IG Report – Continued, Specific, FISA Date Redactions…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

Amid the predictive discussions by those who have followed the three-year background of the potential DOJ & FBI FISA issues, there was one very specific aspect CTH was looking for:  Would the IG report redact the dates of the Carter Page FISA application and renewals?

We got that answer today, and that answer, unfortunately, is yes:

Ask yourself what is the national security value in hiding those dates?  Why does the DOJ need to hide them?   Unfortunately the answer highlights an institutional decision.

On its face the dates seem like an overly granular question; perhaps even a small detail that few would notice.  However, for CTH readers that little detail exposes so much.

In 2018 Main Justice made a very specific decision, a very specific lie, that once told would forever set them on a path – from which there is no return.  It was during a time between July and December 2018 that CTH realized the DOJ had handcuffed themselves to a cover story; and that cover story foretold future conduct.

When Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner requested a copy of the FISA application back in early spring 2017, the Jeff Sessions’ DOJ produced a copy for review, date stamped by the FISC on March 17th, 2017.  That copy was seeded with a false date of origination.  The reason for the false date was the FBI leak taskforce initiated by Sessions.  The false date was a leak trap.

Investigators provided the FISA application to SSCI Vice-Chairman Warner with a false date and then they looked to see if media reports of that FISA application would surface.  If reports started surfacing, any report that used the false date would be attributable to the application given to the SSCI.  The source of the leak would be identified.

That’s exactly what happened.

♦ On March 17th, 2017, the Senate Intelligence Committee took custody of the FISA application used against Carter Page.   We know the FISA court delivered the read and return Top-Secret Classified application due to the clerk stamp of March 17, 2017.

(Page FISA Application, Link)

The FISA application (original and first renewal) was delivered to Senate Security Director James Wolfe.  Senator Mark Warner entered the basement SCIF shortly after 4:00pm on March 17, 2017, the day it was delivered (texts between Warner and Waldman):

Now, when SSCI Security Officer James Wolfe was indicted (unsealed June ’18), we could see the importance of the March 17th date again:

(Wolfe Indictment Link)

We could tell from the description within the Wolfe indictment FBI investigators are describing the FISA application.  Additionally Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages with his reporter/girlfriend Ali Watkins.  The FISA application is 83 pages with one blank page.

The logical conclusion was that Wolfe text Ali Watkins 82 pictures of the application.

FBI Investigators applied for, and received a search warrant for the phone records of journalist Ali Watkins through November 2017.  Ms. Watkins was notified in February 2018, three months after Wolfe was questioned by FBI investigators in December 2017.

However, despite the overwhelming (public) circumstantial evidence that Wolfe leaked the FISA application, he was never charged with leaking classified information.  Wolfe was only charged with lying three times to federal authorities, and he pled down to one count of lying to the FBI.

CTH made the case in mid 2018 that someone at the DOJ had influenced a decision not to charge Wolfe with the leaking of the FISA application; despite the FBI and DOJ having direct evidence of Wolfe leaking classified information.

The logical reason for the Rosenstein DOJ not to charge Wolfe with the FISA leak was because that charge would ensnare powerful Senators on the powerful committee.  Worse still, in hindsight we now see how that committee was working to aide the purposes and intents of the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials as they built their impeachment agenda.

Remember, the SSCI has intelligence oversight of the DOJ, DOJ-NSD, FBI and all associated counterintelligence operations. Additionally, when the FBI was investigating Wolfe for leaking classified documents, according to their court filings they had to inform the committee of the risk Wolfe represented.  Who did they have to inform?.. Chairman Richard Burr and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.

Think about it.  Both gang-of-eight members (Warner/Burr), who happened -as a consequence of the jaw dropping implications- to be two SSCI members who were warned by the FBI that Wolfe was compromised…. and they, along with Feinstein in 2016, were the co-conspirators who used James Wolfe.  The ramifications cannot be overstated.

