President Trump mentioned the likelihood the military would take a look at the conduct of Lt. Col Alexander Vindman in the wake of his leaking classified information to construct a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint with CIA ally Eric Ciaramella.

Today Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said Vindman will not be investigated for his role in breaching national security protocol, fabricating claims and breaking chain of command.

WASHINGTON DC – The Army will not investigate Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council staffer who testified in the president’s impeachment investigation, the service’s top civilian said Friday.

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy made the announcement at an event just days after President Donald Trump said he imagined the military would “take a look at” whether Vindman should face disciplinary action for the “horrible things” he told House investigators about the president’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. (link)

When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the NSC witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard. Consider…

The testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman is available here. [SCRIBD pdf below]

Borrowing from Roscoe B Davis, here are some highlights:

Representative John Ratcliffe begins deconstructing Lt. Col Vindman, while his arrogant attorneys begin trying to interfere with the questioning.

This next section is very interesting, and very important.

Congressman John Ratcliffe begins questioning Vindman from the perspective of an Article 92 violation {READ IT}, coupled with an Article 88 violation {READ IT}. President Trump, is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior. President Trump sets the foreign policy.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Article 88, UCMJ]

Two weeks after President Trump has established an agreement with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and established the policy direction therein, Lt. Col. Vindman is now giving contrary instructions to the Ukranian government. Vindman’s lawyer recognizes where the questioning is going and goes absolutely bananas:

Here’s the Full Transcript:

.

A reminder from the CIA “whistleblower” attorney. January 30th, 2017, ten days after President Trump’s inauguration: the “coup has started”…

Anyone who has followed DC for a while could see this one coming a mile away… including the synergy of self-interested timing.  Catherine Herridge of CBS reports on a ‘tick-tock’ letter from Senator Lindsey Graham to AG Bill Barr where Graham announces his request for witnesses.   The Graham list is an assembly of various DOJ/FBI officials who participated in Crossfire Hurricane and the fraudulent FISA application(s).

The timing of the letter, alluding to some possible hearing at some possible later date, follows a DC pattern. [Chaff and Countermeasures] In essence, cover for visible inaction; an attempt to convince people to put down the pitchforks.

A “Countermeasure” is a measure or action taken to counter or offset a preceding one.

Politically speaking, the deployment of countermeasures is a tactic used by professional politicians in Washington DC to counter incoming public inquiry and protect themselves from anger expressed by the electorate.

Weaponized government takes action and creates victims. Beyond the strategy – the countermeasures are politicians assigned a role to control the incoming righteous inquiry from voters who find out about the weaponized or corrupt governmental action.

1.) The electorate become aware of a political issue or action; often illegal.

2.) The electorate become angry.

3.) DC needs to protect itself.

4.) Countermeasures are assigned and deployed to delay, obfuscate and create the illusion of investigation of the illegal governmental action.

5.) Electorate watch.

6.) Investigation goes nowhere.

7.) Countermeasure deployment successful.

Repeat.

Recent and ongoing examples:

“Hashing it Out” is a Washington Examiner podcast hosted by Siraj Hashmi.  This week HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears for a lengthy 45-minute discussion covering the never-ending coup against President Trump.

Representative Nunes discusses the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, what he discovered through his own investigation, Objective Medusa, and how this all led to Trump’s impeachment and acquittal.

Creepy porn lawyer and former CNN political analyst, Michael Avenatti, has been found guilty on all three counts in the $25 million Nike Extortion case.

New York – Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was convicted Friday by a jury of all three charges related to his efforts to extort up to $25 million from athletic apparel giant Nike.

[…] Avenatti was accused in the Nike case of trying to shake down the company by threatening to expose alleged evidence of bribing amateur basketball players and their families unless the company paid up. (link)

CPL still faces two more prosecutions: one in New York for defrauding client Stormy Daniels of $300k; and another in California for fraud, embezzlement, tax crimes and perjury.

There was once a time, not that long ago, when the mainstream left was highly critical of the CIA, and scrutiny of dubious claims by U.S. intelligence was a common occurrence. Of course all of that changed when those same intelligence agencies were weaponized to target a political enemy that was also the enemy of the left, namely Donald Trump.

Now, in the era of modern political narratives, no intelligence claim against the Trump administration is too outlandish. Regardless of dubious sourcing, it’s all pushed as fact so long as the target of the claim is President Donald Trump.

As a result it is not a surprise how targeted weaponization became the cornerstone of the Russian narrative, and sketchy intelligence claims of Russian involvement in elections became the mortar that binds the bricks.  The end product is tenuous at best; and if anyone starts to scrutinize the instability of the construct they too become a target.

Last year U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were reported to be spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election.  That CIA activity is directly related to the construction of the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report (JAR), and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  Both constructs are so critical to the Russia narrative that anyone who dare question the information becomes an immediate risk and target.

Using information from U.K. media, and looking closer at yesterday’s New York Times report about investigations of the CIA, in this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge; what specific action was taken, & why the mortar is crumbling.

