While the Democrats and Trump haters were desperately counting on Mueller’s report, anyone with a shred of common sense would have known there would not be any such connection between Trump and Putin to win the election. The entire theory that Putin hacked the Democrats to release emails on Hillary to ensure Trump would win the election was really absurd. If the emails had been ALTERED, then this scenario would have been possible. Even if we assume that Putin ordered the hacking, then this would have to ASSUME that what the Democrats were doing was outright illegal. Such an act could have been carried out by the FBI and there would have been such allegations. To me, it would have been different if the emails were fake for that would have suggested that it was a plot to defeat Hillary. But that was just not the case.
Now ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, who created the Trump-Russia dossier for Hillary, described some of the steps he took to verify the information he collected. He admitted he took material from an anonymous CNN website for public comments, iReport, which no longer operates. He claims he did not know it was not reliable and just gossip because he assumed it was under the CNN banner.
A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds that trust in Mueller has eroded and half of Americans agree with President Donald Trump’s contention that he has been the victim of a “witch hunt.” The fall out does not fare well for the Democrats who have been pushing this agenda to win the White House in 2020.
The hopes of blasting Trump with this report have been fading quickly behind the curtain. That does not mean that the Democrats will not try to raise the issue out of desperation. Nevertheless, what lies on the horizon is very much the riots we have witnessed outside the USA with the rise of the Yellow Vest movement.
In the United States, we will begin to see civil unrest rise for the election cycle. However, the world economy is in serious trouble for the central banks of both Japan and Europe have no ability to even do anything for the economy. China, on the other hand, has rejected any Quantitative Easing as they have witnessed the complete failure of the ECB, which has not just destroyed the European bond market, but it has turned the people of Europe into collateral damage
Delivering a targeted message from U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Dohonue, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unleashed twelve members of his Decepticon caucus to rebuke the border security efforts of President Donald Trump.
Doing what he does best, Leader McConnell held back (protected): John Thune, John Cornyn, John Barasso, Mike Crapo, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis & Cory Gardner. However, the remaining dozen (see below) were permitted to vote against the President for Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 46 ):
The support for the U.S. Chamber’s open-border initiative is McConnell’s strongest showing yet that he controls almost enough votes to support impeachment; if the President continues to advance policy initiatives not supported by The Chamber and Business Roundtable.
Despite McConnell’s effort/threat President Trump has vowed to veto the resolution.
Between Tom Donohue and the Business Roundtable they spent almost $118,000,000 last year funding UniParty votes for their Wall Street initiatives and legislation. Open-ended immigration is the holy grail for the multinationals. Their K-Street community will not allow border security without putting up a very serious fight. There are trillions at stake.
Representative Doug Collins has released the transcript of Peter Strzok [SEE HERE] from his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in June 2018. Working with a small group within the DOJ and FBI, agent Peter Strzok was at the center of a 2016 election effort to assist Hillary Clinton and remove Donald Trump. Here’s the transcript:
Today, https://dougcollins.house.gov/strzok will be available for Americans to review the transcript of Peter Strzok during his interview with the Judiciary Committee.
Collins releases Bruce Ohr transcript – House Judiciary Committee
“I request the link http://www.dougcollins.house.gov/ohr be placed in the record so the American people can review the transcript of Bruce Ohr’s interview.” WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking…
According to an NPR report, and confirmed by secondary sourcing, Andrew Weissmann is soon to depart the special counsel probe of Robert Mueller. According to special counsel spokesman Peter Carr “Andrew Weissmann will be concluding his detail to the Special Counsel’s Office in the near future.”
The intensely political Mr. Weissmann is not just leaving the Special Counsel, he is also leaving his job at the Justice Department. He will be teaching at NYU.
Additionally, this announcement happens just one day before the March 15th deadline by representatives Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows for new Attorney General William Barr to respond about numerous conflicts of interest surrounding Weissmann and his engagements with the 2016 DOJ election effort to stop Donald Trump.
WASHINGTON DC – One of the most prominent members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election will soon leave the office and the Justice Department, two sources close to the matter tell NPR.
Andrew Weissmann, the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, will study and teach at New York University and work on a variety of public service projects, including his longstanding interest in preventing wrongful convictions by shoring up forensic science standards used in courts, the sources added.