Any criminal charges for leaking classified intelligence information against James Wolfe would likely result in a major scandal where the SSCI itself was outlined as participants in the weaponization of government for political intents.  Thus, the perfect alignment of interests for a dropped charge and DC cover-up.  REMEMBER:

(Source)

If it wasn’t already transparently sketchy, in an act of serendipity and self-preservation, the accused Security Director James Wolfe evidenced the schemes when he threatened to subpoena members of the SSCI as part of his defense. [See Here]

[…] Attorneys for James A. Wolfe sent letters to all 15 senators on the committee, notifying them that their testimony may be sought as part of Mr. Wolfe’s defense, according to two people familiar with the matter.

[…] Mr. Wolfe’s defense lawyers are considering calling the senators as part of the proceedings for a variety of reasons, including as potential character witnesses and to rebut some of the allegations made by the government in the criminal complaint, these people say.  (link)

Immediately after threatening to subpoena the SSCI (July 27, 2018), the DOJ (Rosenstein authorizing) cut a deal with Wolfe and dropped the charges down to a single charge of lying to investigators.  However, someone in the FBI who was doing the investigative legwork wasn’t happy with that decision.

The overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Wolfe leaked the FISA application went from a strong suspicion, to damn certain (after the plea deal) when the DOJ included a sentencing motion in mid-December 2018.

On December 15th, 2018 the DOJ filed a response to the Wolfe defense teams’ own sentencing memo (full pdf), and within the DOJ response they included an exhibit (#13) written by the FBI [redacted] special agent in charge, which specifically says: “because of the known disclosure of classified information, the FISA application”… Thereby admitting, albeit post-plea agreement, that Wolfe did indeed leak the FISA:

(link to document)

Right there, in that FBI Special Agent description is the bombshell admission that James Wolfe leaked the Carter Page FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

We know the special agent who wrote exhibit #13 in the December filing was Special Agent Brian Dugan, Asst. Special Agent in Charge, Washington Field Office.  The same investigator who originally signed the affidavit in the original indictment against Wolfe.

So with hindsight there was absolutely no doubt that James Wolfe leaked the 83-page Carter Page FISA application on March 17, 2017.  Period.  It’s all documented with circumstantial and direct evidence; including the admissions from the FBI agent in charge.

So, why was SSCI Security Director James Wolfe allowed to plea to a single count of lying to investigators?  Because of the ramifications of Wolfe’s leak being directed by Senator Warner.

The DOJ covered-up the fact that Wolfe leaked the classified FISA application, and from that moment forward the DOJ was forever compromised by that corrupt decision.

During the 2016 and 2017 effort to weaponize the institutions of government against the outside candidacy of Donald Trump, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was a participating entity. Dianne Feinstein, Richard Burr, Mark Warner, Daniel Jones, and James Wolfe were all participants of varying degrees. {Go Deep}

And it gets worse… because the corrupt small group appears to have leveraged what they knew about this DOJ coverup as recently as two months ago:

[…] The Senate intelligence committee examined the allegations about Downer, Mifsud and Halper, as part of its bipartisan investigation into the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia was responsible for attacking the 2016 election, and found nothing to substantiate any wrongdoing, a committee aide said. (read full article)

Facing a great deal of public pressure, when the DOJ released a public version of the Carter Page FISA application (July 21, 2018) they had to use the same copy sent to the SSCI on March 17th, 2017, or their leak trap would be exposed; and subsequently the Wolfe non-prosecution would be at risk of exposure.  The DOJ had to redact the dates because the leak trap FISA (dates) doesn’t match the original FISA application.

Once the DOJ made the March 17th, 2017, FISC copy the public copy they had to keep the dates redacted. Hence any further release of the FISA court needs to maintain that same date redacted standard.

Once the DOJ allowed James Wolfe to get away with leaking a highly classified FISA application, they committed themselves to always covering-up the fact the DOJ allowed James Wolfe to get away with leaking a classified FISA application.

Lindsey Graham Press Conference – Three Key FISA Moments Highlight Gross FBI Misconduct…


Earlier this afternoon Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham held a press availability to discuss concerns with the Inspector General report.   Senator Graham outlines three key FBI moments (for him) within the IG report, that highlight demonstrable and intentional misconduct.