2019 – “One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

The U.K. Independent ran the above quote last year based on British intelligence officials who were concerned about scrutiny on their aligned activity with the U.S. CIA during the 2016 election.  More recently, yesterday the New York Times ran an article breathless with concern about DOJ inquiry and Attorney John Durham questioning the CIA directly.

2020 […]  The Justice Department has declined to talk about Mr. Durham’s work in meaningful detail, but he has been said to be interested in how the intelligence community came up with its analytical judgments — including its assessment that Russia was not merely sowing discord, but specifically sought to help Mr. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

[…] The analysts could have been engaged in standard bureaucratic behavior like obeying the filtering process or hoarding sensitive information. Or perhaps they were trying to cover something up. The questions asked by Mr. Durham and his team suggest they are looking for any potential basis to support making the latter reading, officials said.

[…] Mr. Durham has interviewed F.B.I. officials and agents who worked on the bureau’s Russia investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, and for the special counsel who took over the inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III. They have also interviewed C.I.A. analysts.

Mr. Durham and his team also interviewed around a half-dozen current and former officials and analysts at the National Security Agency, including its former director, the retired Adm. Michael S. Rogers, last summer and again last fall. The Intercept first reported the interviews of Admiral Rogers.

But Mr. Durham has not interviewed the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, his onetime deputy Andrew G. McCabe or Mr. Brennan. Mr. Durham has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A. to learn what he told other officials, including Mr. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.  (NYT Link)

It is important to remember how critical the Russian interference narrative is to the activity that took place in 2016.  If you take away the mortar, the building collapses. If the concrete evidence is not there to support the intelligence claims of 2016/2017, then all justification for the downstream “investigations” is lost.

Without the Russia narrative, those who weaponized intelligence for political surveillance are naked to the world.  The Russia narrative is essential for their justification of everything.  In a world with a functioning media the high importance of a key detail would mean even more scrutiny on that detail was warranted. Alas, in the world of orange-man-bad, the concept of a functioning media is as visible as a rotary phone.

The two-year investigation that generated the Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the 2016 U.S. election.  This claim is perhaps the sketchiest.

It is also important to remember just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016; because it is within the network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is noted as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as some kind of a western intelligence operative who was tasked to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Mr. Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes CIA exploitation of assets and targets much easier. However, there is an aspect to the domestic operation also bearing fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

In their text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, CIA Director Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative.

Also late July “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI originating FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was party authored from the CIA by Strzok.  The fast moving Strzok immediately used that EC, to initiate Crossfire Hurricane as authorized by his boss FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap.  Then Strzok traveled to London to debrief intelligence officials there about the Australian Ambassador to the U.K, Alexander Downer and his contacts with George Papadopoulos.

Peter Strzok appears as a very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who enjoyed a role acting as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan unfortunately died in a helicopter crash.

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA and FBI were openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.  Much of this overlapping operation was seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Thus we see the importance of the Russian Conspiracy-Interference Narrative.  Without that baseline all of the aforementioned operations have no justification.  Again, this Russia narrative is the critical mortar that binds the investigative and political surveillance bricks.

All of this engagement was admittedly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this was intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key background point is to see how committed the CIA/FBI were to the narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA.

From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

♦The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where current FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time, while also holding jobs in Main Justice.

♦The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why did the DOJ wait?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative; and knowing how absolutely critical it was to justify all the surveillance that had taken place prior to the 2016 election; it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco including: the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking and interference narrative; the “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; the timing against Julian Assange was far too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned U.S/U.K motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central evidence to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

Now Watch This Brief Interview:

.

The predicate for Crossfire Hurricane was Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

The predicate for the FISA warrant against U.S. Carter Page was a Russia investigation, that included the Steele Dossier as evidence, and the use therein was contingent on Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election; and the possibility of Trump-Russia collusion.

All of these predicate claims are demonstrably false or wildly overstated using the most tenuous of stretched interpretations.   This is what John Durham is looking at.

The fulcrum for the media to push the Russia interference narrative is the Intelligence Community Assessment; and the primary factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers.  A claim that is only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

When it comes to reviewing all of the predication aspects, the CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim.  Thus we see members of the CIA and intelligence apparatus within media stories outraged over being questioned.

Without the initiation by the CIA, the FBI also is exposed.  Thus the FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining the Russia hacking (Crowdstrike) claim.

Additionally, all of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with John Brennan and Peter Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining the Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Most worrisome, Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack – but rather from a leak by a source inside the DNC.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus; and right there is the most transparently obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be made public.

The Department of Justice has informed former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe he will not face criminal prosecution for lying to FBI investigators.  The lawyers for Andrew McCabe shared the DOJ letter:

The DOJ inspector general had previously sent a criminal referral based on the OIG investigation of Mr. McCabe leaking to the media and then lying to FBI investigators four times, three times under oath in 2017, about his activity.  [OIG Report HERE]

During an immediate appearance on CNN the former FBI Deputy Director criticized the Department of Justice for putting his “family through this experience.”  McCabe said it was an “insult” and a “disgrace” for the DOJ to put him through this for two years.