The departure is the strongest sign yet that Mueller and his team have all but concluded their work. (read more)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won’t back impeachment of President Trump, because “he’s just not worth it.” But what’s her real motive? Scott Ott and Bill Whittle explore what’s behind her shocking revelation in a Washington Post interview. Bill Whittle Now is a production of the Members at http://BillWhittle.com
The Epoch Times, via Jeff Carlson, has apparently gained access to the transcript of testimony from Nellie Ohr. Most of the back-story of Nellie Ohr working for the CIA as an Open Source Works contractor was previously discovered by CTH during earlier research; and again the transcript is not provided by Epoch.
However, while the transcript is not provided, there is a very intriguing implication within their description/interpretation of the testimony (emphasis mine):
[…] Beginning in September 2015, Ohr began working for Fusion GPS. Ohr told investigators that she “read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption, so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for opportunities.”
When later questioned as to her previous knowledge of Simpson, Ohr stated, “I had been at a conference that he was at. I don’t recall directly talking with him at that conference, and I don’t know whether he knew who, you know, who I was other than the fact that I attended that conference.”
Ohr acknowledged to congressional investigators that Simpson was acquainted with her husband, Bruce Ohr. (read more)
The implication here is that Nellie Ohr approached Fusion-GPS owner Glenn Simpson for a job; essentially to work on political opposition research files Fusion-GPS was assembling in 2015. This is distinctly different from Glenn Simpson seeking out Nellie Ohr, and opens the entire background to larger ramifications.
Our research has always indicated that Nellie’s work product was transmitted to Christopher Steele as part of an intelligence laundry process. Chris Steele laundered Nellie’s information, provided second verification where possible, formatted into an official intelligence file, and returned that file -now named the Steele Dossier- to the FBI.
However, if it becomes verified that it was CIA contracted (former or current) Nellie Ohr who approached Simpson, then it becomes possible, perhaps likely, the intelligence information (seeds carried by Nellie), originated from the CIA.
Nellie Ohr petitioning Glenn Simpson for a job would be an explosive change in the dynamic. However, it could further explain some other unusual side-issues including why Nellie suddenly started using a HAM radio.
First, this revelation would imply that an inside government effort from the CIA was likely the origination of material that Nellie would “discover” while working for Fusion. Under this possibility the laundry process would have two washes.
The first wash was from some unknown CIA intelligence sources to Nellie Ohr…. The second wash was from Nellie Ohr to Christopher Steele (the second wash we always knew).
Second, whether Glenn Simpson knew of Nellie’s intent, or was likely willfully blind, is another question. I tend to think it didn’t really matter. Simpson hired Nellie to get valuable oppo-research he could turn into a commodity.
Simpson wouldn’t necessarily care how Nellie found the information, and he knew her background in the intelligence research community. The commodity was always the Trump-research file; which was then sold to the Clinton campaign after the contract with the DNC was made through Perkins Coie.
“I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption, so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for opportunities.”
If Nellie Ohr sought out Glenn Simpson for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA (John Brennan) was underway and long planned.
This set-up and design would align with what we already know about the CIA using foreign intelligence assets (Five Eyes etc.) overseas to run against loosely connected Trump campaign people to dirty them up and give the impression needed to initiate the FBI counterintelligence operation known as “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” in July 2016.
If it is factually accurate that Nellie Ohr approached Glenn Simpson, and was part of a process of using that cover to plant corrupt CIA dossier seeds for use by Christopher Steele, then it makes sense Nellie Ohr’s communications with government officials, and the usurping intelligence community, would be a risk; a very serious risk.
Necessitating some very unusual communication safeguards.
Notice the Ham radio license corresponds to the timeline when the Clinton campaign officially hired Fusion-GPS as for the Trump “Dossier” research.
[Notice also this is immediately after the time when NSA Director Mike Rogers discovered FISA abuse, and shut down contractor access to the NSA database.]
Fucking John Brennan.
.
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 briefedthe 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.”… (Brennan testimony)
•On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017.
•At the beginning of August (1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK intelligence officials.
•On August 15th, 2016 Peter Strzok sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the “insurance policy“, needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election.