  1. January 2017 the FBI contacted the Steele Dossier sub-source and was informed the dossier was remarkably unreliable, out of context, and full of “bar talk”.
  2. January 2017 the FBI lied. Telling the FISA Court the sub-source validated the dossier as evidence in order to get a renewal; a claim they repeated in April.
  3. June 2017 the CIA told FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them; and then Clinesmith changed that notification so he could submit the last renewal.

Conflict Clarity – The Reason for Conflict Between Horowitz and Durham is Crystal Clear on Page 2…


Re-Posted from The Conservative tree House on  by 

U.S. Attorney John Durham issued a statement contradicting a key and consequential  conclusion of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and reads in part:

…”last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agreewith some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

The reason for this conflict, and immediate rebuke by Durham, is stunningly clear on Page ii of the executive summary as highlighted below.  This is a very important element, and needs to be contemplated in its totality:

What inspector general Horowitz outlines in that key section is that: (A) he has reviewed everything, and talked to everyone (current and former) within the FBI; and (B) the ONLY evidence they FBI cited for the opening of Crossfire Hurricane is the singular conversation between George Papadopoulos and Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer and/or Downer’s asst. Erika Thompson.

That’s it.  Nothing else.

There is no other predicate evidence from the FBI investigative unit other than a singular conversation between Alexander Downer/Erika Thompson and George Papadopoulos.

Nothing before that July 26, 2016, contact by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer relaying a conversation with Downer on May 10th, 2016, is cited by the FBI as having anything to do with opening Crossfire Hurricane (started on July 31st).

That conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was George Papadopoulos relaying a rumor he heard from Joseph Mifsud is the totality of evidence used to initiate Crossfire Hurricane.

This investigative predicate is where Durham and Horowitz have a conflict.  Horowitz says the predicate was justified, Durham says not-so-much.

So the totality of the variables to create a conflict is very small.  Papadopoulos, Downer and Mifsud.

Durham says: “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened“.  This is important because the difference between the inspector general and the U.S. attorney is that John Durham has interviewed Downer and Mifsud, and Horowitz has not.

Therefore for Durham to state the predication was not justified, has to come from his contact with Ambassador Downer or Joseph Mifsud.

However, stay with me, Alexander Downer is not really a variable in this dynamic. Assuming Downer is honest, and there’s nothing indicating inconsistency in the public comments he has made about this contact.  Downer had a conversation on May 10th, weeks later he relayed what he felt was his best interpretation of that conversation on July 26th. There’s not a lot of variable in that sequence.

The variable in this small group dynamic is Joseph Mifsud, and the only variable within the Papadopoulos-Mifsud interplay is the background and purpose of Mifsud.

Horowitz has eliminated all predicate variables on his end by stating all FBI witnesses and all FBI documents agree the Downer contact with the FBI initiated the investigation.  The only variable on the Durham end is…. yep, the background and purpose of Joseph Mifsud.

If Durham is disputing the validity of “predication and how the FBI case was opened”, then it’s the predicate behind Joseph Mifsud driving the dispute. This almost guarantees that Mifsud was *NOT* the Russian operative that current FBI and Intelligence Officials have stated he was or is.

From Page 56 of the IG report:

We also asked those FBI officials involved in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane whether the FBI received any other information, such as from members of the USIC, that the FBI relied upon to predicate Crossfire Hurricane. All of them told us that there was no such information and that predication for the case was based solely on the FFG information.169

We also asked Comey and McCabe about then CIA Director John Brennan’s statements reported in several news articles that he provided to the FBI intelligence on Russian contacts with U.S. persons that predicated or prompted the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Comney told us that while Brennan shared intelligence on the overarching efforts by the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, Brennan did not provide any information that predicated or prompted the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane.

McCabe said that he did not recall Brennan providing the FBI with information before the FBI’s decision to open an investigation about any U .S person potentially cooperating with Russia in the efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. Priestap and the Intel Section Chief also told us that Brennan did not provide the FBI any intelligence that predicated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. We did not find information in FBI or Department electronic communications, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating otherwise. [Page 59 IG Report pdf]

Chapter 3 of the IG report clearly outlines a presumption by all FBI officials that Joseph Mifsud was acting on behalf of the Russian government.  Again, Horowitz eliminates more variables.