Lawyers for Mr. McCabe released the following statement:

As a reminder, this was the previous summary from an investigation carried out by the Office of Inspector General:

Senator Mitch McConnell appears on Fox News to discuss his view on AG Bill Barr’s frustration with President Trump’s honest tweeting of opinion.

Leader McConnell agrees with AG Barr that President Trump is not being political enough with his communication.  President Trump is delivering too much honest information and direct opinion in a DC system that relies upon a purely political filter.  The absence of that political filter is creating a problem for all operational systems in Washington DC.

McConnell says the President “should listen to the Attorney General” and ignore the expectations of the American people who hired President Trump to be brutally honest as an anti-politician and disruptive influence in DC. DC-Based Brett Baier guides the conversation to stay focused on attacking President Trump for not being political enough.

.

And Brett Baier is a human Cabbage Patch doll.

An interview by AG Bill Barr today is making a lot of headlines. Within the interview Barr indicates that President Trump’s style of communication makes it more difficult for him to do his job.

Here’s the captured interview without pundit opinion. Watch the full interview yourself and decide:

Here’s my take…

It seemed possible yesterday, when AG Bill Barr agreed to testify to the House Judiciary Committee on March 31st, that one of the motives for Barr to coordinate a schedule two months in advance was to gain elbow room.

There never has been any coordination between President Trump and AG Barr on the agenda of the DOJ. However, by placing the testimonial date publicly on his agenda Barr seemed to be stating to those in/around the White House his intent for a disconnect from contact pending questions from highly partisan Democrats.

Given the nature of the highly partisan scrutiny; and considering the rabid media waiting to jump on any narrative engineering opportunity; and with the John Durham investigation outcome looming closer on the horizon; it makes sense for AG Barr to try and create an openly visible disconnect.

In essence Bill Barr is working to emphasize there’s no undue influence, and also emphasize the appearance of no undue influence.  The problem, however, is that the media will create the impression of influence even if, and despite the reality of, no Trump influence.

Nothing Bill Barr does and/or says will stop the media from falsely creating a narrative that says President Trump and Bill Barr are colluding to target their political opposition.

With that reality in mind, the answers in the ABC interview as delivered by Bill Barr only pour fire on a furnace of media intent to controversialize President Trump’s communication approach.

Barr’s intention may have been good (albeit selfish), but declaring that President Trump’s free speech and opinion as an impediment to Barr’s ability is just nonsense.

The emphasis is on the wrong syllable.

President Trump has the right to express his opinion and share his views with The People, the American electorate, who put him into office.  The President may do so in any form, manner, venue, method or presentation that fits his needs. Period. Fullstop.

It is not President Trump tweeting that makes Barr’s job more difficult; it is the DC beltway response and media apoplexy directed to the AG that makes things more difficult.

If lawyers have their feelings hurt; or if the sensibility of judges is wounded; and if the judicial system of the U.S. government is so tenuous as to be affected by words and criticism; and if AG Barr cannot simply address the issues therein by appropriately positioning a mirror to highlight that nonsense; well, that is not President Trump’s issue.

The consequence he describes, the issues underpinning Barr’s expressed concern, only further emphasizes President Trump’s point about how the justice system is being compromised by politics and media. The simple application of law is being ignored; and the system, of which Bill Barr is the apex participant, is corrupted and diminished by man-made manipulation based on politics and other factors…

If President Trump saying “this case sucks” via Twitter is enough to collapse the institutional objectives of a modern judicial system… and impede the ability of the U.S. Attorney General to do his job, well, what does that say about how weak and compromised the guardians have allowed that system to become?

Then again, that level of institutional compromise explains exactly why a fraudulent impeachment attempt was even possible.

.

Not surprisingly, several media outlets are reporting Jessie Liu resigned from the Treasury Department effective Wednesday evening.  Interestingly, in the discussions of the issues around Liu all MSM are ignoring her involvement in the James Wolfe case/cover-up.

Ms. Liu moved from being U.S. Attorney in DC into the Treasury Department in a quest to become the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes within the agency.  However, that treasury position required senate confirmation and President Trump withdrew her nomination.

(Via NBC) […] The former U.S. attorney whose office oversaw the Roger Stone prosecution resigned from the Trump administration Wednesday, two days after President Donald Trump abruptly withdrew her nomination for a top job at the Treasury Department.

Jessie Liu had headed the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., which oversaw several cases that originated with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including prosecutions of longtime Trump associate Stone and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.  (read more)

While she was U.S. Attorney in DC Ms. Liu was involved in several controversial cases including:

• The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to need to protect politicians. (House of Representatives) The sweetheart plea deal.
• The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clearfrom the outset how he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians. (SSCI, Senate) The sweetheart plea deal.
• The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig; and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to protect politicians (Obama White House). Sweetheart double standards.
• The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018).

[Background Story]

Rep. Devin Nunes appears on Fox Business News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss AG Bill Barr being called to testify in the House about the Roger Stone case sentencing.  Additionally, Nunes discusses issues with the Mueller investigation and dirty cops.