There was a previous line of inquiry surrounding the originating “EC” or “electronic communication” that was generated by CIA Director John Brennan and passed on to FBI Director James Comey. The EC initiated the FBI Counterintelligence Operation.
Specifically, House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes has asked about a redacted name within the “EC”, which has led to the DOJ and FBI claiming to release the name would compromise the individual. This is one of those declassification docs we need.
All of these inquires, and refusals, center around the origination authority for the FBI Counterintelligence operation. The origination led to the FISA warrant. Remember that.
Chairman Nunes sent Main Justice a classified letter asking questions. DOJ responded saying they would not comply with providing information (letter) The Washington Post claimed Nunes was looking for information on an FBI/DOJ ‘source’: “a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI.” Additionally, this “source” was later also described by WaPo as a witness for Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation.
Remember the Peter Strzok trip to London? The source of John Brennan’s “EC” was later confirmed as FBI and CIA operative Stefan Halper a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.
So, what did Stefan Halper do?
Simple, his job was to locate then dirty-up anyone he could convince: 1) to meet with him; 2) engage in his requests; and 3) engage contacts he set up. Halper was setting up a classic operation to use unknown “useful idiots” to give the appearance of Russian allies/actors.
Halper provided the underlying imaging, the optics needed for the “EC” referral; which Brennan then used to trigger James Comey; who originated the FBI Counterintelligence Operation.
The fraudulent origin, in combination with the October FISA warrant needed for surveillance gathering, would drive the insurance policy that Peter Strzok described to Lisa Page.
Against the backdrop of Speaker Pelosi tamping down expectations of a House impeachment, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders appears on Fox News to discuss the current state of DC politics.
.
Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Cummings and Chairman Nadler would not likely drop their deep investments in an impeachment narrative unless they held confidence something more valuable was on the horizon.
Well, well, well; he did it again. Representative Doug Collins has released the transcript of testimony from former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page. [SEE HERE] The transcript is from two days of congressional testimony July 13th and July 16th, 2018. Each day is a separate transcript: Day One Transcript
Today, the link https://dougcollins.house.gov/page will be placed in the record so the American people can read the transcripts of Lisa Page’s interviews before the Judiciary Committee.
The primary ‘spygate” architect appears on CBS with Margaret Brennan to share his reaction to the sentence of Paul Manafort for tax fraud. Andrew McCabe said he was ‘shocked’, ‘s.h.o.c.k.e.d‘, that Manafort was not given a life sentence.
.
[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re back with former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He is the author of a new book, The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. Good to have you here.
ANDREW MCCABE (Former Acting FBI Director/The Threat): Thanks so much for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to start you off on some of the news of the week.
ANDREW MCCABE: Okay.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced this week. He will also face sentencing in a DC court in the days to come. He was given forty-seven months, far less than what is the sentencing guideline of up to–
ANDREW MCCABE: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –twenty-plus years? Is the length of time he will serve matching the crimes he’s being accused of?
ANDREW MCCABE: Well, I was really surprised by the sentence he was given. I think it’s an incredibly lenient sentence in light not just of the– of the offenses he was convicted for but the additional offenses that he has pled guilty to in DC and the offenses he’s acknowledged, essentially, in the sentencing process in Virginia, that he is res– responsible for. So like most people I was shocked by how lenient the sentence was.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So it sounds like you’re predicting that the DC court may add to those forty-seven months?
ANDREW MCCABE: Well, there’s no question he’s going to get additional time from DC. I don’t think it’s probably the– the job of the DC courts to rectify a mistake or– or something that was done in another jurisdiction. I’m sure that Judge Jackson will approach her sentence with just keeping our eye on the facts of that case but there’s no doubt he’ll get additional time from that process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In your book The Threat you write about some of the President’s public comments about Paul Manafort in particular and you frame it in one passage as possible witness tampering. You say you fear a judge will be influenced by some of the po– the President’s comments. Did you have any sense that that’s what happened here with Judge Ellis?
ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t. I don’t. But the point that I try to make in the book is that it’s to try to highlight how incredibly irresponsible and, indeed, corrosive statements like that from the chief executive are on the process and on the public’s perception of the fairness and the effectiveness of the process. When the President engages in messaging like people can’t help but step back and ask themselves that question that you just asked, did that have an impact on the process or on the result in this case. We don’t know the answer to that but it introduces a level of doubt and insecurity into a system that we all need to depend on– depend upon to being fair and– and free.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The charges that Paul Manafort faced were in regard to financial crimes. Do you believe that he was a Russian asset?
ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t know the answer to that. I think that Mister Manafort’s extensive involvement with Ukrainian and Russian actors is highly suspicious. I think that that’s something that we’ll wait to see what the Mueller team opines on with their– with their final conclusion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the President seized on a comment made by Judge Ellis who seemed to be just pointing out that the Russian potential links were not actually part of the trial–
ANDREW MCCABE: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –that we have seen underway here. So you’re saying there the President’s comments were not actually accurate.
ANDREW MCCABE: Well, that– that shouldn’t be a surprise. I think that Judge Ellis was very careful to indicate that he was sentencing Mister Manafort for the conduct that was before him. And he– Mister Manafort was not charged in that case with being an agent for the government of Russia. So I think– I think Judge Ellis’s efforts to be careful and tailor his words are far from an exoneration of Mister Manafort on any other potential charges.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you as well about Michael Cohen, the President’s longtime attorney and we played in the open some of the– the tapes showing the changing stories here in regard to–
ANDREW MCCABE: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –whether there was discussion or not of a presidential pardon. Now it appears according to the President that it was discussed. As an investigator, what do you make of that?
ANDREW MCCABE: Very, very hard to sort through a basically he said– he said argument between two people who have very challenged credibility. At the end of the day, the strength of Michael Cohen’s testimony– potential testimony is derived not from what he’s telling us now but rather from whatever facts and corroborative evidence the prosecutors were able to glean from that treasure trove of documents and recordings and other things that we’ve heard so much about.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying, don’t take him at his word, take him by the evidence he presents.
ANDREW MCCABE: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I– I want to ask you as well because, of course, the President constantly mentions the credibility that you have–
ANDREW MCCABE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and calls that into question, specifically, on the texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, which is something the President often comments on. You were asked about this on CNN by Anderson Cooper and you said you had no recollection of the meeting that was referred to in one of the text exchange between those two individuals which mentioned an insurance policy in case Trump got elected. Do you know why you were personally mentioned in those texts?
ANDREW MCCABE: I don’t. Lisa Page, Pete Strzok, and I and many other members of that investigative team met in my office, in conference rooms around FBI headquarters all the time. Right? So it was a– it was a ve– intensive investigation that required a lot of attention and a lot of involvement. So I can’t sit here and tell you years later the circumstances of exactly that instance that they seem to be referring to in that text. I also wasn’t a participant in that text, so I can’t add too much more to your understanding of it. I know that Peter has described in his own congressional testimony what he was referring to and I take him at his word for that description.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the– the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, has been on this program, specifically, referred to those texts and said that it is proof that you along with Strzok and Page showed political bias and a political agenda. And that’s why he wants to call you before the committee to ask– to answer some questions. So one of the other texts there was a quote that said, “We need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy is acting.” You, while you were acting FBI director. Do you know what case this is? Why would it matter that you were in that acting role?
ANDREW MCCABE: Well, again, I– I can’t tell you what Lisa and Pete were referring to in their private texts. I think I’ve been very clear publicly about how the investigators felt about the work that we needed to do–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.
ANDREW MCCABE: –in May of 2017. After Director Comey was fired, they made a recommendation to me that we open cases. I acted on that recommendation. I was feeling– I felt very strongly at that time that I needed to make those decisions quickly–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.
ANDREW MCCABE: –because I anticipated I would not be in the acting role for very long and I didn’t know who would be coming in behind me or how they would handle the ongoing investigation that we thought was important to conclude.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you very much–
ANDREW MCCABE: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Mister McCabe.
We’ll be back in a moment for some Republican reaction.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Now ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, who created the Trump-Russia dossier for Hillary, described some of the steps he took to verify the information he collected. He admitted he took material from an anonymous CNN website for public comments, iReport, which no longer operates. He claims he did not know it was not reliable and just gossip because he assumed it was under the CNN banner.
Centinel2012 