The only thing remaining is the conflict between Durham and Horowitz on this predicate issue; and eliminating all other possibilities for the strength of the disagreement expressed by Durham only one reasonable aspect remains to reconcile the disparity:

Joseph Mifsud wasn’t an FBI operative (not in the CHS database); but also Joseph Mifsud was not a Russian operative (hence predicate issue).

Someone else was running Mifsud on behalf of the background effort.

My hunch is CIA asset Stefan Halper was running/instructing Mifsud, thereby creating plausible deniability for the CIA and John Brennan.  Whoever it was, Durham knows.

U.S. Attorney John Durham Does Not Agree With IG Horowitz Conclusions…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on  by 

U.S. Attorney John Durham is currently doing a criminal investigation into how the intelligence community, CIA, ODNI and DOJ/FBI originated the investigation of candidate Donald Trump.  U.S. Attorney Durham does not agree with the conclusions presented by Inspector General Horowitz:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.

Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”(link)

Attorney General Bill Barr Statement Following IG Review: “A clear abuse of FISA process”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on  by 

U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr releases the following statement after the release of a 21-month investigative report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz:

“Nothing is more important than the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice.  That is why we must hold our investigators and prosecutors to the highest ethical and professional standards.  The Inspector General’s investigation has provided critical transparency and accountability, and his work is a credit to the Department of Justice.  I would like to thank the Inspector General and his team.

The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.  It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.

Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration.  In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.

The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.  While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people.  The Department of Justice and the FBI are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward.

No one is more dismayed about the handling of these FISA applications than Director Wray.  I have full confidence in Director Wray and his team at the FBI, as well as the thousands of dedicated line agents who work tirelessly to protect our country.  I thank the Director for the comprehensive set of proposed reforms he is announcing today, and I look forward to working with him to implement these and any other appropriate measures.

With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action.” (LINK)

Any currently expressed outrage from Barr is quite self-serving considering how vociferous he has praised the officials who approved of a stunningly corrupt FISA process.

Rank and Vile – FBI Director Christopher Wray Releases Pathetic Letter Following Highly Critical FISA Report…


FBI Director Christopher Wray releases a letter submitted to U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr after the IG Horowitz findings of wrongdoing within the FBI FISA process:

[VIA FBI] Dear Inspector General Horowitz:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report titled, “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation” (Report).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the OIG’s crucial independent oversight role and the thoroughness and professionalism your office brought to this work. The Report’s findings and recommendations represent constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization.

We also appreciate the Report’s recognition that the FBI cooperated fully with this review and provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the OIG, including highly classified and sensitive material involving national security.

The Report concludes that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related investigations of certain individuals were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with adequate factual predication.

The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel, at times during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OIG, did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI.

We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.

Accordingly, the FBI accepts the Report’s findings and embraces the need for thoughtful, meaningful remedial action. I have ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the Report’s recommendations.

Because our credibility and brand are central to fulfilling our mission, we are also making improvements beyond those recommended by the OIG. And where certain individuals have been referred by the OIG for review of their conduct, the FBI will not hesitate to take appropriate disciplinary action if warranted at the completion of the required procedures for disciplinary review.

Below is a summary of the actions we are taking, which we describe in more detail in the attachment to this letter.

First, we are modifying our processes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), both for initial applications and renewals, to enhance accuracy and completeness. The FBI relies on FISA every day in national security investigations to prevent terrorists and foreign intelligence services from harming the United States. We are making concrete changes to ensure that our FISA protocols, verifications, layers of review, record-keeping requirements, and audits are more stringent and less susceptible to mistake or inaccuracy. These new processes will also ensure that the FISA Court and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are apprised of all information in the FBI’s holdings relevant to a determination of probable cause.

