was as bipartisan as possible,’ Rhodes said.” — New York Magazine
TWE has a fifteen part series of information, assembling more than a year of research, relating to the 2016 election and the intelligence community involvement therein. If you enjoy reading fully cited background material on multiple break-out aspects, his research is a terrific resource. SEE HERE





