Second, we undertook an extensive review of investigative activity based out of FBI Headquarters. The FBI is a field-based law enforcement organization, and the vast majority of our investigations should continue to be worked by our field offices. Moving forward, in the very rare instance when FBI Headquarters runs a sensitive investigation, we are requiring prior approval by the FBI Deputy Director and consultation with the Assistant Director in Charge or Special Agent in Charge of the affected field offices.

Third, we are making significant changes to how the FBI manages its Confidential Human Source (CHS) Program. Many FBI investigations rely on human sources, but the investigative value derived from CHS-provided information rests in part on the CHS’s credibility, which demands rigorous assessment of the source. The modifications we are making to how the FBI collects, documents, and shares information about CHSs will strengthen our assessment of the information these sources are providing.

Fourth, I am establishing new protocols for the FBI’s participation in Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)-led counterintelligence transition briefings (i.e., strategic intelligence briefings) provided to presidential nominees. The FBI’s role in these briefings should be for national security purposes and not for investigative purposes. Continued participation by the FBI in these transition briefings is critical to ensuring continuity in the event of a change in administrations. The new FBI protocols about transition briefings will complement procedures already implemented by the FBI earlier this year to govern the separate category of defensive briefings. The FBI gives defensive briefings, which are based on specific threat information, in a wide variety of contexts and for myriad federal, state, and other public and private individuals and entities. The procedures we recently established for defensive briefings regarding malign foreign influence efforts have brought a new rigor and discipline to whether and how such briefings should proceed.

Fifth, I am mandating a specialized, semiannual training requirement for FBI personnel at all levels who handle FISA and CHS matters. This training will be experience-based, and it will cover specific lessons learned from this Report, along with other new and revised material. Earlier in my tenure as Director, I reinstated an annual ethics training program for all FBI employees, because I learned the training had been discontinued in prior years. While that training was not introduced in response to this Report, all current FBI employees involved in the 2016-2017 events reviewed by the OIG have since completed this additional training in ethics and professional responsibility.

Finally, we will review the performance and conduct of certain FBI employees who were referenced in the Report’s recommendations — including managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time. The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted. Notably, many of the employees described in the report are no longer employed at the FBI.  (read more)

 

House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing – 9:00am ET Livestream…


The House Judiciary Committee holds their second impeachment inquiry hearing at 9:00am ET. Presentations from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and House Judiciary Committee.

Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke (representing the majority) and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor (representing the minority) will make opening arguments to the House Judiciary Committee. Lawfare Counsel Daniel Goldman & Lawfare Counsel Barry Berke will then present the evidence for impeachment. House judiciary member questioning will likely follow last week’s questioning of academic impeachment experts.

C-SPAN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream Link

.

.

Inspector General Report on DOJ and FBI Compliance With FISA Legal Requirements – Public Release – Open Discussion Thread


Today the Dept. of Justice Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, will release the much anticipated report covering a 21-month review of FBI and DOJ compliance with legal requirements surrounding FISA and the application against U.S. person Carter Page.

The report is rumored to be well over 600 pages.  It will BE RELEASED HERE.

The report was published at 1:00pm – The Report is only 476 Pages

PDF of REPORT HERE – Read on Oversight Here– Press Release HERE

Use this thread as an open discussion and research thread  specific to the content of the IG report when released.

Things to keep in mind…

First, with a volume of text over 600 pages, and potentially as high as 1,000 pages, there is no immediate analysis you will find in the media today based on a review of the report.  The report is simply too long to read, review and outline today.

Therefore all of the MSM journalists will likely be reporting from pre-written talking points distributed by officials with a vested interest in shaping opinion of the report immediately upon release.

From my own experience, even after several days very few journalists will have actually even read the full report; they will instead be working from selected segments of the report as outlined by others.

It is strongly suggested you read the report for yourself, draw your own conclusions, and don’t rely on what could be sections taken out of context.  Obviously crowdsourcing the report is one of the fastest ways to absorb information in a discussion thread.

Secondly, keep in mind while the IG review began in March 2018 the Mueller investigation almost certainly kept many aspects of the material shielded from IG inquiry until the special counsel investigation ended.  Indeed as we have seen from other material delayed throughout 2018, up to March 2019 when the Mueller probe ended, many documents were hidden (likely intentionally) by the special counsel.  So a full unimpeded IG review likely did not begin until after the Mueller investigation concluded. Hence, some delays.

♦Use this thread to share any information you find of value within the report.  As previously noted MAKE SURE you give a page number for anything you cite.  This helps others who are doing a similar review.

♦Be on the lookout for any material inside the IG report that stems from the list of classified documents previously requested to be declassified by congress.  If you note any of that material again please give citations. [Declassification Reference List Here]

♦It will be disappointing if the IG release does not also bring forth a considerable amount of declassified documentary material in support of the findings.  Arguably the list for declassification is more important than the IG report itself.

♦As soon as the report is released CTH will share direct links and attempt to download and upload into a shareable, hopefully searchable, and embed format.  If it is a big report this can sometimes be problematic.

♦Be on the lookout for the report around Noon to 1:00pm Eastern.  OIG Website HERE

Impeachment Backlash


 

You would think that the Democrats would have learned from the Clinton Impeachment that the people do not support such nonsense. The Democrats have done nothing to help the country. All they have done is obstruct everything possible and have become pro-impeachment radicals who do nothing, but are paid not to do a job. Polls show that voters in general did not change their minds as a result of the impeachment hearings. Independents remain divided on impeachment, and Trump’s approval rating has hardly budged.

I just find it absurd that they want to try to impeach Trump for some linkage of aid to insisting that Ukraine investigate if Biden and his son did anything illegal. Joe Biden himself admitted publicly that he withheld aid unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son and the company that hired him to gain precisely that level of influence in Washington

Former Ukraine Prosecutor Shokin: Joe Biden “Outraged We Seized Burisma Assets”, Could No Longer Pay His Son…


Rudy Giuliani traveled to Ukraine with OAN investigative journalist Chanel Rion.  The U.S. media are going absolutely bananas after finding out Giuliani is now gathering even more information about Joe and Hunter Biden’s corrupt endeavors within Ukraine.

In this interview former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin spoke to OAN about Joe Biden’s direct role in getting his office to stop investigating his son Hunter.  The problem for Joe Biden was when Shokin seized all of Burisma’s assets the Ukranian gas company could no longer pay his son Hunter Biden.  So the vice president demanded Shokin be removed.

.

When you combine this interview with the damning public statements delivered by the Ukraine prosecutor that replaced Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko, things really get troublesome for Joe Biden, the Obama administration and Adam Schiff.

Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko stated that after he replaced Shokin he was visited by U.S. State Dept. official George Kent and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch; they provided a list of corruption cases the Ukraine government was not permitted to follow.

Prosecutor Lutsenko dropping specific corruption cases was critical because that allowed/enabled a process of laundering money back to U.S. officials.  [SEE HERE]

The potential for this background story to become part of a larger impeachment discovery is what has the U.S. media going bananas against Rudy Giuliani.

Senator Lindsey Graham is directly connected to the group of U.S. politicians who were participating in the influence network within Ukraine.  One of the downstream consequences of Rudy Giuliani investigating the Ukraine corruption and money laundering operation to U.S. officials is that it ends up catching Senator Graham.

Hence, earlier today Senator Graham said he would not permit Senate impeachment testimony that touched on this corrupt Ukraine aspect.

In essence Senator Graham is fearful that too much inquiry into what took place with Ukraine from 2014 through 2016 will expose his own participation and effort along with former Ambassador Marie Yovanovich.

Graham is attempting to end the impeachment effort quickly because the underlying discoveries have the potential to expose the network of congressional influence agents, John McCain and Graham himself included, during any witness testimony.

Senators from both parties participated in the influence process, and part of their influence priority was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting fellow participant Joe Biden and his family.

If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus.  President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.  Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup. The Giuliani letter:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because in reality many U.S. Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.

Those same senators are jurists on a pending impeachment trial of President Trump who is attempting to stop the corrupt financial processes they have been benefiting from.

The conflicts are very swampy….

FUBAR.

.